The Destruction of Western Civilization [1]

Citation preview

The Destruction of Western Civilization

By Dr Jeffrey T. D. Payne Vol. 1

THE DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION VOL. I

By Dr Jeffrey T. D. Payne

Copyright © 2022 Dr. Jeffrey T. D. Payne All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the prior written

By Dr Jeffrey T. D. Payne

permission of the author, except in the case of very brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.

For our children

i

Preface You do not become a dissident just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. Vaclav Havel During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell And blessed are those who are persecuted in the quest for integrity, enduring defamation and disgrace for it – be glad and rejoice for you are the citizens of a divine realm. Jesus

* * *

The shocking truth that will be revealed in this volume, and a truly adequate adjective to describe the simply unbelievable nature of what is revealed in this volume is difficult to find, is that we are ruled by an extremely secretive, unaccountable coterie of theologically motivated zealots who, while remaining hidden, shape the world according to their messianic vision of a dystopian future. It will be shown that these fanatics have realised a regime in the West where there is no equality before the law, there is no freedom of expression, there is no genuine respect for diversity of opinion, there is most certainly no meritocracy. In truth, oppression is practiced far more widely than permission despite the apparent permissiveness of today’s world. Indeed, oppression has become so widespread and ingrained into the organizational institutions of the West that there is no longer any opportunity for honest, open, rational debate. Perhaps, most dangerously, many people no longer even believe in the possibility of “the truth” as that towards which rational debate might aspire. Although there is an impenetrable wall, diligently maintained by those in power, separating the Christian Church from influencing government policy, this separation is only enforced so that another religious tradition can more easily realize its aims. This other religion is fundamentally opposed to everything that the Christian West has historically prized. Even

ii apparent expressions of “freedom”, contemporary feminism, the sexual revolution, liberalizing drug use, removing censorship, and the struggle for so-called “human rights”, are all, when properly understood, just expressions of a religious agenda that is being ruthlessly and uncompromisingly imposed upon Western societies by an extremely small but zealous elite who have used systematic deception to realise their perverse, heretical, and destructive, theo-political agenda. This volume has the ambitious task of revealing our true situation, explaining how we got here, who is behind it, why we do not know about it, and what it means for the future. The primary purpose of this volume, therefore, is to inform as it is only with the truth that we can even begin to consider how we might respond. In his influential 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society, renowned British philosopher Bertrand Russell expressed the hope and belief that, “. . . in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.” In the years following World War II, Russell’s strategy for realizing mass deception was enthusiastically implemented by an extremely well-funded group of religious zealots who hoped to use their established power over key sectors of the United States to realize their theological agenda. After decades of concerted effort, slowly developing and implementing what has indeed proven to be an incredibly effective strategy, those who rule over us today have realized Russell’s vision. We are all indeed “educated”, beginning before we even start school, to believe what might be termed the “Western myth”. The Western myth is simply that countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia etc., are liberal democracies, that are secular and pluralistic. The most prized feature of Western societies is what has come to be understood as “openness” or the basic idea that any kind of “closure”, any kind of “limit”, any kind of constraint based on morality or demand to conform to historically authoritative norms is oppression. In parallel to the promotion of the belief that we live in a liberal, secular, “open” society, there has been advanced a destructive, divisive and, when properly understood, highly immoral, religio-social agenda aimed at reversing everything that the West, as the West, once held sacred. Traditional gender roles, historically accepted sexual practices, Christianity, the nuclear family, meaningful love, community, maturity, private property and, most importantly, the primacy of reason, have all today been demonized. That even scholars, tasked with the pursuit of truth, have come to embrace both the Western myth and the new theological agenda of those in power confirms that Russell’s vision of the future, a future when anyone could be made to believe whatever those in power wanted, has now been realised. The Western media arrogantly scoffs at the people of China for being compliant to an authoritarian, oppressive and intolerant regime when, in truth, the only difference between China and the West is that those who rule China, because people actually know who they are and what they aim to achieve, have been considerably

iii less successful at reshaping the beliefs and practices of their populations than those who rule in the West today. We live in an authoritarian, exclusive, steeply hierarchical, theologically informed, intolerant, and extremely homogenous society. It is a society where speaking the truth is not only difficult, because all avenues of “free” communication are controlled by those in power, but extremely dangerous. To speak the truth today is at least as dangerous as it was in pre-World War II Stalinist Russia and, because of the level of surveillance, considerably more difficult. The advent of the internet has realised the opposite of what it once promised in that it now facilitates the concentration of power enabling an intensification of surveillance thereby making it more difficult to not only freely communicate ideas that might challenge those in power and the ideas that they promote but to even research those ideas. To step outside the narrow confines of the permissible in contemporary Western societies is to at least run the risk of being marginalized, or what is colloquially called “cancelled”, like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, but more insightful thinkers, like the Romanian dissident Ioan Petru Culianu, who interestingly nobody has even heard of, quietly meet a much darker fate.1 The closer to the truth one moves, and Assange and Snowden are at best revealing some of the mechanisms of surveillance and control while remaining ignorant of who is controlling those mechanisms, the more dangerous it is for the truthteller. Today, Westerners live in societies where merit stands for almost nothing, but race and religious beliefs increasingly determine everything. Everyone’s social and economic standing in Western societies today is determined by the degree to which one is prepared to adhere to and promote a particular theological agenda. The more sympathetic and supportive of that agenda you are, the more obedient you are, the more intellectually enslaved you are, the more successful you will be, the more you try to question or resist that agenda, the more rebellious you are, the more you think freely, the less successful you will be. It is that simple. One might say that it has always been thus and there would be much to such a claim but what is different today is that there is a demand to conform to a set of beliefs and practices that are destructive not only to Western civilization but individual wellbeing. It is no coincidence that Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, the new elite of the West, all enthusiastically promote the same sociopolitical agenda. Like academics, they advance a theo-political agenda that would certainly not have been advanced by community leaders just 50 years ago. Indeed, the dominant ideas of today would have been advanced only by those on the most extreme margins of Western society just decades ago. Most of the

1

loan Culianu seems to have moved too close to the truth with his insightful scholarship on gnosticism and was shot in the back of the head in a toilet block at the University of Chicago just prior to giving an important public presentation. He was just 41.

iv people reading this probably are totally unaware of the level of control people have over their lives and how constrained our society has become but that is because most people reading this have so completely internalized the dangerous and destructive theo-political agenda of those who do rule over us that they would never find themselves in a position where they would attract sanction. Of greatest concern is not just that hundreds of thousands of people are faithfully advancing a dangerously destructive religious agenda, but that most of those who do advance this agenda, those in the media, academia, government, and, quite likely, you the reader, are totally ignorant of the true motivation behind is being promoted. The vast majority of people, myself included for most of my life, undoubtedly believe that they are advancing their own individual “progressive” views for the benefit of society. Most people would probably argue that they advance certain ideas out of a sense of compassion, a desire to overcome historical evils. The ideas that are promoted today have been adopted, most believe, because of one’s own experience and out of a strong commitment for “social justice”. The truth that will be revealed in this volume is that all such beliefs, that “progressive” ideas are compassionate, that they overcome historical injustices and that they should be implemented out of compassion as a response to historical wrongs, are all expressions of an alien and destructive religious movement. A religious movement that controls our world today. These new beliefs, beliefs many of us today passionately promote, have actually been intentionally imposed upon everyone by an extremely small group of fanatical religious zealots who mediate our experience of reality in order to shape what we think with the explicit intention of destroying Western civilization. Very little today is produced culturally, - art, music, stage plays, movies, or educational material - that does not promote a particular and, with just a little critical reflection, peculiar and certainly unprecedented social agenda. Most Hollywood movies today, once they have been exposed for what they are, should be understood as nothing more than 2 hours of theological education and certainly not light-hearted, meaningless, entertainment. Our true leaders, hidden from view, unknown to the many hundreds of millions of people over whom they rule, scheme for nothing less than the total annihilation of Western civilization2.

2

Which must be distinguished from Western economies. One of the innovations of the movement under consideration today is that they realized that they could detach the economy from society. By dividing between wealth creation and social norms, they have managed to maintain high levels of individual economic integration while destroying individual social integration. This separation explains why this movement is economically conservative but socially progressive. High levels of economic integration means that there continues to be high levels of production and low levels of social unrest, but people have become detached from the communities in which they were once embedded. That one is highly economically integrated but socially detached is actually the same condition as that of a slave. It is also how those who rule over us believe is the proper human condition.

v Before we can hope to save Western civilization, we must first relearn what it is. A recent European report considering the much discussed “crisis of the West” listed the recently crafted Western myth, that the West is tolerant, pluralistic, secular, etc., as the defining features of the West when, as anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of Western history will know, this account is far from true. When properly understood, it will be argued in this volume, the defining feature of Western civilization historically is the commitment, originally forged in ancient Greece, that the good and the true can be known by mortals and accessed through substantive reason. It is for this reason, that the ancients Greeks understood humanity itself as the “animal rationale” in contrast to “animals” which were “living things without reason”. Explicit knowledge of the good and the true, the very condition for substantive reason, has been thought, because it was not an expression of power, to be not only the highest form of knowledge, that which was most prized, but also the best, most peaceful, most inclusive, most tolerant way to order society. As this is the case, then making Western societies look away from the good and the true and reject the authority of substantive reason becomes the means of systematically destroying civilization itself. When technology becomes pervasive, because it is informed by an instrumental reason and not substantive reason, as it threatens to do today, then not only does Western civilization, as such, ceases to exist but all civilizations. That technology has become ubiquitous and other forms of evaluation, such as goodness and truth, have been marginalized by those who rule, means that society can no longer truly “progress”. With the loss of any meaningful metric, Western civilization has reached a level of crisis where the very concept of “social progress” has been co-opted by a very small group of religious zealots, in their blind fanaticism to realise their perverse vision of redemption. This alternate vision of “progress”, eroding “heteronormativity”, destroying the nuclear family, undermining traditional gender roles, rejecting private property, encouraging drug use, moving away from established positive religions, undermining morality, and encouraging sexual licence, are premised on the denial of the very possibility of a universal truth. For this reason, what is being promoted today has historically been thought of as markers of social decline and not social progress. When properly understood, to be a “progressive” today is to actually worship at the feet of the “Goddess of Chaos”, the “Queen of Darkness”, and to determinately look away from what has historically been seen as “the good” and “the true”. To look away from the good and the true has long been understood to be the way to become something evil. Our theologically motivated leaders, in devotion and service to their jealous and intolerant Goddess, intends

What is realized under such conditions is a world were one’s meaningfulness, as such, is constituted through their labor and no longer through their lives. Meaningfulness constituted through labor is not really meaningful at all and results in the kinds of broken society that most of us live in today.

vi to destroy our experience of God, which is a God of goodness, peace, justice, love and truth. The religious zealots who run our society are exclusively concerned with advancing their heretical religio-political project and whoever stands in their way, in resisting their agenda, is reviled by them as evil and, increasingly, our society is coming to agree with them. The greatest difficulty confronting somebody hoping to reveal our current situation is not that there is a lack of evidence about what is happening (after all, it is by necessity unfolding before our eyes and in plain sight, as our subjectivities are the primary site of transformation) but that most people are so utterly indoctrinated, so fundamentally brainwashed, so enmeshed in an alien theology, that most people have lost contact with reality itself. To have become detached from reality was once thought to be the defining criterion of madness. To look at what is decadent, deviant, greedy, and call it “good” landed people in an asylum well into the 20th century. Today, reflecting the theological vision of those who rule over us, it is increasingly those who disagree with their “progressive” agenda who are today branded “mad”. Under such conditions, it must be accepted, that most people, unthinking as they are, will not even consider the argument presented in this volume. They will dismiss what is argued here before they have even read what is actually being argued. This is, of course, the response that those who rule hope to achieve. As one part of their theological project, they hope that “truth” will be called “deception”, that “revelation” will be labelled “deceit”. People have been so intellectually incapacitated, so developmentally stunted, that it is difficult to slap them out of their juvenile obedience so that they can see the world in which they live today as free-thinking adults. If people did wake up and they could just see the world as it is, a world where woman are utterly undervalued so as to have become either readily available sex objects or productive slaves while their true worth is degraded, it is a world where our children are exposed to easily accessible pornography and taught about sex acts that were historically seen as deviant in primary school, a world filled with never-ending systemic corruption, excessive and socially sanctioned gambling, unprecedented levels of inequality and poverty, blatant greed, not so much just the use of but the social acceptance and increasing promotion of drugs (and the use of formally illicit drugs as “medication”3), terrible violence both sanctioned and unsanctioned by the state, the erosion of

3

It has actually been part of a deliberate strategy to make us accept drugs since the 1960s to argue that certain historically illicit drugs have a medicinal benefit. The latest research on this claim is that there is absolutely no evidence that cannabis, for just one example, works for treating pain. The International Association for the Study of Pain published a position statement on medicinal cannabis concluded that cannabis is not an effective drug for treating chronic pain though it, amongst other drugs, are continuously being promoted for their medicinal benefits. Drug advocacy is part of a socio-political program to make society turn to mind altering drugs to access a sacred experience and are not truly part of a medical program.

vii traditional families, our children raised in institutions while their divorced parents pursue selfish dreams in a way not just condoned but encouraged by society. In short, we are witnessing the demise of everything that was once held sacred. If people could only see the world in which they live, if they could take off the blinders and see the world for what it is, a society where deviance is now praised as the highest good and the highest good now cast down as the lowest deviance, they would begin to wonder if hell itself has not been unleashed into this world. The challenge with us seeing our real situation today, seeing reality, is not that it is not “there”, or course it is, realty does not go away, but that we have become so accustomed, so accepting, so inculcated, so acclimatized to our degraded condition that, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, not only are we unable to see it anymore for what it is but, of most concern, we have become convinced that further degradation is progress. Despite the unquestionable importance of understanding our contemporary predicament, I have at times considered not publishing this research. This hesitancy is not because I fear what those I hope to expose might do to me personally, they have already done so much that I literally no longer have anything to lose, but I considered stopping out of fear of the terrible things that might be done in the name of this research. To mitigate this danger, there are two things I want to say from the outset. Firstly, I researched these books with great care, over many, many years, so that the guilty could be properly distinguished from the innocent. As even the most casual review of the published material broadly related to what is revealed in these pages will confirm, most of the errors that have historically been done in this kind of research is that it has been too brutish. Most of the research into this area is not adequately refined so that the research has continuously failed to properly distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. In failing to identify the true perpetrators, not only have the wrong people been victimised but there has never been an adequate understanding of why those who are guilty do what they do. I have taken a great deal of care to reveal as precisely as I can only those who have been primarily responsible for the terrible deeds disclosed in these books. I have gone so far as to name the particular individuals who are responsible for shaping our world and not just observing the ideas that they have promoted. Although I do name those with a public profile and those who have published material that reveals them for who they really are, there are, of course, many who will remain invisible, who are never exposed to public scrutiny and who have never published a single word but who are at least as responsible, if not more responsible, than those who have been prepared to reveal themselves. Acknowledging the many limitations both necessary and accidental, these books have been written to reveal the guilty and not those who just associate with the guilty or even those who may have been duped into doing their bidding. Secondly, so that my intentions and motivation for writing this volume simply cannot be misconstrued, my sincerest hope is

viii that love will conquer hate, that a gentle, cautious reflection will win over demands for hasty revenge, and that a humble experience of ‘the good’ will be victorious over the ignorance that is evil. If these outcomes are achieved, then I believe that the world can truly become one of peace and love as opposed to the hate and violence being manifested in our world today. In saying this, I fully appreciate that such consideration will not be returned and those that I hope to expose will be prepared and able to do the greatest violence, to whomever and however many as is required, to ensure that this content is never made public. They know that they are on the cusp of realizing an agenda that they believe has been thousands of years in the making. For this reason, they will stop at nothing to ensure their plans are not interrupted when it is about to be realised. My personal view, after learning everything contained in these books, is that we should leave the past in the past. Despite the terrible destruction and excessive violence perpetrated by those revealed in this volume, we should not even seek justice for past wrongs no matter revenge but, as the Russians managed to achieve after World War II when faced with the same situation, I hope we move forward with the knowledge of what has happened in the past and take peaceful actions to remedy the situation in the future.4 As Martin Luther King once said, “Far from being the injunction of a Utopian dreamer, the command to love one’s enemy is an absolute necessity for our survival. [It. . .] is the key to the solution of the problems of our world. Jesus is not an impractical idealist; he is a practical realist.” (King 1969: 47f)5 The injunction to love our enemies is not just the morally right thing to do, it is the only strategy that will not further the agenda of those exposed in these pages. It is the only way forward that they most certainly do not want. The only real response to a theo-politics intent on destroying morality is not to embrace tribalism and, in seeking revenge, become more destructive, become more immoral, seeking an eye for an eye in retribution, a tribal mentality, but, as Jesus taught, by becoming more moral, by striving for love and seeking to forgive trespasses, this is the road to freedom. As Jesus said,

4

Indeed, this is the greatest failure of the Russian approach, they tried to humanize a system that had been imposed on them by these very same people whereas they should have overturned it when they discovered the truth and, as I recommend, try to re-engage with what has been historically prized as the sacred thereby reinvigorating their culture. The Russians retained a social order created to destroy them and tried to make it serve their purposes, a project doomed to failure, when they should just have destroyed the system and turned to what had worked in the past. 5 Jesus Christ said, “You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth . . . You have heard that it has been said, you shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you . . .” (Mathew 5: 38-48)

ix You have also been told to love your friends and country, although you may hate your enemies and foreigners. But I say, if you cannot love your enemies, at least respect the humanity in them. For those who curse you, wish that good come to them; for those who hate you, do good to them. For those who lie about you to others, seeking to use them to make you miserable, intercede on their behalf. In this way you become true children of the father in heaven . . . Do not be under any delusions, those who I am asking you to forgive, those who I am asking you to express good wishes towards, they will never appreciate such actions. They will never express the same sentiments in return. They will see such attitudes as being nothing but an expression of something evil and therefore deserving of destruction. The truth is though that there is no alternative. To seek revenge, to commit violence, to surrender to hate, is to become them and then they truly have won. The sole purpose of this volume is to educate people so that they too know what is happening to their world and together we can learn how to respond in an understanding, forgiving, and loving way that is true expression of Western civilization. We must each as individuals practice the world we hope to realise and not become the world they hoped to impose. Without an adequate understanding of what is really happening, I fear that we will not be able to progress with love and forgiveness but that neo-Nazi groups, real ‘white supremists’6, and religious zealots7, will emerge into the public sphere with a louder voice and greater support in the very near future. Driven by fear and ignorance, these people might try to replicate the misguided actions of the German Nazis who vented their rage on those who were innocent while letting the guilty go free. As though materializing these fears, on the 27th of October 2018, Robert D. Bowers went into a synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed 11 people because he believed that ‘Jews’ were taking over the United States. These volumes show that Bowers claims are not only dangerously simplistic but, in important ways, wrong. Again, on the 15th of March 2019, a 28-year-old Australian man, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, entered two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and killed 50 people during their Friday Prayers. There is a lot of research that shows that many Westerners feel that something terrible is happening to their world, despite the almost criminal refusal of academia and the main stream media to acknowledge these concerns, and out of ignorance an extremely small group of disgruntled, scared people are taking action, usually against the wrong people, ignorant of the fact that they themselves are actually being manipulated

6

Somebody who thinks white people are superior not because they believe that their moral stranding is superior to others, but because of the colour of their skin. This does not include somebody who thinks Western civilization is superior to other civilizations. 7 Which certainly does not include most Christians. As a result of this research, I now strongly identify as a Christian myself. I see in Christ’s message the best solution to our situation of crisis, the solution that He always symbolized.

x by the very forces that they should oppose. Nothing would benefit those who want to rule the world then the emergence of a white, “Christian”, terrorist organization8. The danger of all such movements, Nazism, anti-Islamism, and white supremacism, is that although they all rightfully identify that Western civilization itself is under threat, none have an adequate understanding of what is happening so they cannot take appropriate action. We are faced with the dangers of two equally unwanted outcomes, either letting the current situation continue unchecked and, therefore, participating in the end of Western civilization or be seduced into acts of violence by those whose culture is indeed being destroyed. Either outcome will be the result of ignorance. It is because of these dangers that I am determined, against all hardships, to not only complete this research, but to bring it to public attention. It is with the knowledge contained in these books that we can move forward with restrained, caring, confidence to realise a new and better society for everyone. One that is more prosperous, more cultured and, above all, more civilized. To ask the reader to read these volumes is to ask the reader not for perseverance or dedication but trust. Trust that I am not motivated by hatred, ignorance, racism, or fear, despite how it might initially appear. That appearance is the result of how we have all been conditioned to think and not a reflection of what has been written in these volumes. I am driven by one single passion. It is, strangely if we think about it, the one passion we can hold and advance and be guaranteed not to be led astray. That one passion is the truth. I was forcibly dragged out of my darkened cave of ignorance into the bright light of truth and now must, as a result of what was revealed to me, return into the darkness to those enslaved by delusions and try to reveal the truth. We must all desire truth, trust truth, be guided by truth. An author cannot release you from the shackles of delusions, it is truth that sets you free. It is the truth that shall set you free and nothing else. Follow truth as only then can one be assured of being on the side of what is right, the side of what is good. Truth and goodness, accessed through reason, is the Western God and we cannot, in our time of most desperate need, desert our God or we cease to exist. Do not ask if these texts are homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, white supremist, or whatever label might be tried. Ask only one question, are they presenting the truth or are they presenting untruth? As the character Morpheus asked in the film The Matrix, I too invite you to swallow the ‘red pill’ of truth and, in return, I will “. . .show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember; all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.” As with Morpheus, the truth that I am offering will shock you. What is revealed here will undoubtedly change the

8

Not that I think such an organization has ever existed. Although there is an ongoing attempt to link Christianity with the Nazis such an association would be to ignore the truth that the Nazis were anti-Christian in associating it with Judaism. It is very difficult for a universalist religious movement built on love and forgiveness to adopt a violent strategy but, one should never say never.

xi very way that you see reality and understand history. What will be revealed will challenge some of your most cherished beliefs that you have fought to realize your entire life. I know this may be the case because this is exactly what happened to me. After all, I was educated in the same system as everyone else. I was exposed to the same children’s programs. I watched the same movies. I read the same account of history. I advanced the same project that I was told to progress like everyone else. Just as writing these volumes has challenged everything that I once believed, these books will challenge everything that you now believe. Despite how confronting the claims presented here are, I hope that you take note of economist Maynard Keynes who asked, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” (Keynes as seen in Heuer 2019: 13) I hope the facts presented in these pages will change your mind. One of the things that the reader will discover from reading these books, is that the best place to hide a rather old-fashioned grab for power is by making the very suggestion that it is happening “offensive” or, even better, criminal. Another thing that the reader will discover is that the best way to take power, is to have others fight to give it to you. Suspend judgement for a little while and this momentary openness just might change your life and, potentially, save Western civilization itself. Remain within the confines of what you currently believe and Western civilization itself will cease to exist. The observation that I would like the reader to take with them as they enter upon the journey that these books will take them on was said by Voltaire and is as true today as it was when it was said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

1

Introduction: Ethnocide Following is the Aleinu (which translates into English as ‘It is our duty’) which is recited at the end of each of the three daily Jewish services. It apparently outlines the duties of the Jewish people. We therefore put our hope in You, O Lord our God, that we may speedily behold the splendour of Your might, when You will remove the idols from the earth, and the false gods will be utterly cut off, when the world will be perfected under the Kingdom of the Almighty, and all human beings will call on Your name, and when all the wicked of the earth will be turned towards You. Let all who dwell in the world recognise and know that to You every knee must bend, and every tongue must swear allegiance. Before You, O Lord our God, let them bend the knee and prostrate themselves, and to Your glorious name let them render honour. Let them all accept the yoke of Your Kingdom, so that You may reign over them speedily, and for ever and ever. For the kingdom is Yours, and You will reign in glory for all eternity. As it is written in Your Torah: “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.” And it is said: “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: on that day the Lord shall be One, and His name One. (As translated by political theorist Leo Strauss (Strauss 1997 (1962): 327-328)) In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. . . And if, as is almost certain, the age which has thus attained maximum power over posterity were also the age most emancipated from tradition, it would be engaged in reducing the power of its predecessors almost as drastically as that of its successors. . . one dominant age . . . which resists all previous ages most successfully and dominates all subsequent ages most irresistibly, and thus is the real master of the human species. But then within this master generation the power will be exercised by a minority smaller still. (C. S. Lewis. The Abolition of Man) Only a god can save us. (Heidegger 1966/2004) . . .you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (Jesus) * * *

Introduction An Australian journalist, Sean Jacobs, recently argued that David Hurley, Australia’s governorgeneral, the formal head of state as the Queen’s representative, was “too safe, too male and too white”.

2 9

(Jacobs 2019) The implication was that a “person of colour” should have been chosen, preferably a

woman, because a female “person of colour”, would be unsafe and would rightly disrupt the calm certainties and promised continuities suggested by the nomination of the highly respected former soldier. Like Jacobs, there are many, many people today who seem to want disruption and aspire for discontinuity. Many people today in the West seem to want to be “emancipated” from what are perceived to be the restrictive mores that have guided Western civilization for generations. They want to break free from tradition in order to make room for something new, to realize an epochal shift in the way we think and act in the world. It now appears as though to be ‘safe’, to want to preserve and transmic cultural norms, especially if you are a “white”, Protestant, Christian, male, is intrinsically bad even, quite possibly, evil. Western culture, culture in general, advanced by “white males” like Hurley, has become something that is no longer worthy of respect and therefore should no longer be continued. Indeed, every culture today has become something odious. As Joshua Rothman (2014) observes, ““Culture” used to be a good thing. Now it’s not. . . the word “culture” has taken on a negative cast. . . today, “culture” has a furtive, shady, ridiculous aspect.” According to people like Rothman, culture today is no longer thought to be the highest good towards which one should aspire but has become, at least for some, something “ridiculous”. For this reason, the continuance of “culture”, attempts to sustain the historically dominant “culture” in places like Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, from one generation to the next, is something that now must be opposed, it must be disrupted so that those historical evils will no longer endure. The means for this disruption is the formulation of what some refer to as a “counterculture” or a way of living that is “opposed to” traditional cultural practices. In order to disrupt cultural continuity, to advance a counterculture, it is now believed that we should be led by those historically deemed “outsiders”. The West must find new leaders who are going to realize a fundamentally different kind of society to that kind which has been historically prized. A society thought to be fundamentally different in kind from that envisaged by the David Hurleys of this world. As former Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt observed in 2014, “Sweden belongs to the immigrants – not the Swedes.” Reinfeldt was not, as might be thought, lamenting the excessive influence of immigrants on Swedish society, he was not concerned that “Sweden now belongs to the immigrants when once it belonged to the Swedes”, despite the fact that today around 15% of people living in Sweden were born overseas and a much larger percentage identify as having a

9

The author of this statement, and it is relevant, is himself a “person of colour”, whose family recently immigrated to Australia from Africa. Africa, sadly, is not a region renowned for good governance, social stability or prosperity. In fact, there have been 161 coup d’état’s in Africa since 1960. Many Africans leave Africa for Australia hoping for a better future. Given this fact, I cannot help but wonder if there are white journalists in Africa today writing that their political leaders are “too black” or even how such a statement would be met.

3 non-Swedish heritage, but, in some senses the exact opposite, he actually believed that “Swedishness was barbarism”.10 It was because of Swedish barbarity, Reinfeldt seemed to suggest, that Swedes were now unworthy to shape Sweden’s future. Sweden should now rightly belong to immigrants, that was Sweden’s best future, because Swedes require foreign influence. As Reinfeldt went on to say, “all development/progress (utvecklingen) comes from abroad”11. The Prime Minister of Sweden, the elected leader of one of the most respected Western democracies, believes that Sweden’s future should be determined by foreigners because indigenous Swedes were no longer deserving. Both Jacobs, with his concern about the “whiteness” of the Governor General, and Reinfeldt, with his concern about the intrinsic barbarity of the Swedish people, are actually expressing the same sentiment. It is a widely held sentiment. White, protestant, Christian, culture is to be no longer valued. White males and everything they represent are to be assigned to the dustbin of history. Listening to the mainstream media, reading school curricula, watching Hollywood movies, even reading contemporary history textbooks, it would appear that our understanding of the world and the West’s place in that world has been turned upside down, as though looking through a camera obscura. All that was once thought to be civility is now viewed as barbarity and vice versa. The widely supported Black Lives Matter protests, which hoped to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear-family”, “decriminalize . . . all drug-related offenses and prostitution” and “ensure a radical . . . redistribution of wealth”, seems to offer an alternative to Western barbarity by fighting to realise its opposite. (See Gonzalez and Olivastro 2020) The Black Lives Matter movement12, which received support from senior political leaders and was sympathetically covered by most of the mainstream media13, would seem to be in full agreement with

10

“Ursvenskt är bara barbariet.” Resten av utvecklingen har kommit utifrån 12 The Black Lives Matter movement has strange origins which point to problems for the entire movement. It was begun by three black women, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, in 2013 when an unarmed seventeenyear-old black man, Trayvon Martin, was shot dead by a self-proclaimed “neighborhood watchman” named George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was initially released without charges but was later charged with murder. He was acquitted of all charges on the grounds of self-defense. An ever-vigilant media jumped on the case initially claiming that a “white man” had shot an unarmed “black man” and it was because of the perpetrators race that he was not initially charged. In response to this news the Black Lives Matter movement began. It was only later, when photos of Zimmerman were circulated, and he was shown to actually be a dark-skinned man whose mother was Peruvian, who identified as “Hispanic”, that the true situation was clarified. This was not a case of a “black man” being killed by a “white person” at all but a “person of colour” killing a “black man”. He was not initially charged not because he was “white” but because there was no evidence that his claim of self-defense was untrue. 13 Despite not being found guilty of murder, a lot of race-based literature continues to refer to Zimmermann as a “murderer”. (See Kline 2020: 2) Although Zimmermann identifying as Hispanic, when trying to make the outrageous claim that Christianity is intrinsically racist, American-Jewish author Kline argued that this was a racially motivated attack with Zimmerman “acting as a weapon of the “white gaze”” in “defense of white life and property”. Zimmerman does not look white and does not identify of white and would, at least based on this, have 11

4 Jacobs and Reinfeldt that traditional Western civilization is something barbarous, even evil. It is clear that many people who live within the Anglosphere today, many who populate the most powerful institutions in the West, most especially in academia, but also in government and entertainment, would be extremely sympathetic with the argument that all that was once viewed as civility is now rightly understood as barbarity. In our age of “multiculturalism”, with its zealous advocacy for “tolerance”, “plurality” and belief in the unconditional benefits of “diversity”14 (Murray 2017: 10), expressions of any kind of concern with being ruled by “outsiders”, “foreigners” or “immigrants”, as Reinfeldt suggests, would most certainly be viewed as being highly questionable but would most likely be labelled racist. The ‘values’ that apparently define western countries today are not just liberal values but values of a particular kind of liberalism, a liberalism alien to the works of Locke or Mill, a liberalism that includes believing in, pluralism, multiculturalism, unconstrained openness (to ideas and immigration), embracing ‘Otherness’, rejection of “heteronormativity”, denouncing cultural bigotry, atheistic (“no-religion” is now the largest single religious identifier in Australia), and critical of traditional gender roles. As these “values” are now supposedly prized, it only logically follows, as these features are alien to the Western tradition, that the West needs to fundamentally changed and that this change is best achieved by being led by outsiders. The only way to implement a strategy diametrically opposed to the Western tradition is to have it implemented by those who oppose that tradition. It is as though the West is determined to rid itself of all things Western. “Australia”, as such, will continue to exist, it may even continue to be wealthy, but it will no longer be a “Western” country. It is this direction of thinking, now called “progressive” or “woke”, that is destroying Western civilization. The claim that the West is in decline is certainly not new. As Mezei observes, “The concept that the West is in decline has been commonplace for about a century.” This long decline manifests itself in terms of the West embracing the idea that it is barbaric and that it has historically never contributed anything positive to the world. A recent European report discussing the reasons for the “decline of the West” concluded that, The contemporary “spiritual disunity of the West” is due to the rise of an illiberal and nationalist camp within the Western world. For this increasingly vocal group, the West is not primarily a community bound by liberal-democratic values and open to everyone little interest in defending someone else’s “life and property”. Klin’s work really is outrageous yet despite this obvious falsehood it continues to get circulated. 14 This is so much the case that when it was reported that in 23 of London’s 33 boroughs “white Britons” were now a minority the spokesman for the Office for National Statistics praised the results as a demonstration of “diversity” in England. (Guy Goodwin from the ONS quoted in “Census shows rise in foreign-born”, BBC News, 11 December 2012)

5 sharing these values. Rather, it is a community held together by ethnic, cultural, or religious criteria. (MSR 2020: 8) Not only is the relationship between “spiritual disunity” and “nationalism”, an idea once thought essential for a good citizen, not explained but the ignorance of Western history being displayed in this paragraph is more an expression of the West’s decline than holding out any hope of a future “solution”. There is certainly no discussion of the massive waves of immigration, into Australia, Western Europe, and the United States despite some rightly observing that “with the torrent of immigrants and asylum seekers leaving their homes in Africa and the Near East and invading many European countries, we witness. . . the fulfilment, of the downfall of Europe . . .” (Mezei 2018: 12) This devastating mass immigration is not being discussed despite a July 2014 Gallup Poll finding that Immigration was the most pressing concern for Americans.15 (Saad 2014) In parallel to not even discussing immigration, is the enthusiastic implementation of “multi-culturalism” throughout the West without any sustained public debate. As Mezei questions, “the cultural impact of the sheer presence of untold numbers of people with a deeply different cultural background living in Western societies will be enormous”. (Mezei 2018: 13) To be critical of immigration and multiculturalism is to be labelled at best a “nativist”. Indigenous people can claim a region as “theirs” and then claim a special status within that space, but such claims cannot be made by Westerners. Instead of seriously considering concerns regarding multi-culturalism and/or mass immigration, perfectly legitimate political positions, such claims are simply ridiculed and quickly dismissed as “nativist” or “racist”. The European report on the crisis of the West actually identifies the nationalism of anti-immigration sentiments as one of the reasons for the West’s decline.16 Far from the true historical presentation of the beliefs and practices that have given shape to Western societies for millennia, which were broadly “nationalistic”, highly exclusive, religiously intolerant, and broadly aristocratic, these “values” are now associated with Europe’s decline and are cited for being responsible for the West’s current crisis. As Max Horkheimer critically observed of traditional Western values, “The whole political, religious, and philosophical literature . . . is filled with praise of authority, obedience, self-sacrifice, and the hard fulfillment of duty.” (Horkheimer 2002: 90) Although Horkheimer expressed loathing for these “Western values”, he is perfectly correct to observe that these were indeed the values that historically informed Western civilization and, to my mind, they are nothing about which to feel ashamed, yet they

15

Followed by Dissatisfaction with Government, the Economy in General and Unemployment. Interestingly, indigenous people when they claim a privileged status in a country are never criticized for “nativism”. This term is reserved exclusively from Westerners trying to claim privileged status. 16

6 are not considered in the European report on the crisis of the West while “diversity”, “tolerance” and “liberalism” all feature highly. Reading the report on the Western crisis, it would seem that the West finds itself in the paradoxical situation of demonizing everything Western in the hope of somehow saving “the West”. It was realism, hierarchy, obedience, self-sacrifice, moderation, hard work, and an especially strong commitment to a sense of duty, ideas with which those living in ancient Greece or Rome would easily have recognised and valued, that have historically informed Western civilization. As is the case in Horkheimer’s work that was cited earlier, such commitments today are generally vilified because it is believed that they crush the highly prized freedom required for individual self-expression. Now, it is claimed, that the West is “defined” by the historically very recent phenomenon of “liberal-democratic values”17 and a commitment to Europe being “open to everyone sharing these values”18. Commitment to “openness”, understood in these terms, would have been challenging to even my parent’s generation no matter my grandfather’s. What has come to be called “civic nationalism”, which is nationalism that is not associated with “ethnic, cultural, or religious criteria” but one built around liberal “values” of “openness” and “diversity”, is now apparently the single most important defining feature of Western civilization, despite its recent invention, that has apparently not only shaped the West historically but is the only possible future. There are simply no other options worthy of consideration. The West is “openness”.

17

It was not until after the First World War, confronted with a choice between communism or liberalism, that Europe began to adopt liberal democratic ideals and practices as a preference to communism. 18 Even millions who do share such values.

7

Map of European Monarchies (marked in red) in 1914. Looking at this map, the claim that the West has been historically defined by “liberal-democratic values” is shown to be false.

As Murray (2017: 10) rightly observes of the report’s conclusions, “Such shallow self-definitions may get us through a few more years, but they have no chance at all of being able to call on the deeper loyalties that societies must be able to reach if they are going to survive for long.” Indeed, it could be convincingly argued that it was in adopting “liberal-democratic values” about 100 years ago that marked the beginning of the decline of the West. What seems to be happening throughout the Western world today is a complete reversal of values. As part of this reversal, white, respectable, Christian men, as Jacob’s article attests, are now thought to be the least capable of leaders.19 It is now generally believed, “. . . that much of today’s political turmoil has been promulgated by white men . . .” (Jardina 2019: 93) As Preparata (2011: 2) also critically observes, “According to this sprouting creed, the culprit of all that was abominable was the middle-aged white males of European descent. . .”. “White men”, by this account, are now being explicitly held responsible for most of the world’s ills including the current crisis of the West. As Ruether (1998) argues,

19

Increasingly reflected in practice with woman and people from non-Anglo-Saxon background increasingly filling leadership roles in both the public and private sectors that once were have been the bastions of white male power.

8 it is because “patriarchy has structured classical and modern Western Christian cultures and social relations” that “Western Europe/North America” is in crisis today. The attack on white males has become so systematic that they are now cast as the lowest of humanity. As Preparata cynically observes, “No question: the white male is to date the most abominable, arrogant, obscene, murderous, mendacious, and savage creature that has tread upon this earth—his record of ignominies, which grows by the day, is simply indescribable and matched by no other.” (Preparata 2011: 121) Many Afrocentric scholars such as Na’im Akbar and Marimba Ani argue, apparently missing the irony, that it is racism that has contributed to Europe’s crisis and that racism is an exclusively “Euro-American pathology” that is not found in any other culture. (D’Souza 1996: 39) Even some people who might be identified as “white”, such as Michael Bradley, argue, Racism is a predisposition of but one race of mankind – the white race. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape . . . all are primary threats to our survival, and all are the result of peculiarly Caucasoid behaviour, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is white men. (Bradley 1991) Such attitudes have become so pervasive that a recent survey found that 79% or people aged between 18-24 believe that “white people” are oppressors. (Harvard and Harris Poll 2023) Most of those who attack “white men” claim that “whiteness” is not just about the colour of a person’s skin20 but it is mostly about what people believe. As a recent article on these matters observed, “To be ‘white’ is a state of mind. It means belonging to the culture which perceives itself as ‘superior’. The culture which sees itself as ‘exceptional’, and somehow ‘chosen’ to judge and advise the entire humanity.”21 (Vltchek 2020) It is because of these very beliefs, apparently, that white men are no longer acceptable or capable as leaders but are now rightly being held responsible for most of the troubles affecting our world. In the highly respected Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, American psychologist Donald Moss recently claimed that “whiteness” is “a malignant, parasitic-like condition to

20

Although, of course, it is. Why describe somebody as “white” if it is not about the colour of a person’s skin. Why not called them arrogant, or elitist, why call them “white”? It is because it is also about a person’s skin. 21 The strangeness of this sentiment cannot be fully developed here but it seems to me that every culture around the world should think itself “superior”. If a person looked upon another culture’s practices as being superior, then this experience would mean that that those practices are already a part of a person’s culture. If it is understood that a culture is a person’s experience of what is right and wrong, good and bad then it would be strange indeed for a person to view anther cultural practice as superior to their own and then carry on with their existing practices. A sense of cultural superiority is essential to an individual’s well-being. To appreciate one’s culture and think it superior to others has nothing what-so-ever to do with racism although this confusion happens all the time. Beyond this observation, I very much doubt whether many Anglo-Saxons think of themselves as “chosen”. “Chosenness” is a very un-British sentiment indeed.

9 which “white” people have a particular susceptibility.” (Moss 2021: 356) “Whiteness” is, apparently, a condition which is “foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world” that “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse”. (Moss 2021: 356) Whiteness is not about the colour of a person’s skin but it seems that the culture in which people of a certain colour have lived, the way they think, is the true debilitating condition. It is how white people think that is “perverse”. Many scholars have also linked “whiteness” to Christianity arguing that “white supremacy” is intrinsic to Christian theology. Norris (2020), for just one example, argues that “. . . all of white theology and white Christian practices are implicated in white supremacy.” Christian theology is acknowledged as the inspiration for “whiteness” and informs, apparently, the brutality instigated by white men against “people of colour”. Claims that “whiteness” is not about the colour of a person’s skin but is a way of thinking and acting in the world that implicates Christianity might seem to be simply a strategy for avoiding accusations of racism. In fact, reading the literature, it is actually quite true that attacks on “whiteness” are not primarily concerned with the colour of a person’s skin. What is discovered in the literature created by the activists who oppose “whiteness” is a rejection of the civilizing project that has historically defined the West. The real target of those opposed to “whiteness” is a way of thinking that prioritized, as feminist scholar Camille Paglia observes, a certain form of knowledge as being adequate for informing collective decision making. What anti-white activists oppose, in truth, as they did when they opposed “colonialism” and “patriarchy”, is not the colour of a person’s skin but a particular way of thinking. They oppose the way that Westerners are, as Westerners, in the world. Paglia (2001: 5), although critical22, rightly observes that what defines the “West” is that it, “. . . insists on the discrete identity of objects. To name is to know; to know is to control. I will demonstrate that the West’s greatness arises from this delusional certitude.” Surprisingly, but as will be confirmed in this volume, it is the West’s ontological commitments, a commitment to “the discrete identity of objects”, that is of greatest concern to the anti-white movement. Far from such beliefs being seen as the highest good, the highest ideal, in our contemporary setting, as Preparata observes (2011: 120), Western metaphysical commitments have become understood, as an expression of reversal, as “. . . the customary attributes of the Devil.” It is Western metaphysics, and the civilization project derived from these premises, that have literally been demonized. The new radical political movements cannot easily claim that it is Western civilization itself, informed by a particular

22

One is forced to draw on critical account of what some might think of as being positive attributes of Western civilization because nobody can navigate their way through tertiary education by expressing positivity towards traditional Western civilization. Such sentiments simply would not get published.

10 ontology, that is “evil”, as this would attract thoughtful debate, so they avoid such transparent claims and instead label Western metaphysics as “whiteness”. By relabelling “Western metaphysics” as “whiteness” they can then claim to be attacking whiteness, a racist, elitist, dangerous “movement”, something that has become acceptable to attack, when they really mean Western metaphysics and the civilization upon which that metaphysics was built. Most Westerners no longer recognise the Western project to be unique. Christopher F. Rufo observed in a recent interview, hosted on a program called “Black News Tonight”23, There are a lot of documents that are floating around public schools24 that say things like timeliness, showing up on time, is a white supremacist value or a white dominant value. Things like rationality, things like the Enlightenment, things like objectivity, and these are very strange things to be ascribed to a racial identity.25 (Rufo 2021) Yet the claims being made by these activists about Western civilization, disguised as “whiteness”, are quite correct. For reasons that will be explained, Western societies do particularly value things like duty, rationality, and objectivity. These are indeed Western values that most especially reflect a Protestant ethos that is not prized even throughout all of Europe no matter everywhere around the world.26 It is not strange to attribute such beliefs to “whiteness” because they truly are, almost by definition, expressions of Western Christian civilization which just happens to be advanced by “white people”. It is a moral imperative today to overcome certain expressions of racism and, therefore, “whiteness”, identified as a racist movement, becomes not only an acceptable target but a movement that everyone must oppose if one is to be truly moral. By contrast, explicitly attacking the values of Western civilization would be more difficult and attract a lot more resistance. That the West does indeed think in more objective terms has even been confirmed by recent research which found that Westerners find it easier to solve problems that require abstraction and isolation, objectification as such, while Easterners found it easier to resolve problems that were contextual and less reliant on abstraction. (Morris 2010) There is a school of thought,

23

As others have also observed, one could not imagine a show called “White News Tonight”. In the United States. 25 During the interview Rufo was asked to name one thing good about being white. He cleverly avoided the question by saying that this is the exact kind of discussion he thought that should not be happening. It should not be about the colour of a person’s skin. It is surprising when you read the recent literature on race that most of it is written by black Americans. It is surprising to the extent that it is so often claimed that only white people are concern with race. 26 Places like Spain and Italy do not particularly value timeliness. English people who move to Spain to retire continuously express frustration at how local workers run according to their own timetable. By contrast, in Western Protestant countries like Germany people believe that arriving at an appointed time is at least a sign of politeness if not a measure of a person’s character. 24

11 began by Robert Logan, which argues that the West embraced “abstraction, analysis, rationality, and classification” because they began to use the phonetic alphabet between 1500-500 BC. Whatever the cause, from a Western perspective, objectification is most certainly not simply a bad thing as “abstraction” is required if there is to be “knowledge” of any kind, but abstraction becomes most important when trying to secure scientific knowledge. Paglia, and not the report by MSR, is more correct in understanding the West. It is not “liberalism” with its commitment to “openness” and “diversity” that has defined Western civilization for millennia but, in many respects the opposite, it is metaphysical commitments that praise the abstraction of objectivity and the ontology upon which these beliefs are built that has defined Western civilization and it is these very beliefs, this way of thinking and being in the world, that is being opposed today manifesting the crisis of Western civilization. To be clear, this conclusion emphasises the fact that this volume is not about “race” or “whiteness” but is about a particular way of thinking. A way of thinking that would be accessible to anyone. That objects are discrete and knowable, and that this knowledge is acquired through observation and the use of reason is the defining feature of the West. It was because this knowledge was not an expression of power, but “true”, that it was considered, since the time of Ancient Greece, to be best for informing collective action. It is that the West has aspired to “close” things in the world in formal borders, not leaving the world “open”, that explains the West’s success, productivity, creativity and, ultimately, Western identity. As Marx himself rightfully observes, capitalism itself was primarily the result of “commodification” or the abstraction and reification of things as “goods”. The West emerged from the belief that humans could know what is good and true, as Paglia critically observed, and that this knowledge was secured and then rightly deployed using substantive reason with the aspiration of realizing a better world. Ideas of social progress are alien to most traditions around the world including those informed by Buddhism and Hinduism. The belief that the world can be improved is actually one of the defining features of Western civilization which goes a long way towards explaining why the West dominated the world. Traditional gender roles, it was believed, for just one example, was not the result of power, because gender was not political at all but was an expression of the good and the true. Gender was not thought political but was simply reality. It is only when the good and the true are no longer persuasive, when God has withdrawn, that gender can become politicised. As Foucault observed, But what does it mean to kill God if he does not exist, to kill God who has never existed? Perhaps it means to kill God both because he does not exist and to guarantee that he will not exist. Certainly a cause for laughter to kill God to liberate life from the existence that limits it [ . . . ]—as a sacrifice. [ . . . ] To kill God in order to lose language in a deafening night and because this wound must make him bleed until there springs forth

12 ‘an immense alleluia lost in the interminable silence’—and this is communication. The death of God restores us not to a limited and positivistic world but to a world exposed by the experience of its limits, made and unmade by that excess which transgresses it. (Foucault as cited in Preparata 2011: 88) The death of God, according to Foucault here, is not simply the end of limits but the beginning of their infinite contestability. It is under these conditions that reality becomes the result of a certain kind of power “politics”. The death of God actually demands for sacred limits to be transgressed. As Foucault observes, the death of God “frees us” from the original experience of limit thereby liberating humanity from a positivistic world. It is only after being “delimited” and therefore politicised that “reality” can become placed within inverted commas thereby being understood as an expression of power. That certain knowledge, such as gender, in the Western tradition, was indeed “truth” was confirmed through general consent. A practice Habermas (2002: 160) has described as the “legacy of Christianity”, “the concept of discursively directed agreement” but this practice might equally be called politics, properly understood, as such discourse is informed but reality, informed by what is good and true. Agreement becomes an impossibility in the aftermath of objective reality, with the death of God. It is for this reason why the West has expressed such a long history of belief in “progress” which is foreign to other traditions. So, what some contemporary political activists oppose, whether they are fully cognisant of this fact or not, is not the colour of a person’s skin, not that they are “white”, but “whiteness” as such, that “white people”, synonymous with the West, have developed and historically expressed a way of knowing the world, an epistemology based on an ontology, that was then thought to be best suited for universally informing collective action. This way of thinking was first practiced thousands of years ago in ancient Greece and has been deployed with a great deal of confidence and success in such a way that it has been beneficial for the entire world. Reason, knowledge, and truth have informed global progress for the last 2500 years. The reason the West was confident in this worldview was not arrogance, it was not an act of blind faith, it was not even some inbuilt feeling of superiority, but because it had proven itself to be both effective and, of more importance from within this worldview, moral.27 “Whiteness”, when properly understood, is most importantly ontological. Many people from non-Western backgrounds fail to prize this Theo-ontological foundation because it is alien to their traditions, and, therefore, they find it oppressive and even evil.

27

Just to substantiate this claim, in 1960, when Western thinking still dominated Western countries, the 9 of the 10 wealthiest countries in the world were Western, white, Protestant. United States, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Bahamas, Norway, Iceland, United Kingdom.

13 Ever since the Pre-Socratics, the dominant belief that has made the West distinct from everywhere else in the world has been that human actions, for both the individual and the collective, should be informed by the best argument. As American statesman and Founding Father of the United States, Thomas Jefferson,28 made clear in 1787, “Happy for us, that when we find our constitution defective & insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers & set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or restore their constitutions.” Jefferson is referring to the true principles that made the West unique, a political condition where decisions are made, “with the coolness of philosophers”, authorized through the reasonable exchange of ideas and legitimized through agreement. Not forced agreement, the agreement that informs society today, which is just an expression of power, but agreement freely reached and grounded on belief that certain claims are simply better than others. This account draws inspiration from the ancient Greek understanding of the philosopher where all erete, all excellence, was gathered or “uncovered”, as Heraclitus wrote, “. . . the greatest erete and wisdom is to say what is uncovered (ta aletheia29) and to do what is thus understood in its fundamental nature”. By this account, human action should not just be informed by tradition, it should not just be informed by blind obedience to religious dogma, although theology and tradition certain play a necessary role for allowing the experience of “truth”, it should not further the interests of a particular cohort, it should not be informed by what is thought to be “natural”, it should not even be informed by utility, and most certainly it should not be an expression of power, but it should be informed by the best argument because the best argument, “to say what is uncovered”, was by definition both good and true, therefore, it shared an intimacy with the Divine. So, there was already observed an intimacy, in the work the Greek philosophers, between truth, goodness and God. As none other than Parmenides, most probably the founder of the Western metaphysical tradition, makes clear, From this view, that ‘That Which Is Not’ exists, can never predominate. You must debar your thought from this way of search, nor let ordinary experience in its variety force you along this way, (allowing) the eye, the sightless as it is, and the ear, full of sound, and the 28

Thomas Jefferson has become the most demonized of the “Founding Fathers” and it is difficult today to find a positive account of his role in American history. As with so much, this is yet another reversal of history. Jefferson, who single handedly wrote a draft of the American constitution and whose writings were thought to have been critical for motivating the American Revolution, was historically seen as the most important and most impressive of the founders. Today, his opponent, Alexander Hamilton, has been raised into being thought one of great men of his time. Indeed, in a list ranking the importance of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton was ranked first while Jefferson only managed 5th. 29 Aletheia is often simply translated as “true”. It was the German philosopher Martin Heidegger who popularized translating Aletheia as “uncovered”. The same is being communicated in both translations, truth is uncovering or revealing.

14 tongue, to rule; but (you must) judge by means of logos the much-contested proof which is expounded by me. (Fragment B 7.1 - 8.2) Parmenides is voicing what truly is the defining feature of Western civilization and that which has recently been characterised as “whiteness”. When reduced to its simple purity, Parmenides is saying that you cannot let the “unreal”, that which results from high emotions, have a claim over our lives. You cannot let what you simply see or hear, unreflectively, inform your life, individually or collectively, but it is only through logos, reason, that a kind of knowledge is secured that is adequate for informing our lives. Logos here is a kind of universally shared reason or reflective discussion that is not simply “within us”, in terms of something an agent controls, but is something, in which we each participate in or give voice too, as humans. The ancient philosophers of the West “. . . believed that logos (divine logic) was the power that created and governed the universe.” (Mangalwadi 2011) This understanding of logos, as something transcendent, has meant that it has historically been identified with the mind of God, intellectus divinus, in being that which is ultimately good and true. As it says in the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was logos and logos was God . . .”. To follow upon the path of truth, according to Parmenides, is to practice the art of “persuasion”. This is not just “persuasion” aimed at achieving an outcome, as practiced by the much-maligned sophists, which is merely a technical skill to persuade an audience through manipulating their emotions, therefore remaining an expression of power or remaining within the domain of individual self-interest. As Melcher and Morrow (2018: 95) observe, “If all you can get are opinions anyway, then you might as well try to make things appear to others in whatever way serves your self-interest.” In contrast to the sophists, the philosopher practiced persuasion informed by the good and the true, the telos of reason was the mind of God, that can only be secured through agreement and therefore does not serve power. This is the art of logos. (Thanassas 2008: 11) Martin Luther expresses this same understanding, two thousand years later, when he argued that Christians do not achieve their goals through violence or coercion but through the word, through logos. As Luther wrote, I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God’s word; otherwise, I did nothing. And while I slept or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philipp and Amsdorf, the word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the word did everything. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany; indeed, I could have started such a game that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? Mere fool’s play. I did nothing; I let the word do its work. (Luther 1968/1522: 37) Luther is observing the power of logos/God. Here, logos achieves everything, even that which cannot be achieved through military victory. That we have agreement between Parmenides, Martin Luther and

15 Thomas Jefferson is not, of course, some mere coincidence but marks a common thread running through their thinking that is Western civilization. It is through the word, logos, written and spoken, that uncovers truth, as something enduring, that everything in the Western tradition is to be achieved. Humanity is merely the vehicle of the word; the word itself is God. The word, logos, is Divine in the Graeco-Christian tradition. The word is God, but Jesus is the word/logos made flesh. As the theologian Petrarch wrote, Surely our God has come to us so that we might go to Him, and that same God of ours interacted with humanity when He lived among us, “showing himself like a man in appearance” . . . What an indescribably sacrament! To what higher end was humanity able to be raised than that a human being, consisting of a rational soul and human flesh, a human being, exposed to mortal accidents, dangers, and needs, in brief, a true and perfect man, inexplicably assumed into one person with the Word, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father and co-eternal with Him. To what high end was humanity able to be raised than that this perfect man would join two natures in Himself by a wonderous union of totally disparate elements? Those disparate elements to which Petrarch referred were “Heaven” and “Earth”, “goodness” with “matter”, “spirit” with “flesh”. Jesus symbolizes the objectification of the world in terms of it being uncovered, in terms of it being truly present. Jesus is the bringing together of the left and right, the darkness and the light. Jesus’ incarnation symbolizes the World. Jesus is therefore truth. Parmenides does not only start the Western tradition, as such, in terms of metaphysics but is also the origin of a commitment to “a form of knowledge that is directed towards the world and that is now possible as ontological knowledge”. From this time onwards, tradition, religious dogma, utility or nature, were all thought to be inadequate for informing social order on their own because a new knowledge was believed to be foundational and primary, a knowledge accessed through logos. It is because this antiwhite movement is opposed to this particular way of knowing, thinking, and ordering society that, [w]hen they speak of “racism”, for example, they are not referring to prejudice on the grounds of race, but rather to, as they define it, a racialized system that permeates all interactions in society yet is largely invisible except to those who experience it or who have been trained in the proper “critical” methods . . .” (Pluckrose and Lindsay 2020) This is not some kind of obscurantist babble, but this quote grants insight into the true motivations of those who seek to undermine Western civilization and realize radical social change. To achieve this change, one must be “trained” in a particular “critical method”, a method actually voiced by a group of neo-Marxists following World War II called “critical theorists”. Again, as Moss also observes, “Parasitic Whiteness – an acquired condition: (1) a way of being, (2) a mode of identity, (3) a way of knowing and sorting the objects constituting one’s human surround.” (Moss 2021: 356) Moss is quite explicit that

16 whiteness is not only about a way of identifying but is equally about a way of knowing, a way of ordering the world. The more deeply you enter into the world of “anti-whiteness” protests the more the true identity of their target becomes apparent. The “system” for organizing society that they really oppose, whether many who protest against “whiteness” realise this or not, is against the ideas of reason, truth, agreement and, ultimately, justice, that has become recently racialized in terms of “whiteness”. This association, whiteness with knowledge acquired through reason, is having all kinds of consequences. Even within Christianity there are calls to desert the Western tradition. Luke Bretherton, for example, argues that Christianity needs to move away from its Western origins. Bretherton observes, “Black Liberation Theology heralded a seismic shift in Protestant social ethics and the use of Christian Realism as a dominant framework for thinking about political and social questions.” (Bretherton 2018) Again, it is the allimportant notion of “Christian realism”, the West’s ontology, the claim that the world is real and knowable, and that this knowledge is acquired through reason is what motivates “people of colour” to reject the “Western Christian” metaphysics. The danger is, of course, in doing this they also reject Jesus Christ and his embodiment in the world. Mills (1998) is quite explicit in arguing that what he believes underlies Western prejudice against “people of colour” are “the ways whiteness functioned as an ontological category” an ontology, according to Mills, that prized “property ownership, militarism and masculinity”. Again, there is more than a little truth to this. Metaphysics does inform property ownership, as Marx observes, which explains why the loss of property is always associated with the end of the nuclear family and emasculation of Western civilization. It is this opposition to everything that might be associated with Western metaphysics, “Christian realism”, the reasonable ordering of society through what the Greeks called logos, which reveals knowledge, that primarily informs the emergent “counterculture” that is increasingly dominating Western societies today. “Wisdom” in the Western tradition is, as Julius Evola argued, “. . . sapienza, is the progress of the individual human being, through initiation, towards the Absolute Being. It is therefore a matter of ontology, of states of being, rather than of epistemology.” (Furlong 2011: 8) Wisdom, sophia, is ontological; it is about Being not about knowledge. It is to undermine this project that, as Bretherton observes, “whiteness” now “. . .names a political and moral rationality through which a “common sense” is forged and reproduced; that is, it constitutes a way of discerning and deliberating about goods in common and a vision of the good life through which “we, the people” come to decide how we shall live.” (2018: 13) Political movements like “Black Power” are shaped by nonWestern thinking that hopes to “fundamentally recalibrate and resignify” (Bretherton 2018: 13-14) these “white” ontological and theological commitments in a way more harmonious with their historical traditions.

17 In the middle of the 1st millennium BC, many traditions began to teach that to live ethically is to renounce earthly desires, Buddha proposed meditation while Confucius advocated strict observance of particular rituals. The ancient Greeks, after the philosophical revolution, most importantly voiced by Plato but instigated by Parmenides, argued that the way of knowing what to do, knowing what is good and right, is through a particular way of knowing the world that involved reasonable persuasion constrained by truth or, better, logos. (Morris 2010) It is with this strategy, as Manoussakis (2012: 126) observes, that “Plato succeeded in overcoming the mythical, demonic, and orgiastic character of Greek cults”. That is, prior to Socrates and the philosophic turn, female goddesses were worshipped as the primary Gods through much of Ancient Greece and such Gods were not accessed through reason but encountered through achieving an ecstatic state via drugs, frenzied dancing and orgies. After the philosophical revolution, for which Socrates gave his life, sophia30 became the most important knowledge thereby laying the foundations for a completely unique way of thinking that was to inform, or indeed was, Western civilization. As Graves observes, “One of the most uncompromising rejections of early Greek mythology was made by Socrates. Myths frightened or offended him; he preferred to turn his back on them and discipline his mind to think scientifically: “to investigate the reason of the being of everything – of everything that is, not as it appears, and to reject all opinions of which no account can be given.”” (Graves 1971: 10) What is really being argued when protesters oppose whiteness, is that they oppose the role of reason, truth and goodness. This is why they criticize “whiteness” for perceiving itself superior, exceptional and that it is judgemental. It is because Christian Western civilization, at its best, has indeed prioritized these ordering principles, that are accessed through logos, that they wish to destroy the historically dominant order of society. As it is true that the counterculture movement opposes a certain method for ordering society that is rational and guided by individual conscience in terms of what is good then when “people of colour”, like Sean Jacobs, who actually unsuccessfully ran for an elected political position, demand to be the new leaders of a traditionally Christian Western societies, what they hope to undermine, as their political platform, is this method for ordering society. Before one leaps to adopt what those historically considered as “outsiders” have to offer, before the West surrenders to the accusation of being barbaric, one should be mindful of Paglia’s (2001: 3) warning, “Sweep one hierarchy away, and another will take its place, perhaps less palatable than the first.” It is in the desire to do away with the dominance of knowledge

30

Sophia was unlike other Goddesses who were ruled by emotions as she was not born from the loins of Zeus, her father, but from his head. She was related to Zeus’ mind not his bodily drives.

18 acquired through reason and informed by conscience, the core of Western civilization, that people like Jacobs criticise certain leaders for being “too white” and “too male”. Substantive reason, goodness, truth, and belief in God, are all to be “opposed” according to those advancing the principles of the cultural wars, because it is these founding principles that have informed Western civilization and Western civilization is now understood to be evil. As will be revealed, the struggle between light and darkness, order and chaos, reason and power, the right and the left, has a very long history and is not truly native to our times. This struggle, the one in which we are currently engaged, has been identified by those who are the most enthusiastic participants, as an eternal war. We know that there was a struggle between those who identified with the forces of “light” against those who identified with the forces of “darkness” in the 5 th century BC when the ancient Greeks first raised the Apollonian, the rational, the objective, the known, the light, as preferred over the Dionysian, the erotic, chthonic alternative of “Mother Earth”, the darkness. Graves argues regarding this shift away from the Goddess, Law . . . grew out of religion: occasional pronouncements developed proverbial force and became legal principles. But as soon as religion in its primitive sense is interpreted as social obligation and defined by tabulated laws – as soon as Apollo the Organizer, God of Science, usurps the power of his Mother the Goddess of inspired truth, wisdom, and poetry, and tries to bind her devotees by laws – inspired magic goes, and what remains is theology, ecclesiastical ritual, and negatively ethical behaviour. (Graves 1971: 479) Graves is observing this shift from being guided by socially accepted norms to legally binding knowledge of what was good and evil marks the shift from the Dionysian to the Apollonian. This was Socrates rebellion. His works helped to establish a new epoch, the epoch of the Apollonian, which is only possible if we leave the subterranean haven of the maternal womb behind and venture into the bright light of the Sun/truth/goodness. It was argued at that time that “by naming and classification, by the cold light of intellect, archaic night can be pushed back and defeated”. (Paglia 2001: 5) Recently, a person of colour who was supporting a “Resist Whiteness” conference being held in England claimed, “Resisting Whiteness is not about white individuals, it is about “whiteness” as a pervasive system of oppression . . . a system that needs resisting and dismantling.” Although it is probably true that this activist was ultimately ignorant regarding the full breadth and depth of what she was opposing and, indeed, what she was supporting, but, when properly understood, what has come forward in terms of “whiteness” is anything but oppressive. It is, as the very existence of the conference affirms, actually extremely tolerant and inclusive. What these activists find “oppressive” is the universal constraint of sophia/conscience as the highest form of knowledge that has been thought best for decision making at both an individual and collective level. After all, truth is indeed oppressive if you are wrong, motivated by emotions, desire power or advocating

19 on behalf of special interests. It is that the Western tradition, at its best, opposes, error, passion, power, and special interests, that it has historically been such an effective way of ordering societies. Truth is not the substantiation of power but what resists it. Is the discovery that the culture wars are aimed at a particular ontology, which finds expression in a particular epistemology and theology, the answer to the crisis of the West? Is it adequate for those who hope to save the West, as the West, those who believe that Western civilization is not barbarity but can and should positively contribute to the world as it has in the past, to simply fight to maintain a Christian realist ontology? Although with what has been discovered so far, progress has been made in not only understanding the crisis of the West but also in explaining what primarily informs the culture wars, the pressing question remains unanswered; why? Why have so many turned on Western civilization as something barbarous? It did not, after all, fall into crisis. It was never shown to be inadequate to the tasks asked of it. Quite the opposite. So why has there been a 180-degree reversal in what should be prized so that everything that the West once valued as the West is now thought evil while everything once thought evil has now been ennobled as the highest good? Now that there is a greater understanding of what is being undermined the most troubling question can now be considered, why?

Why are people opposed to Western Civilization? At the turn of the 20th century, Western Europe was “still the world’s richest, most culturally productive, and politically and militarily dominant continent”. (Wasserstein 2007: 1) It was believed that the Western European civilizing project, informed mainly by Protestant Christianity, would ultimately free all of humanity from its baser instincts and bring it to realize its full potential. (Jonsson 2013: 53) Europe, particularly Western Europe, truly dominated the entire world and aspired to realize its vision at a global level as a moral imperative with practical implications. As George Friedman observes, Imagine that you were alive in the summer of 1900, living in London, then the capital of the world. Europe ruled the Eastern Hemisphere. There was hardly a place that, if not ruled directly, was not indirectly controlled from a European capital. Europe was at peace and enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Indeed, European interdependence due to trade and investment was so great that serious people were claiming that war had become impossible – and if not impossible, would end within weeks of beginning – because global financial markets couldn’t withstand the strain. The future seemed fixed: a peaceful, prosperous Europe would rule the world. (Friedman 2009: 1) What Friedman is capturing is the pinnacle of what might rightfully be described as the Christian Protestant Era. Friedman was referring to a time that was the culmination of a long period of peace, prosperity and progress that some have called “The Long Peace” or “The Century of Peace”. This century

20 began with the Congress of Vienna in 1815, that marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and reached a pinnacle around 1870, the Belle Epoque, but was brought to a terrible and abrupt end with the destruction of the First World War in 1914. The First World War marked the beginning of what some call the “Short 20th Century” which spans from 1914 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992. The short 20 th century, 1914-1992, is by far the bloodiest, cruellest, most inhumane period of human history and the West has played a central role in these events. It was a period that saw the demise of Christianity as a global force and the emergence of humanism. The Christian Protestant Era began in 1517 when a 34-year-old German Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, supposedly nailed 95 “theses” on the door of a Wittenberg Church thus initiating the Reformation.31 By the turn of the 20th century, the Christian West was so dominant and its achievements so great, that its success, power and global dominance was unprecedented. It really was a glorious age. Albert Schweitzer rightly claimed that the greatest achievement of those times of peace and prosperity, what would be remembered when that era had concluded, would be the Protestant theology that was so central to that era. As he wrote, “When, at some future day, our period of civilization shall lie, closed and completed, before the eyes of later generations, German theology will stand out as a great, a unique phenomenon in the mental and spiritual life of our times.” It should be expected that what was to be remembered from the Protestant Christian Era was its Protestant theology. It was the Protestant ethos that informed the Golden Age of Western Europe that was thought, at that time, to be the greatest single achievement of the age. Just 30 years after Schweitzer observed what he thought was the greatest achievement of that era, the Austrian author Stefan Zweig (1932/2012) described that very same Protestant Christian theology as nothing more than a “second-rate conjuring trick which even a simpleton could see through”. So, what happened? What happened in just a few decades where ideas that had been understood as civilizations greatest achievement might be denigrated in terms of being nothing more than a “conjuring trick” for “simpletons”? As Mendieta rightfully observes, the Christian theology that was thought to be so central to the success of Western Europe and had enabled it to dominate the entire world had, within a generation, been demonized to such a degree that Zweig could publish his disparaging and dismissive remarks. The period between Schweitzer and Zweig were a period of unprecedented catastrophe. The First World War, the decadence of the Roaring 20s, the hardship of the Great Depression and the rise of the infantile Adolf Hitler were the markers of the end of the Christian Protestant Era. Interestingly, people today do not look back to Protestant theology as the greatest intellectual

31

Of course, many today claim that this was just a myth and Luther never actually nailed his criticisms of the Catholic Church on the Church door but that this event symbolizes the start of the Golden Age of Western civilization is the point being made not a claim of history.

21 achievement of the 19th century. Instead, contemporary scholars look to Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud as the greatest intellectuals of that century. Today we look back on the Protestant Century through their critical eyes. Protestant theology is an opiate, an expression of a slave morality or the primary cause of neurosis, not the defining feature of an age. It was these very same thinkers, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, despite being held in the highest esteem today, who were primarily responsible for the extreme horrors of what the historian Hobsbawm described as, “the century of extremes”. (Mendieta 2002: 2) These very thinkers, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, who are responsible for over one hundred million people being murdered in the 20th century (Mangalwadi 2011) and, if the full impact of Freud were included, then that number would actually be much higher. Indeed, as will be revealed, in 1900, those who would replace the Christian West with their new religion were already active, already scheming, already strategizing, to destroy the West. They were already busily working out exactly how to destroy Western civilization despite it being by far the most powerful socio-political force ever seen on the planet until those who would replace it came to power. Today, looking back over the 20th century, the success of their schemes is confirmed by the steep decline of the West and most particularly Christianity. As English historian Bernard Wasserstein observes, Europe has gone down in the world over the past century. Between 1914 and 2007 its share of world population declined from 27% to 11%. In 1913 the European economy produced more than half of global output; in 2004 around a third. In 1913 Europe’s share of world merchandise trade was 59%; in 2004 it was 48%. In 1913 around 90% of foreign capital investment was European (Britain’s share alone was 43%); in 2003 the European share of foreign direct investment was 60% (Britain’s share was 9%). In 1914 Europeanowned merchant shipping constituted more than four-fifths of the world’s fleet; by 2005 only about half. In 1914 European imperial powers bestrode the earth, ruling about half the land surface of the globe (in addition, Britannia ruled the waves). The only colonies of Europe remaining by 2005 were such tiny relics as the French island territory of Reunion, in the Indian Ocean, and the British mid-Atlantic island of St Helena. Two of the three British colonies in Europe in 1914, Cyprus and Malta, were now sovereign states and members of the EU . . . The third, Gibraltar, remained a British possession . . . In 1914 European universities and laboratories, particularly those of the German-speaking Kulturraum, led the world in science and technology. . . Of the fifteen Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine between 1910 and 1914, all but one was European. Of the forty-three recipients of these prizes between 2000 and 2004, only twelve were European . . . (Wasserstain 2009: 750-751) Things would have continued to deteriorate further since 2009, in no small part as a result of the rise of China. The West, as the West, is disappearing from this world. If the Sun has not yet fully set over the horizon of what might be understood as the Western Protestant project, it is deep dusk and only the last fading rays of its light might be glimpsed on the horizon. As Buchanan rightly observes,

22 . . .the West is passing away. In a single century, all the great houses of continental Europe fell. All the empires that ruled the world have vanished. Not one European nation, save Muslim Albania, has a birth-rate that will enable it to survive through the century. As a share of world population, peoples of European ancestry have been shrinking for three generations. The character of every Western nation is being irremediably altered as each undergoes an unresisted invasion from the Third World. We are slowly disappearing from the Earth. (Emphasis added, Buchanan 2008: ix) The greatest crisis is not just that the West itself is in decline to such a degree that it is realistic to expect it to disappear in a generation but that what remains of the West is less Western. Even the ignorant Munich Security Conference recently acknowledged that the West is facing an existential crisis. It observed, Far-reaching power shifts in the world and rapid technological change contribute to a sense of anxiety and restlessness. The world is becoming less Western. But more importantly, the West itself may become less Western, too. This is what we call “Westlessness”. (Munich Security Report 2010) It is this “Westlessness”, as they dismissively call this fundamental crisis of Western civilization, which is most alarming, that the West itself is no longer Western, it no longer advances a distinct way of thinking, being and acting. As the former President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, recently observed, “The most serious crisis of modern times is the weakening, if not the breakdown, of faith in the durability and purpose of traditional values, which are the foundation of . . . the West in civilizational, not geographical, terms.” (Tusk 2016 as seen in Lehti et al. 2020: 1) This is a dramatic change of fortune over a relatively short period of time. At the turn of the 20th century, the entire world appeared to see the West as the light on the hill, the way the “future” should look. The West was envied and was that which should be emulated. The West presented as the very vision of civilization. The West was that against which every other region measured itself. Of course, today, nobody would dare claim that the West should be emulated. Indeed, quite the opposite, the West is presented as being that which is primarily responsible for the global catastrophes of our time and the sooner it has disappeared from the planet the better for everyone. Patriarchy, environmental destruction, and racism are all attributed primarily and uniquely to the Western way of thinking. The current unfolding global catastrophe, it is argued, is the result of imperialism, Protestant Christian morality and Western metaphysics. Western civilization is no longer thought to present a vision of the future but is the reason for most of the world’s ills and the preferred outcome in the future is that it will disappear. Western civilization is now thought to be barbarity itself. This new vision of the West, a vision most powerfully held by many Westerners themselves, is the direct result of the culture wars. The culture wars have realised a fractured society which has manifested

23 extremely high levels of distrust within society, between groups who now see themselves in competition, and nobody knows how to respond. There seems to be no “out strategy” for the West because the West itself is the problem. It is the West’s beliefs and practices that are thought to have caused the catastrophe of our age so where does the West, if it wishes to retain a distinct identity as “the West”, turn? The culture wars have challenged the historically dominant normative frames that have historically marked Western civilization as such, and so no culturally embedded solution can present itself. As William J. Bennet observes, The battle for the culture refers to the struggle over the principles, sentiments, ideas, and political attitudes that define the permissible and the impermissible, the acceptable and the unacceptable, the preferred and the disdained, in speech, expression, attitude, conduct, and politics. This battle is about music, art, poetry, literature, television programming, and movies; the modes of expression and conversation, official and unofficial, that express who and what we are, what we believe, and how we act. (Bennett 1994: 10) The West has jettisoned what it prized in the past and has come to embrace something new that can be seen to be expressed in contemporary music, art, poetry, literature, movies etc. Just look at the recent products coming out of Hollywood to see just how opposed to traditional Western values our society has become. In truth, the West is simply becoming less Western. What has emerged is a “situation that is foreign to all that has come before. It is foreign to Christian traditions; foreign to the Enlightenment project; and foreign even to the post-Christian and post-secular structures described by such authors as Giovanni Vattimo, Slavoj Zizek, or Jurgen Habermas”. (Mezei 2018: 14) Everything that our grandparents would have believed in, indeed everything for which they would have been prepared to die for, has been revalued and now thought to be not simply wrong but immoral. What was once seen as honourable, patriotism, in-group loyalty, Christianity, strong gender norms, the nuclear family, objectivity and rationality, are all now seen as deeply problematic. What can be seen in contemporary society is a thoroughly consistent reversal of traditional Western values. Everything that was, until quite recently, held to be of the utmost value is today viewed as that which must be overcome. Our contemporary ideas of “progress” are no longer understood as the realization of traditional Western values, “what the good person’s conduct should be and how to develop it, generation after generation” but progress today is characterized by the systematic rejection of Western civilization. It is no longer viewed as progress, for example, if more people attend Church or if we are a more polite society or if we swear less or that there are lower rates of divorce or fewer people watching pornography or lower rates of extra-marital affairs or higher levels of respect for older people or less intergenerational conflict. Indeed, the reality seems to be the reverse, progress seems to be measured in the continuous and consistent undermining of every

24 traditional Western value with the aspiration to realise its exact opposite. This is not simply a re-evaluation of all existing values; it is their direct reversal. It is in this systematic and thorough-going determination to reverse historically prized values that explains why, unlike in the past, “elderly” people are no longer afforded respect in our society. As Roszak (1969: 1) rightly observes, “For better or worse, most of what is presently happening that is new, provocative, and engaging in politics, education, the arts, social relations (love, courtship, family, community), is the creation either of youth who are profoundly, even fanatically, alienated from the parental generation, or of those who address themselves primarily to the young.” The explanation for why youths are so influential while older people are disregarded is because it is the older people’s understanding of the world that is exactly what we are trying to reject. Again, as Wasserstein observes, “In 1914 the old were still revered . . . as repositories of wisdom and useful experience. In the youthoriented culture of the twentieth century, they were patronized as ‘senior citizens’, infantilized by social workers, and often felt that they had been thrown on the dust heap by society.” After all, why respect someone whose very existence is an indictment, a living fossil, of everything that contemporary society now denounces? Our elderly are a deposit of every “ism” that contemporary society hopes to destroy and, therefore, they should rightly be hidden away in their fenced off “villages” where their antiquated ideas can do no more harm. With as much certainty and equal fanaticism of the Chinese cultural revolution, so are we, in the West, marginalizing those who hold to a different vision, a “dated” vision, of who we are and what we should be doing. This is no minor point. It is evidence of the unprecedented and thorough way that society is changing in terms of reversal. Whereas throughout history, elderly people were valued for their insights and experience as guides to the future, today those insights and experiences are thought to be not merely worthless but offensive in terms of what is exactly wrong with the world. Today, progress is thought to occur when, traditional gender roles are undermined, traditional views on marriage are challenged, traditional views on sex are rejected, traditional ways of raising children are pathologized, traditional views on religion are ridiculed. . . Progress has manifested itself in term that all traditional values having been cast aside and apparently shown to be base or, more accurately, evil. Our elderly are now evil. This demonization of Western values and those who advance them is now thought to be progress. To believe that women should be allowed to stay at home in a heterosexual, monogamous marriage and raise good Christian children who have a strong sense of their gender identity and understand what that identity means for their role in society is now viewed as at best antiquated if not evil. To think that sex is something that should be exclusively practiced between a married couple with a view to raising many, well-adjusted children, is now thought to be prudish, at least, and yes, again, evil in

25 terms of not allowing people, especially women, to explore their sexuality and learn what they want from their ideal partner. To believe that children should be primarily raised and receive their moral education from within the family with limited institutional intervention in their moral development is now thought to be evil.32 The West, like all cultures, was built upon its past, but not determined by it, and it is the total loss or rejection of all traditional values, loss of trust in its institutions, loss of faith in its God, loss of legitimacy of its beliefs, that marks the decline of the West in civilizational terms. This transition has been observed for quite some time. Sociologist Emile Durkheim, who wrote at the turn of the 20 th century, observed even at that time that “. . .Western societies were in a process of transition – with the values, norms, and institutions needed for the new type of society still in the process of development.” (As seen in Lukes 1973) This “transitional period” has meant, as Strauss and Howe (1997) observe, that “Popular trust in virtually every American institution – from business and governments to churches and newspapers – keeps falling to new lows.” The question that seems to demand resolution is not just why did so many traditional values become understood as evil, but the much more pertinent and revealing question, why did all the traditional Western values become demonized? Why has Western civilization itself become thought of as something evil? The demonization of traditional Western values, marked most recently by the explicit marginalization of “whiteness”, has not been a selective process but consistent across the board. Everything the West once prized, those things that our grandparents, even our parents, valued most, is now thought to be barbarity. If these changes were arbitrary then one would expect that at least some traditional Western values would still be prized even if many were indeed overturned, but the dominant contemporary attitude is to reject all traditional Western values. It is Western civilization itself that is being shown as evil. What is this consistent and systematic reversal of tradition and how and why was it achieved? Finally, closely linked to the loss of faith generally and loss of faith in beliefs and traditions, is

32

Some people may be questioning whether all these aspirations would truly be viewed as “evil” today or better just not “ideal”, and these claims will be substantiated, but to just look at childcare or early education. To argue against childcare in contemporary Western society is truly to have become something loathsome. After all, what are you arguing in its place, that women should stay at home and raise their children and not have a career? To argue against early institutional interventions in raising our children is to go against many sacred cows today including feminism but also many of the other liberation movements. Imagine if parents raised their child not to masturbate? Imagine if a parent did not teach moral relativism? To teach these things today is almost like a form of child abuse. As an experiment, try arguing against childcare at the next social gathering you attend and advocate instead that children receive their best moral education in the home. See the extremely passionate negative response, even aggression, mainly from women, that such a suggestion generates today. In the 1980s if you had made this claim, it would have been met with general agreement. That is how much things have changed in such a short period of time. What would trigger such a forceful response unless such a claim had indeed become something “evil”?

26 the loss of faith in Western legitimacy. Why do Westerners no longer feel legitimate to make reasonable judgements? Why do so many Westerners today, down to an individual level, no longer feel authorized to persuade others that their traditional culture is the best way to live? Indeed, as already observed, to claim that traditional Western practices, logos, truth, conscience, and sophia, should be prized is now thought to be a “colonialist” mindset that needs to be actively suppressed. Westerners no longer feel that they can legitimately try to help, advise or guide others because they understand themselves to be no longer worthy. This loss of legitimacy is nicely captured in Australia where it is constantly argued that Western civilization has much to learn from their Indigenous inhabitants. One of the first to insist that the West had no role to advise those once thought “primitive” was German anthropologist Franz Boas, who wrote, I have always been of the opinion that we [the West] have no right to impose our ideals upon other nations, no matter how strange it may seem to us that they enjoy the kind of life they lead . . . or how much opposed their ideas may be to ours . . .the very standpoint that we are right, and they are wrong is opposed to the fundamental idea that nations have distinctive individualities, which are expressed in their modes of life, thought and feeling. (Boas 1916/1946: 171) At the time that this was written, this was a radical claim and Boas, and those from his school who advanced his ideas, gained infamy for suggesting that “primitive people” might be superior to Westerners. For making these radical claims, Boasians were dismissed from jobs, monitored by the FBI and criticised publicly by the press and academia alike. Up until Boas and his followers, ideas like that advanced by Sir Edward Tylor dominated Western academic thought. He claimed “that Europeans were simply culturally superior to everyone else”. (Morris 2010) Less “developed” societies, like those expressed by Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, were thought to be “savages” or “barbarians”. It was Boas and the school that he founded who were amongst the first to suggest that the West should not look at others as barbarians but, the more radical claim, that the reverse might be true. The West needed to learn how to be civilized from these other people. They had to learn from outsiders. As King recently observed in his book looking at the social impact of Boas and his school of anthropologists, they realized a “. . .root and branch reconsideration of what it means to be social animals and the surrender of an easy confidence in the superiority of our own civilization.” (King 2019) That these other culture’s ideas, especially indigenous people’s ideas, were actually superior to Western civilization was revolutionary. That these cultures were less constrained by morality, that they were purportedly more sexually liberated, practiced infidelity, and lacked personal discipline such as timeliness and sobriety, were not to be thought of being “uncivilized”, something that must be overcome, but were, for the first-time in history, thought to be expressions of the

27 exact kind of society that the West should become. Boas was the first to suggest that the West was not the epitome of civility but, in fact, barbarity itself. He argued that it should not be the case that these immoral, undisciplined, technologically underdeveloped countries should look enviously to the West, that they needed to become more Western, but, the reverse, it was actually the West who were the barbarians who needed to adopt indigenous beliefs and practices. Today, of course, claiming that indigenous people’s culture, their orientation to nature, their social relationships, their way of life, and their unique knowledge, is indeed superior to Western civilization has become academic orthodoxy across all disciplines and to suggest anything akin to Tylor’s position today would not only be denounced as the most extreme expression of racism but would result in dismissal. This is rather odd as contemporary Indians, Arabians, and Chinese, would all say that their cultures are superior to all others. Indeed, it would be odd to argue that one’s civilization is not the best and still adhere to its dictates. That we no longer prize Western civilization is just another sign of the loss of faith in the West that expresses itself in the loss of legitimacy that is fuelling the crisis of the West. As a reflection of the loss of legitimacy in the West, since the 1980s, Western civilization courses have steadily disappeared from university course lists. In the shadow of work by Lawrence Levine who brazenly argued, against all the evidence, that the idea of “Western civilization” was “invented” only after the First World War, political activists argued that Western civilization courses should no longer be taught because they were an “affront. . . to women and members of minority groups”. Basically, it was argued, Western civilization courses praised “white Christian males”, and this was not only offensive but was dangerously mistaken. In the West “. . . multiculturalists bewail the white’s conviction that the arts and sciences are for the most part an occidental affair.” Despite the truth that Levine’s claims were simply incorrect, his program was quickly embraced by tertiary institutions as orthodoxy, informing “a ‘multiculturalist’ movement that has swept away Western Civilization courses at most American colleges”. As they would chant at the Stanford University student protests in the 1960s, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go!” This movement, that began in the United States, has now been embraced by tertiary institutions around the world. In 2018, a passionate protest by 100 academics, certainly not a mass movement, successfully stopped the University of Sydney from introducing a Western civilization course because it was, “European supremacism writ large”. This hesitancy to allow Western civilization courses, interestingly, does not extend to learning about the positive legacy of Eastern civilizations. The same institution that fought against the establishment of a Western civilization course, the University of Sydney, was pleased to host the Confucius Institute that “celebrates the achievements of Chinese culture and the arts”. It seems that this “celebration” does not promote the same kind of “supremist” ideas advanced in

28 Western civilization courses that, because they praise white men, women and minority groups find so offensive. These Eastern “institutes” are widely acknowledged as being an obvious expression of the Chinese governments “soft power” and they promote a historical perspective harmonious with contemporary communist China’s expansionist aspirations including its penchant for demonizing the West. Not only are Eastern civilization courses that are known to be highly politicised allowed to operate in most leading Western universities today but, as a matter of explicit university policy, all courses must now teach content from a range of cultures with particular emphasis on the contributions made by Eastern cultures. As a university overview says of a philosophy program (and nothing could be more Western than philosophy), “Deakin Philosophy prides itself on applying philosophical concepts to our contemporary world and maintaining a pluralistic and cross-cultural outlook that embraces Eastern philosophy.”33 [emphasis added] That course coordinators are increasingly being ordered to include particular content, this is something that they must do to adhere to university policy, is not only questionable in regards to merit but undermines the long held Western tradition of academic freedom. What this increasing focus on Eastern thinking shows is that Western civilization has lost not only authority but legitimacy and to advance the ideas and beliefs of the West today, even in the West, is to promote something corrupt at its core, promoting something loathsome, something, if it expresses pride in its past, evil. Yet, is Western history any more brutal, any more imperial, any more murderous, any more patriarchal, any more racist, than China’s? After all, it was being argued in academic institutions in China as late as the 1950s that “self-rule” of minorities should not be allowed as this might inhibit those minorities from mixing with the Han Chinese thereby not allowing those minorities to acquire the Han’s “superior” cultural traits. (Xun 2016: 14) Perhaps the main difference between a place like the United Kingdom and China is that China not only still possesses its Empire, just ask the Uyghers and Tibetans, but they continue to expand their empire whereas the United Kingdom voluntarily ceded its Empire generations ago and has continued to decline ever since. It would be interesting to know if Chinese academics are being ordered to positively “embrace” Western philosophy in its course content. What we do know is that while the West has been promoting pluralism and a cross cultural outlook, since 1995 the

33

A legitimate question would be does “Eastern philosophy” even exist? This is not a racist question but simply to observe that philosophy is the love of sophia, the love of an implicit knowledge, knowledge of the ‘Good”, that is then made explicit through logos. Eastern thinking, as expressed in Buddhism, does not even recognize that this knowledge exists. They argue that overcoming the world is the achievement of wisdom not moving closer to it. This questing of Eastern “philosophy”, I hope, will be better understood as the volume progresses but there is nothing wrong with observing that Eastern thinking does not advance what has come to be called metaphysics and without metaphysics there is no philosophy. That this Western knowledge has fallen in disrepute is evinced by the closure of so many philosophy departments around the world.

29 main goal of the Chinese education system has been to “boost the nation’s spirit, enhance cohesion, and foster national self-esteem and pride”. The West, unlike China, has lost faith, in every sense of this word, in itself. China still looks to “foster national self-esteem and pride” while Westerners are learning that the West was historically the most evil force in the world. The West, often reduced to white males, is presented as the most destructive force in history. This loss of faith in itself seems to be more the result of a loss of self-confidence rather than any kind of civilizational failure. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the truth. It seems that it was when the West was at the peak of its powers, dominating the world in the early 20th century, as Boas’ and Durkheim’s arguments confirm, that it began to lose faith in itself. The West has now lost all its confidence. It no longer has faith in its religious traditions, it has lost faith in its ontological commitments, indeed, it has lost faith in its experience of reality itself. Political scientist Fareed Zakaria argues that many in the West today are traumatized and feel that their civilization is under assault. (Fareed 1997) This sense of loss is a concrete expression and rational response to the reality of our contemporary condition. A civilization that has taken millennia to build and became for a time globally dominant in a way that has never been seen in history, seems to have crumbled into chaos in mere decades. The question that these volumes hope to answer is how did we arrive at this place? Why have all our traditional values been reversed? Why, in short, is the West in crisis?

The Problem That there is a crisis, that Western societies are extremely divided and that no-one knows how to respond, is widely acknowledged. As Adam Curtis narrates in his documentary Can’t Get You Out of My Mind, capturing the prevailing sentiment, We are living through strange days. Across Britain, Europe and America, societies have become split and polarized. Not just in politics but across the whole culture. There is anger . . . and a widespread distrust of the elites. Yet at the same time there is a paralysis. A sense that no one knows how to escape . . . People in the West know that there is something wrong, there is something deeply wrong, but people cannot act because they do not have an adequate understanding of what is happening or why. How do you escape when you are not even sure what is imprisoning you? The American author, George Friedman, claimed in his recent book, The Storm Before the Calm, (2020) that the reason the United States is going through “difficult times” is because of natural cycles of “periodic and predictable crises” which are beyond human control therefore Americans are just “passengers on the American roller coaster”. We should, by this analogy, sit back and enjoy the ride because these regular periods of crises cannot be avoided but just need to be passively endured. This particular moment of crisis that we are living through today, Friedman

30 claims, is the result of “deep structural changes” that are “creating profound stresses” in both the American economy and society. These economic “stresses” are caused by both “a periodic shift in which its operations and traditional relationships to society are changing”, or institutional change, and “an excess of money and limited opportunity for investment” resulting in a “falloff of innovation”.34 According to Freidman, it is this widely acknowledged but little understood phenomena, lack of innovation, that is resulting in dramatic socioeconomic change. These forces together are causing “the glue that was holding American society together” to “weaken and will continue to decline throughout the 2020s”. He even uses the phrase, loved by critical theorists, of this being a “cultural revolution” (Friedman 2020: 1) which is at the same time a political revolution. Friedman suggests that these crises are actually good for America as such crises are the engine room of “progress” because, . . . each period begins with a problem generated by the previous cycle, creates a new model from which to draw on American strength, and culminates in that solution playing out its hand and becoming the new problem that has to be solved. (Friedman 2020: 2) When the forces revealed in this volume, and the role they play in shaping society are understood, this claim by Friedman will be shown to be what it is, a distraction.35 Just another effort to portray deliberate interventions in shaping the world as being the result of natural forces. Friedman is arguing that nothing can be done, nothing should be done, just relax and the pain will soon be over. The West will be nothing but an embarrassing memory at most. What Friedman is actually presenting is a pseudoMarxist argument covered in a thin free market veneer consistent with neo-Conservatism. Marx would agree with most of what Freidman is arguing. That there are natural economic cycles that operate outside of human control which periodically manifests a crisis that precipitates a new era of prosperity that emerges from the ruins of the old order. What is true, which contrasts to Friedman’s myth, is that the United States, along with the West, is in a real crisis. An existential crisis. Indeed, Western civilization itself is in an existential crisis. Part of this crisis “. . . is a decline in legitimacy of hierarchical authority, patriotism,

34

The flood of money without a productive place to go is the result of the American banking system which prints money to be “invested” in the stock exchange which then appears as government debt. It is because of this selfsustaining investment cycle that during the Covid 19 crisis, which saw the sharpest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the U.S. stock markets recorded record highs. The individuals who created this insane system which transfers wealth from hard working Americans into the pockets of investors will be revealed in volume III of this series. 35 Friedman actually promotes the same old line that his ideology has advanced for a century, move beyond the fractured society we live in, in this case caused by technocrats and their specific knowledge, and aspire towards the prior unity that this fracturing hides. As will be revealed, it is pure Jewish Gnosticism.

31 [and] religion . . .” (Inglehart 1977: 4) Murray affirms this conclusion, the crisis of Western civilization, he says, is the result of a loss of “. . . faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy”. (Murray 2017: 2) The demise of the West, of course, indicates the dawn of something new, the advent of a new epoch. With the advent of this new epoch, the West risks being annihilated as a recognisable “way of life” and this danger is the direct result of the destruction of Western civilization. As Jordan and Weedon (1995: 4) observes, the question raised by cultural contestation is, Whose culture shall be the official one and whose shall be subordinated? What cultures shall be regarded as worthy of display, and which shall be hidden? Whose history shall be remembered and who’s forgotten? What images of social life shall be projected, and which shall be marginalized? What voices shall be heard, and which will be silenced? Who is representing whom and on what basis? THIS IS THE REALM OF CULTURAL POLITICS. This paragraph captures the extent and intensity of the cultural battle we face today. Culture “wars” are far more dangerous than those fought with bullets. Cultural destruction is the total annihilation of an ethnic identity. It is the fellow traveller of genocide in terms of reaching for the same destination. The destruction of an ethos, destruction of a way of life, is the crisis of the West and can be understood as a form of ethnic cleansing or ethnocide. This destruction of the ethnic identity of Westerners, most acutely experienced within the Anglosphere, has been so successful that American scholar Darren Kleinberg can boast that there now exists a “post-ethnic America” (Kleinberg 2016: xvi), an America not only free from the dominance of any particular ethnic identity, as sought by multi-culturalism, but an America free from any ethnic identity. To express concern about an ethnicity, an ethos, is not to be concerned with the dying out of a “race” but the extinction of a set of beliefs and practices, a way of thinking, that was once held to be sacred for informing a people. As Hirst (2011) recently wrote, “There is an absurdity in telling a people to drop their old values . . . for these are the things that have made them a people.” This is the crisis of Western civilization, the attempt to manifest this absurdity, this is the destruction of the Western ethos. This destruction is resulting in a lost generation. As grunge rocker Richard Hell wrote, “I belong to the Blank Generation. I have no beliefs. I belong to no community, tradition, or anything like that. I’m lost in this vast, vast world. I belong nowhere. I have absolutely no identity.” If this statement does not bring tears to your eyes appreciate that your children feel the same way. This is the price of ethnocide. The main question that informs this volume is not just what but the much more difficult question as to why? Why have shared Western values, held with such conviction for thousands of years, been turned upside down in such a way that everything that was once thought to be noble is now thought base and everything once thought base has now been ennobled? Why have we voluntarily rejected the

32 Western tradition if it was not informed by failure? Why have we collectively undergone a cultural revolution when, even as late as the 1950s, nothing seemed to be going wrong? It would be reasonable to assume that most people believe that the cultural revolution, that has had such an incredible impact in shaping the way people think and act in Western countries today, is a “natural” phenomenon. That, as Herbert Spenser observed, Western “[s]ociety changed by itself according to the laws of its own development.” This would be to believe that the aspiration so characteristic of our times, “to detach the present from the past” (Ferudi 2020a), as fought for by the activists in the culture wars, is a natural social phenomenon in terms of society changing according to its own internal motivations however complex and unfathomable those drives are. The “protesters” on the streets of the United States that are burning down buildings and looting shops, the “rioters” who broke into the Capitol building, the many activist academics forcefully promoting a particular view of the world no longer constrained by Weber’s insistence on “disinterested” education, and the intolerant social change advocates, are advancing a shared program, a thoroughly consistent program, simply because they agree, through their own volition, that such actions are the right thing to do. The culture wars, by this account, are just another disruptive social movement, like the Reformation, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment and when everything has settled down in its aftermath, as George Friedman promises, the world will be better for having endured the birth pangs of the new, post-ethnic epoch. That in our current “periodic and predictable crisis”, there is nothing required of you in order to realise the predicted future benefits. The glaring problem with this argument is, if the new ideas being so passionately promoted by a relatively small but extremely vocal, well-funded, group of protesters is indeed reflective of changing values in the wider society then why do so many people, people who just quietly go about their day, the people Nixon referred to as the “silent majority”, raising their children and going about their work, believe that West is in crisis? A recent study found that around 2/3rds of British citizens, a significant majority, felt that Britain was worse-off today than it had been when they were young. The same study found that this feeling of decline was expressed by all generations suggesting that this is a long-term trend not just passing nostalgia. My sense is that if such a study were undertaken in the United States, Australia, or Canada, the same conclusions would be reached. Why, if the dramatic changes afflicting our society are “natural”, do so many people believe that the past was better than today, and that society is in steep decline? Revealing WHO is Destroying Western Civilization. It will be claimed in this volume that the “cultural revolution” that is destroying Western civilization is most definitely not a natural phenomenon. It is, most definitely, intentional. The question is, if this is indeed true, if the cultural changes that have unfolded in the West over the last 100 years are the

33 result of intentional human interventions, then who and not what is driving these dramatic social changes becomes the pertinent question. Perhaps even more urgent than the question of who is the question of why? Why is somebody determined to destroy Western civilization? What is their motivation? At the 1992 Republican Convention, that would confirm George Bush Snr as the Republican Presidential candidate in the upcoming elections, Pat Buchanan argued, . . . this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe, and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will be as was the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America. (Emphasis added) Politics is about “who we are”, “what we believe” and “what people stand for”. Politics, by Buchanan’s account, is about meaning, not about distribution. Politics is more about spirt than matter. It is, as Buchanan observes, a contest for the “souls of America”. When what is valued is being contested, when our souls are what is at stake, then politics can no longer be just about wealth distribution, but must turn into something irreducibly theological in nature. Buchannan was rightly observing that the contest in politics over the last half of the 20th century, and in truth for quite some time before, is better understood as a theo-political struggle in that it is a political contest between different visions of what is right and what is wrong, what is noble and what is base, what is good and what is evil. The 20th century German intellectual, Martin Buber coined the term “theo-politics” meaning, “the public affairs arising from the striving for the actualization of God’s rule.” Theo-politics, according to Buber, was about efforts directed towards actualizing God’s rule on earth. What this means is that the term “theo-politics” captures efforts by humans to shape the world, shape what people believe and how they behave, in order to maintain or repair Man’s relationship with God. “God’s rule” might be understood as a contest between competing conceptions of what is good and what is evil, what is base or what is noble, what is right and what is wrong and, of course, what is true and what is false. As will be revealed, God is at the root of such problems, not man. According to Buber, the primary political question is not “will God rule in this world?” but more the question “which God will rule in this world?” Political theorist Alexandre Kojeve characterised this struggle as a dialectical struggle to both become the Master over others and, once in this position of power, to shape reality for everyone. (Kojeve 1980) This is the type of political struggle that Buchanan observed was taking place in the United States. It is this deeper contest, a deeply theological contest, that is being played out through politics, that Buchanan rightly describes as a “culture war”. The culture wars are a contest over which God will rule in the world. What will be understood as good and what will be understood as evil? What will be truth and what will be false? In his

34 speech, Buchanan failed to identify exactly who were the combatants in this theo-political contest. Who were the groups fighting to capture the “souls of America”? What competing conceptions of God were trying to be actualized in the world? Obviously, one side of this religious contest was the traditionally dominant, Protestant, Christian beliefs and practices that have historically shaped the United States, as championed by Buchanan himself. The question is who are those who are so passionately opposed to this Western, Christian vision of America? It was claimed that the crisis of the West was not the result of natural forces but the result of intentional activities to undermine Western civilization and that this should be understood as a theopolitical contest. The question therefore is to reveal who exactly is competing with Christianity for the “souls of America”? The answer to this question must resolve the outstanding questions, which, at least shallowly, appears unrelated; who is motivated to oversee the collapse of Western Christian civilization? Who wants to see the values of Western civilization reversed? Why are they particularly opposed to the Western project that relies on a particular set of ontological and epistemological commitments that have been most recently associated with “whiteness”? How are countercultural movements like feminism, Black Lives Matter, Gay Rights, liberalizing drug use, opposition to the nuclear family, rejection of property, all somehow related? Any solution to the question of who is trying to destroy Western civilization must answer all these different but, as it turns out, related aspects of our contemporary crisis. There is no easy or acceptable way to answer this question. There is, as they say in Australia, “no beating around the bush”. To state the matter in the most unambiguous terms will attract instant scorn and many will reject the claim without allowing further elaboration. Despite the possibility of this eventuality, the truth must be stated in the clearest terms if we are to ever overcome our crisis. It will be argued that there is a relatively small group of religious actors, who should rightly be identified as Gnostic Jews,36 that are responsible for the crisis of Western civilization. It will be shown, in this volume, that over the last 150 years, Gnostic Jews have done everything that they can to destroy Christian Western civilization in order to realise their vision of redemption. This conclusion certainly brings me no pleasure. It took me

36

It is important to note from the introduction of this term, “Gnostic Jew”, that this term most certainly does not apply to all people who identify as Jewish. As will be explained, many Jews are fundamentally opposed to this movement and see it as an evil, heretical cult that should not even be called “Jewish”. The current practices of Gnostic Judaism are a relatively recent invention that involves the worships a female Goddess. As such, it is a movement that rejects the entire Orthodox Jewish religion including not revering the Talmud. Gnostic Jews, from this movement’s beginnings at the end of the 19th century, have done everything that they can to destroy Orthodox or Rabbinic Judaism with the intention of replacing it with their own heretical teachings. The distinction between Gnostic and other forms of Judaism is important to note as it is a distinction that has been missed by most commentators.

35 years of research, at great personal cost, to both understand and accept that this claim was, in fact, true. Despite how this claim may initially resonate with the reader, I am no “anti-Semite”. Indeed, as will be revealed, these people hope to destroy traditional Judaism as surely as they hope to destroy Christianity. As I know, from experience, to claim that “Jews”, of any kind, no matter how conditionally this claim is made, may be undermining the Christian West for religious reasons is highly confronting to the contemporary reader. I had considered tempering my claim to argue that “gnostics” were responsible for what is happening in our world today but so much would be missed in such a strategy, so much central for understanding history, that I have decided to retain the claim of “Jewish” despite how it may make the reader uncomfortable. All I do ask is, for the sake of Western civilization, and this is no exaggeration, that the reader will persevere with this volume to allow me the opportunity to substantiate this shocking and extremely confrontational claim. The basic strategy that has been used by Gnostic Jews to destroy Western civilizational is to fracture the West’s relationship with their God. This rupture with God, one that has been largely achieved, would be realised through the “revaluation”, or better a “reversal”, of all historically dominant Christian values. Everything Christianity historically understood as “good” was now to be cast as “evil” and visa versa. So, the West historically prized, heterosexuality, the family, private property, clearly defined gender norms, objectivity, truth, and reason, while it broadly demonized, homosexuality, single parent families, androgyny, bisexuality, subjectivity, deception, and emotional decision making. Gnostic Judaism, as a theo-political movement, for reasons that will be explained in detail, intentionally reversed all the values historically prized by the Christian West so that everything that was once thought to be “sinful”, is now to be praised as “noble” while everything that was once thought “noble” is now to be thought as “sinful”. Homosexuality, promiscuity, mind altering drugs (often disguised as innovative “medications”), matriarchy, mysticism, gender fluidity, single parent families, cultural diversity, tribalism, and subjectivity, are all now thought of as noble while, heterosexuality, chasteness, civility, humbleness, sobriety, rationality, masculinity, clearly defined genders, marriage, conformity, and objective truth, are all now characterised as “evil”. By destroying the historically dominant experience of “the good”, thereby destroying the West’s relationship with their God, Gnostic Jews hope to destroy Western civilization as such and, in-so-doing, destroy Westerners as an identifiable people. As American Jewish “racial activist” Noel Ignatiev said in unequivocal terms, “. . . we want to abolish the white race . . .”. This “abolition” will not be achieved simply through genocide, the intentional murder of a people based on their genetics, but through the destruction of Western civilization. Therefore, this destuctive project would more accurately be described as ethnocide or the destruction of an ethnicity. The destruction of an ethos. Ethnocide is the

36 complete annihilation of a people as such. A nation may lose many wars but continue to survive as a people. They can rebuild and once again walk the world stage as a people. There is no return from ethnocide. As a destructive act it is complete. Although a full understanding of what is being claimed here will require a great deal of elaboration and clarification, in the most basic terms, it is because the West was a Christian civilization that it has been historically globally dominant, and it is because of this historical dominance that, in the Jewish Gnostic vision of the future, it must now be destroyed. What is happening today is what Norman Cohn warned in his 1976 book Europe’s Inner Demons. It is "the urge to purify the world through the annihilation of some category of human beings imagined as agents of corruption and incarnations of evil." That category of humanity which some people seek to annihilate today for their evil deeds are white Christians. If Gnostic Jews are to realize their messianic mission to rule the world as Masters in the name of their God, the West, as the West, must be destroyed. This is understood by the Gnostic Jews as a struggle for dominance that has been taking place for over 100 years and, at least according to gnostic thinkers like Moses Hess, Ludwig Gumplowicz and Alexandre Kojeve, there can only be one “winner”. As Gnostic intellectual Kojeve himself wrote, “. . . it does the man of the fight no good to kill his adversary. He must overcome him dialectically. He must leave him life and consciousness and destroy only his autonomy. He must overcome the adversary only in so far as his adversary is opposed to him and acts against him. In other words, he must enslave him.” The aim of this struggle is not to kill your adversary but to take away is autonomy. To make him serve your purposes. To take away his very ability to think freely and act according to his own direction. The aim is to make your opponent a slave. True enslavement is achieved by making the “other” worship your god. When we balk at the claim that “Jews”, of any kind, may be responsible for the crisis of the West, that is an expression of our enslavement. We feel that we are speaking against our “betters”, we are getting out of line with our rulers, and we have an intense feeling of discomfort. This is not a rational response but an emotional response as an expression of power. For Gnostic Jews, the Western method of social ordering, one that is rational, conscientious, and above all moral, is an anathema that must be destroyed if their true God is ever to be liberated from her cavernous darkness and freed into the world thereby heralding a new era. It is only with her release, according to

37 these gnostics, that the Jewish people, and the entire world, will be redeemed in the eyes of their God, and they can take their rightful place as Masters of the world and the Messianic Age can begin.37 How has this revaluation of all existing values been realised? Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, Gnostic Jews have managed to wrest the “production” of knowledge by becoming the intellectual elite of the Western world. There are few disciplines today whose leading historical figures did not identify as Jews. Even today, as Nisbitt (2009: 172) observes, “Jews comprise 33 percent of Ivy League students, and approximately equal percentage of the faculty at elite colleges . . . These are overrepresentations by a factor of 15 or more.” This massive overrepresentation, that began in the United States in the aftermath of World War II, has allowed Gnostic Jews to influence academia, shaping it to reflect their vision of reality, shaping the way we all think. As Gnostic Jew Stefan Zweig cautiously admitted, all his life he had “a secret longing to resolve the merely Jewish – through flight into the intellectual – into humanity at large”. (Heinze 2004: 74) Zweig is revealing his aspiration to make what had been “Jewish”, at least according to his gnostic faith, to become the universal by shaping everyone intellectually. This strategy requires inverting what were once thought to be the “deviant” practices of a culture, homosexuality, promiscuity, atheism, drug taking etc., and turning them into virtues and visa versa. (Assmann 1998: 31) This normative inversion has been primarily, although not exclusively, achieved by capturing our universities. This control has allowed Gnostic Jews to shape the way that we think, thereby changing the dominant ‘narratives’ that constitute reality and remake them so that they are harmonious with the theo-political ideals of Gnostic Judaism. As Kundera observes in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, when discussing how to destroy a people, “The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have someone write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was.” (Kundera as cited in Buchanan 2001) This is exactly what is taking place in the West today. Firstly, the West has forgotten its own heritage, its own history, it has grown ignorant of its own God. Into that emptiness, into that vacuum that was Western culture, the West’s history is being retold from a Gnostic Jewish perspective. Historically the West believed itself to be an important instrument for bringing civilization to the world whereas today people have come to believe that what was once called “Western civilization” is actually barbarity. Historical attempts to bring civilization to the world are today portrayed as “colonialism” which is just a form of “invasion”. What was once thought to be the successful transfer

37

Although Noel Ignatiev claims that he is a “race traitor”, Jews, of course, have never identified as being Western Europeans but have always rightly, and continue to today, identified as Eastern. This is just part of the deception of this movement that is repeated time and again for reasons that will be explained.

38 of the benefits of civility, after all indigenous people never return to their pre-Western lifestyles, are now falsely cast as “destruction”. This revaluation, this rewriting of history, encourages the majority of people to conform to the principles and beliefs of their new Gnostic Jewish overlords while remaining ignorant the true motivations of those who are controlling how and what they think. For this reason, as Preparata observes (2011: 4), in universities across the Western world, Ten times out of ten the pupils are trained to take aim and fire at the privileged pet-peeves of postmodernism. These are: patriarchy, phallocracy, paternalism, racism, sexism, machismo, racist industrial pollution (that is, only that pollution that is putatively caused by the white elites and discharged on “minorities”), Europe, Eurocentrism, the white European male, the male in general, Columbus and the Catholics, religion, God, transcendence, metaphysics, the spirit, colonization and early imperialism, and sometimes, ever more infrequently, “capitalism,” preferably singled out as a vague synonym for economic oppression. This religious project of attacking the West, presented in various guises, is being achieved today by nurturing a “culture of critique” which divides society along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, and capacity, to sustain conflict. Even within the family conflict has been created between husbands and wives and parents and children. All the essential bonds that hold a society together are being destroyed in order to enslave and, thereby, annihilate a people. As Jewish intellectual and one of the clearest voices for Gnostic Judaism, Eric Gutkind, wrote, The whole pattern of our [social] environment needs to be reformed . . . one possible approach to this end; namely, to make the social units of our living and working as small as possible, to concentrate the interests of those who live and work together on a common task, and to develop their sense of quality . . . On the other hand, the economic units, those for the supply of raw materials and for production, should be as large as possible. What we need is social associations on a small scale and economic integration on a large scale. (Gutkind 1946: 4) Gutkind is arguing, as has been achieved, for the separation of “the social” and “the economic” in order to achieve two different but strategically necessary outcomes. Society needs to be fractured as much as possible along lines of special ‘interests’, understood as narrowly as possible, to maximise social disunity, thereby destroying any sense of shared purpose and the shared experience of the good. This is disunity with no hope of future union. Again, as Preparata rightly observes, “This new philosophical “system” implied no resolution, no synthesis, no expectation of salvation, no promise of a struggle in the name of unity . . .” At the same time that this disunity was being nurtured, there was every effort to sustain high levels of economic integration. The trains, after all, must still run-on time. Economics uses instrumental logic to increase productivity and helps both generate wealth for those who do rule society to be able to further their plans while destroying the norms that may once have placed restrictions on laizzez faire

39 production. So, while there is an attack on the shared sacred boundaries and established morality of society the economic system remains perfectly intact if not strengthened. It is for this reason that, “. . . even though in the classroom “God” and patriarchy have come to be arraigned, tried, and sentenced a million times, our system, as a whole, as many critics (including various postmodernists) have understood, is never questioned.” (Preparata 2011: 4) It must be appreciated that both the “left” and the “right” of the current Western political spectrum is equally destructive. Normally, societies aspire to achieve high levels of both social and economic integration, bringing these two spheres together so that the economic is constrained by moral consideration, such as not allowing homelessness or slavery, while a certain morality is justified, sustained and spread, through economic success. For example, the success of Western Europe in dominating the world culturally and economically with a determination to stamp out slavery in the late 19th early 20th centuries is an example of this synthesis. The determination to separate the social and the economic, as part of Gnostic Jewry’s destructive project, hopes to rip the social fabric apart into the smallest sub-groups who are constantly in conflict with those “constructed” as their opponents. This fracturing today, one aspect of which is called “multi-culturalism”, is just part of what has become understood as the “progressive” agenda. It is in trying to segregate society while integrating the economy that the oft cited contemporary program of being socially progressive but economically conservative. This strategy ensures an Orwellian condition of perpetual war, or even an Hobbsian condition of a war of all against all, at a social level, as the conditions for permanent change or permanent cultural revolution. This is the first time in history when the educated elite have called for the systematic dismantling of the existing social order. Historically, as Thomas Piketty argues, to be more educated meant to be more conservative. In the 1960s, only 6% of educated voters voted Democrat in the United States. Literally “the higher the education, the lower the Democratic vote”. (Piketty 2020: 809) From 1990, everything changed, “from the 1990s on, the higher the level of education the more likely to vote Democrat, particularly among those with advanced degrees”. (Piketty 2020: 809-810) Piketty called this group of highly educated “progressive” voters, even progressive activists, the “Brahmin left” referring to the cultural function of imposing elitist “caste” interests. This new voting pattern was not because educated people as individuals suddenly had an epiphany that socially progressive causes were better for the country. It is not that the content taught at university was unchanged, but people were reaching new conclusions as a result of being taught educational material differently. This change in voting amongst the educated elite occurred because the education system was captured in the 1980s into the 1990s by a group of scholar activists promoting “progressive”, properly understood as Gnostic Jewish, causes. The American education system has realised “the paralysis of the critical faculty of students, the death of

40 dissent, and the political orientation of the American intelligentsia”. (Preparata 2011: 6) After only a 30to-40-year struggle, our education system had fallen to become a tool of social destruction at the service of Gnostic Jewry. Secondly, once established as the intellectual elite of the West, Gnostic Jews have used this power to promote a new conception of the individual. “Self-development”, in the Christian tradition, meant conforming to what was understood to be universal norms or for all individuals to ultimately participate in the same values as an expression of an intimacy with God. The Western conception of the individual was one necessarily embedded within a universal moral framework that demanded conformity to shared norms as the highest ideal. The highest praise under such conditions was to be identified as “well adjusted”. Being “well adjusted” was prized because it meant that the person was acting in ways consistent with the universal ideals. The West has always believed in, to draw on Kant’s account, the “freedom” to obey. As American psychologist G. Stanley Hall said expressing this idea in the 19th century, “the highest choice of free will is self-surrender to the service of God”. The highest expression of individuality was to obey the Christian vision of what it meant to be good in terms of serving God and manifesting His Kingdom as the world. (Kemp 1992) This Western concept of individuality found its most prominent expression when these universalized norms were breached by the individual who was then held responsible for breaking these norms and legitimately punished, as an individual, for their transgressions. There was no excuse that somebody was raised in poverty or that they were neglected by their parents because the definitive feature of being human was that they were “free to choose” and knowledgeable about what is right and wrong, good and evil, and, therefore, in being both free and knowledgeable about good and evil, morally responsible. Individual moral responsibility meant that each individual was able to improve themselves, able to become a better person and to make the world a better place. These beliefs find expression in many Western institutions but, perhaps most importantly, in the Western legal system. Such ideas underpinned the Western belief in social progress. The new gnostic meaning of individuality, by contrast, is one that is understood to be “free”, not in terms of being free to obey in order to be held morally responsible, in the sense that despite their circumstances they were responsible for their own actions, but free in terms of no longer rightly being constrained by ethical norms.38 Freedom today is understood in terms of “self-expression” or “selfrealization” which posits a “natural” self that has been the site of historical societal disciplining by

38

Most shallowly, this is why people have body piercings, tattoos and dye their hair blue, but, at the more serious end, it is why people primarily identify with their non-traditional sexuality or their newly minted gender identity.

41 “patriarchy”, “colonization”, “white men”, from which one must now seek liberation. This new conception of the individual has its origins in the post-World War II America where Max Lerner observes there was a change in the American ethos away from Christian conformity to seek “personal expressiveness”. (Lerner 1957: 688) The importance of this new conception of individuality cannot be overstated nor its impact exaggerated. Just this new understanding of individuality alone, and Gnostic Jews have achieved so much more, is an incredible achievement. The Gnostic Jewish account of “individuality”, as will be explained, is deeply indebted to Gnostic Jewish theology. For example, contemporary feminism posits a “natural self” that has been altered through a range of disciplining strategies by the “patriarchal society” to manifest “the feminine” from which “women” must now struggle to overcome in order to express their authentic or “natural” selves. The “Gay rights” movement posits a “natural sexuality”, itself supposedly immune from social or cultural influences, that has been historically marginalized by “heterosexual society” against which they must now struggle in order to express their authentic selves. The “Black power movement” argues that there is a “natural” black person who has been suppressed by “white society” from which black people must now struggle to free themselves so that they can both express their “natural” “black” selves and ultimately reveal how this way of being is superior to the oppressive white society that has historically dominated.39 The same basic argument could be repeated over and over again, with very little variation, and applied to every “liberation” struggle, all the “human rights” struggles, that are currently tearing Western civilization apart.40 If one looks at what people are trying to “free” themselves from, so that they can express their “true natural individuality”, you find patriarchy, heterosexuality, and whiteness, which have all become ways of characterising Western civilization. Western civilization is being demonized through the deployment of such labels. By contrast, that towards which individuals are to find “liberation”, matriarchy, homosexuality, and blackness41, have been historically marginalized in Western society. Stefan Zweig gave a succinct and generalized account of this argument which usually finds expression in each particular case. Zweig argued, Western civilization does “. . .irremediable damage to

39

And these ideas have seeped throughout Western society. I was speaking to an extremely marginalized, uneducated, impoverished Māori woman living in a Brisbane hostel who said that white people had had their turn as leaders and now it was the “black people’s” turn to rule. They would rule in the service of the Goddess of Mother Earth. 40 This is not to say that there is no legitimacy in any social struggle or that there have not been historical injustices, but it is how these injustices are understood and how to move forward. The Christian way is to seek out the truth, to enter into dialogue and find ways of moving forward together in peace. The gnostic way is to distort reality, say that there is no such thing as gender for example or that all people are bi-sexual, and cause everyone to return to a Hobbesian state of nature where there is a war of all against all. You can look to Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. 41 “Blackness” here, like “whiteness”, should not be misunderstood as a racial term but as a theo-ontological term. It is a different way of thinking and “knowing” the world that is becoming increasingly dominant.

42 the minds of children by incessantly reiterating the command to be “moral” and “self-controlled”” and it is therefore this “education”, one which is “moral” and demands one have “self-control”, that must be overcome. Again, the West prized morality, and the self-control morality demanded, while what should be prized, according to Zweig, is “immorality” and “self-indulgence”. Every “rights” struggles today is aimed at undermining some feature that has been historically prized as Western civilization and aspires to establish its reverse as the new “normal”. There is a line in the T.V. series Halt and Catch Fire, one of the many thousands of shows undermining Western civilization that pepper contemporary popular culture, that captures the way gnostics want us to see ourselves and interact with the world, “Progress depends on us changing the world to fit us, not the other way around.” This sums up their agenda, their account of individuality is one which wants people to demand the world change for them while historically the Western tradition required the individual to conform to the world. What this argument means is that for many people living in the West today, liberation, freedom, authenticity, self-expression, can only be achieved with the destruction of Western civilization. It has to be appreciated that Gnostic Jews do not particularly care about women, homosexuals, or black people, it is they who will rule with the destruction of the West, and they will rule over an extremely homogenised and controlled population. These “liberation” struggles are merely a strategy, deliberately devised and implemented, to fracture the West’s relationship with their God thereby destroying the West as such in order to open a space for Gnostic Jews to thrive. Freedom, by this new account, becomes this wilful imposition of an immature, “individual” self, a “will-to-power”, striving to mould the world to conform to each individual’s juvenile expectations. There is no longer any requirement to grow up, to become an adult, to take responsibility for who a person is so that they adjust to societal norms. Gnostic Jews have had to dominate academia in order to implement this program. Take the psychoanalysis of Gnostic Jew Sigmund Freud. Freud argued that there is a “natural” highly sexual self, particularly true of women, which has been historically oppressed by Christian morality using “guilt” and “shame”, and that it is this Christian oppression that results in neurosis. Freud’s “treatment” for this condition is for people to get in touch with their authentic, highly sexual self, thereby liberating themselves from the Western constraints of morality. Once freed from Western morality, one will be in touch with their “natural” sexuality, including masturbation, and they will no longer be mentally ill. Freud is arguing that by freeing our “animal drives” within us, by rejecting civilization and returning to a state of nature, we will return to a condition of “health”. As Jung observed, “It is well known that Freudian psychoanalysis is limited to the task of making conscious the shadow-side and the evil within us.” (Jung 1955: 239) Freud did not only want to make this “shadow-side” visible but raise it to primacy

43 and to then rule our subjectivities. From Freud’s perspective, the “bad” condition is to be chaste, which the West has historically prized, while the liberated condition is to be sexually “free”. This is a movement, a movement always required by Gnostic Jews, from light to darkness, from the conscious to the subconscious. Historically, in the West, to be captured by our instinctual drives was thought to have become the worst kind of “slave”. To be captured by our natural drives was to live the life, not of a human, but the life of an animal, enslaved to sensuous desires. The truly human aspiration to respond to the good, to manifest what is good, was what marked humans as distinct from animals. As it says in 1 Peter 2: 16, “Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.” This statement has perhaps never had such poignancy as it has today. Today we do indeed commit evil and then hide that evil in terms of being free. Free to be our “natural” selves. True freedom, in the Christian Western tradition, is to serve God and not serve our basest desires. So many of us today are sexually promiscuous, irresponsible, selfish, greedy, materialistic, shallow, and insubstantial and we do indeed do all this under the cover of “individual freedom” or “self-expression”. We have forgone a meaningful life for the life of an animal and then affirmed that debasement, that enslavement, as “freedom”. We seem incapable of short-term sacrifice of material pleasures for the long term good of truth. We no longer aim to unite heaven and earth by trying to manifest the best of all possible worlds. The promotion of a particular conception of individuality is not only a strategy for destroying western civilization but, importantly, is intended at the same time as a redemptive project for the Jewish people. The founding condition of what Gnostic Jews think of as the Messianic Age. This “new age”, which some believe to have already begun, might correctly be called the Anthropocene. The Gnostic Jewish vision of the future, the vision of society that so many of us today have enthusiastically embraced and many now passionately advocate, is decadent, relativistic, materialistic, sensuous, instinctual, emotional, thoroughly instrumental, tribalistic, sexually licentious, and, of course, utterly immoral. This is because Gnostic Judaism advances a “new form of obscurantism, fundamentalism, anarchical mysticism, [and] religious irrationalism” that many of us now not only accept but promote. (Mendieta 2002: 1) Gnostic Jews argue that “. . . ethical systems [are] de nouveau, directly out of the creative faculty of the human mind” and are most certainly not the manifestation of God on earth. (Ochs 2000: 13) From a Christian perspective, to realize their Gnostic vision of society, is to manifest something truly evil. The need to destroy the Western experience of God, the experience of the good, the beautiful and the true, is because these guiding principles have been historically associated with the Western tradition generally and Christianity more specifically. In Plato’s famous dialogue, the Symposium, Plato argued that analysis of truth and beauty, when understood in their singularity, constituted “the good”. (Piętka 2015: 28)

44 According to Plato, the good was thought to be the ontological ground of all reality. For the Ancient Greeks generally, this unified experience of “the good” was synonymous with God. It was not the case that God had the attribute of being good, but God was Good. As Lovejoy rightly observes, “. . .the idea of God [for the Greeks] was taken to be also the definition of the highest good . . .” (emphasis added Lovejoy 1936: 316) So, truth, beauty and goodness, understood in their singularity, in their oneness, was God. These Greek ideas were thoroughly incorporated, via a Hellenised Rome, into the original formulation of Christianity. This early Hellenization of Christianity meant that Christians believed that “Our kinship to God is not by nature and necessity, but by the freedom of the gift – by grace . . . [this] gift . . . is closely bound up with the good, the beautiful and the true . . .” (Rolnick 2007: 170) As already observed, this experience of the good was thought to be revealed by logos and legitimized though general agreement. It is by breaking the Western commitment, deeply institutionalized in our legal and political systems even today, to having a relationship with God, of knowing God, that Gnostic Jews believe that they must destroy Western civilization, indeed all civilizations, as being something evil. As none other than Gnostic Jew Theodore Adorno42 wrote, “Anyone who would nail down transcendence can rightly be charged – as by Karl Kaus, for instance – with lack of imagination, anti-intellectualism, and thus a betrayal of transcendence.” (Adorno as see Mendieta 2020: 9) To claim to know God, to claim to know what is good, is, apparently, “anti-intellectualism” and is a betrayal of the true God. This is Gnostic Judaism. The intention of Gnostic Jews is to ensure that the good, the beautiful and the true, God, is no longer experienced. This means that living a “good life”, in a Christian sense, is explicitly rejected by Gnostic Jews as “the way” to live either individually or collectively because we remain ignorant of what is “good”. When the loss of the experience of God is complete, when the good can no longer inform our lives, then not only is Western civilization as historically constituted annihilated, and the Western God, finally mythologized in the form of Jesus Christ, dead43 but “Westerners” as a people with a shared

42

People with a passing familiarity with Theodore Adorno might question the claim that he is motivated by theological commitments, but a deep understanding of his work will show that he was theological throughout and that theology, as will be revealed in this text, is Gnostic Judaism. As Mendieta (2002: 5) observes, “A careful reading of the work produced by the members of the Institute for Social Research, as well as the people attached to it, reveal a sustained and in-depth concern with questions of religion, theology, the sociology of religion, theological metaphysics, and the history of religious ideas.” Many Jews who came to identify with Marxism were in fact Gnostic Jews who hid their theology behind the mask of communism. Of course, I certainly do not ask that this claim be accepted without question, evidence will be presented throughout this document to support this claim, but to note even at this early stage that such concerns are addressed, and such unconventional claims are not simply left unsupported. 43 This is not necessarily a religious claim but merely an observance that historically Western civilizations were informed by an experience of the good, the beautiful and the true whereas today we are increasingly informed by

45 tradition and values, also ceases to exist. It is only their God, implicitly or explicitly, that protects any people from existential extinction. Again, as Jung observed, The opening up of the unconscious always means the outbreak of intense spiritual suffering; it is as when a flourishing civilization is abandoned to invading hordes of barbarians, or when fertile fields are exposed by the bursting of a dam to a raging torrent. . . Man has been aware of this danger since the earliest times, even in the most primitive stages of culture. It was to arm himself against this threat and to heal the damage done that he developed religious and magical practices. (Jung 1955: 240) According to Jung, “religion” was developed so that unconscious drives would remain “underground” and we would live in the eternal light of goodness. By contrast, God’s death is intentionally pursued by Gnostic Jews because then they remove the only barrier to the “invading hordes” of barbarity both within the subject, being ruled by the subconscious drives, and in the world, being ruled immorally. This sense of spiritual protection is captured in the word “religion” which, according to Robert Graves, “. . . can be formed only from the phrase rem legere, “to choose, or pick, the right thing”, and “religion” for the primitive Greeks and Romans was not obedience to laws but a means of protecting the tribe against evil by active counter-measures of good.” (Graves 1971: 478) Religion was always intimate to an experience, and therefore knowledge, of what is “good”. God is a protection both from within, holding back the dark subconscious, and literally without, stopping barbarian, “un-civilized” forces from taking control. It is in this sense that destroying an experience of the divine destroys a people as such. It is by robbing a people of their experience of the divine that they denude them of their very identity, all their vitality, and purpose as a people. 44 As Magid (2008: 23) writes from within the Gnostic Jewish tradition, “. . . the liberation of the divine sparks robs the demonic of any life force because the demonic or evil, in Luria’s imagination, is only sustained by proximity to some form of divinity”. Although the idea of releasing the divine “sparks” from their entrapment within evil seems to be indebted to the Manichean gnostic tradition, Manicheanism interpreted this release as demanding a severe asceticism, in opposition, the Gnostic Jews interpret the liberation of the divine sparks as demanding licentiousness, an immoral permissiveness, and it is through this license that the “evil” of moral restraint will be overcome. In the Gnostic Jewish tradition, the “liberation of divine sparks”, understood as liberating humanity’s natural, primitive drives from the stultifying effects of civilization, becomes the new standard for being “good” and everything once

an instrumental logic which not only turns us away from the good, the beautiful and the true but allows us to be dominated by a very small minority. 44 A recent survey found that 66% of those surveyed disagreed with the statement “Australia would be better off if people were more religious.” This is an indication of just how successful this movement has been at marginalizing all positive religions.

46 characterised as good is to be recast as evil. For this reason, Gnostic Jews often deny that they advance or adhere to a “religion” as such at all but prefer the idea of being “spiritual”. They want everyone to leave “religion”, reject picking the right thing to do, and instead become spiritual, embrace their animal selves. Gnostic Jews are perfectly correct when they identify “religions” with “required belief; worship of forms; dictates of regulated behaviour; [and] ideas of right and wrong” (Wolfe 2009: iv) because these are indeed the very features of religion that protected civilization, both within the subject and in the world, against barbarianism. It is to embrace the uncivilized, the Natural, the barbaric, that is the revaluation of all values or, as their 17th century Jewish messiah Sabbatai Tzevi argued, realizing “redemption through sin”. They argue that it is only through revealing what was once thought to be “evil” as “good” that they rob what they think of as the “demonic”, Christian Western civilization, of its power. It truly is through an experience of God that people collectively identify and are empowered as a people. In place of the old ethos, the “spirit” that constitutes a people, is a new understanding of reality, a new morality, and, ultimately, the domination of a different God. This new God is no longer the God of light, goodness, truth and peace, that has informed Western civilization at least since the time of Plato, but a chthonic god, a God of nature and chaos. A God of disorder. The “Prince of Darkness”. A God that they themselves explicitly identify as Lucifer. As political activist and educator of Hillary Clinton the Gnostic Jew Saul Alinsky wrote acknowledging his debt, Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins— or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer. It is this battle between the God of Christianity, Jesus, and the God of the Gnostic Jews, Lucifer, that we are all engaged in today. As Evola argued, there exists an eternal conflict between the ‘forces of the cosmos against the forces of chaos’, “. . . to the first, corresponds everything that is form, order, law, tradition in the higher sense of the word, spiritual hierarchy; to the second is tied every influence that disintegrates, subverts, degrades, and promotes the predominance of the inferior over the superior, matter over spirit, quantity over quality.” (Evola as seen in Furlong 2011: 46-47) The dominance of the God of chaos and disorder, the worship of a new God, marks the advent of a new epoch. It is the dominance of this new God, Lucifer, that marks, according to Gnostic Jews, the Messianic Age. It was for this reason that the period from the Second World War through until the mid-1990s was called by Gnostic Jew Steve Pinker, the era of “decivilizing”. It was “decivilizing” in terms that these years oversaw the destruction, not only of Western civilization, but civilizations around the world. The initial rebellion marked by the promotion of figures such Marlon Brando, James Dean, Marilyn Munroe and Elvis Presley, was the

47 initial tearing down of Western civilization, especially in the United States, followed by the 1960s “counterculture” with its increasingly drug induced, highly sexualized music, through the destruction and revaluation of the 70s and 80s including punk, the decade when “greed became good”, through to Nirvana’s generation of hyper-sexuality, drugs and conscious self-destruction as liberation. It is only in the aftermath of this decivilizing project, from the early 1950s through to the mid-1990s, that the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt could describe Sweden as “barbaric”. The new era, by contrast, really only positively asserted itself in the dust clouds of September 11. Especially after September 11, there has been a systematic attempt to replace the dominance of Westerners, now characterised as “whiteness”, from positions of power and authority to build a new, functioning, post-Western, post-Christian, primarily matriarchal society. It is for this reason that a number of apologists for our time, Steve Pinker, Joshua Goldstein, and Peter Singer, all try to argue that, despite what many people feel, we are, they claim, today living in the “best of times”. It is not so much that we can actually say that we are living in the best of times but that the measure of “progress”, women in the workforce, population diversity, percentage of children raised in child-care, sexual freedom, etc., has come to reflect the vision of Gnostic Judaism. The new standards to inform society after the reversal of traditional values, as prized by Gnostic Jewry and one that, unlike they claim of Christianity, is primarily oriented by functionality and not morality. This is why Western civilization is in crisis today, because a new civilizational force has usurped traditional power relationships from within and yet the old Western institutions continue to haunt our functional landscape causing tensions between values and institutions that are yet to be properly resolved. As they continuously reassure us, the catastrophes of our times are merely the birth pangs of a new age. When order begins to totter, particularly during the caesura between two historical epochs, [peculiar] forces rise from their subterranean and angular lairs, or even from the zone of their private dissoluteness. Their end is despotism, more or less intelligent, but always shaped after the model of the animal kingdom. Therefore, even in their speeches and writings, they are wont to attribute beastly traits to the victims they strive to annihilate. (Junger as seen in Preparata 2005: 59) It is to nurture these subterranean forces, to manifest humanity in its more animal form, that Gnostic Jews strive to realise. It is the struggle between these two different visions of God, Christ or Lucifer, these two very different accounts of reality itself, Christian and Gnostic Jewish, that is the contest for our souls observed by Buchanan that is taking place in the West. It is a contest between those who believe that a living God that is knowable and experienced in the world should guide people’s lives against those who believe that God is absent from this world, that, from a human perspective at least, God is dead. It is therefore this

48 contest, between those who believe humanity should be humble and obedient to an experience of the good against those who believe that humanity should be proud of who they are naturally and become world destroyers/creators by asserting their basest drives in an ongoing struggle against God. As none other than Gnostic Jew Max Horkheimer observes, Without God one will try in vain to preserve absolute meaning. No matter how independent a given form of expression may be within its own sphere as in art or religion, and no matter how distinct and how necessary in itself, without the belief in God it will have to surrender all claims to being objectively something higher than a practical convenience. . . The death of God is also the death of eternal truth. (Horkheimer as seen in Mendieta 2002: 6) It is the death of truth, which is Jesus Christ, the reduction of everything to a “practical convenience” that gnostic Jews hope to realise. They fight to destroy our experience of God, not simply out of malice or cruelty, but because they believe that traditional Christian beliefs that God guides human action is an evil belief and that this evil belief has resulted in the West falsely believing in objective reality, true meaning and moral agency and it is this falsehood that must be destroyed for the good of all humanity. They embrace the dictum, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” as an indubitable guiding truth. This is why the cultural revolution unfolding in the West today is so deeply ontological. People like Horkheimer, Adorno, and Kojeve, believe and argue that the “true situation”, now only stated ironically, is one where God is experienced as absent.45 In realty, they believe, this world is meaningless and there is no objective truth because God is no longer present in this world. The culture wars are a struggle between two very different conceptions of God, a present living God or an absent God. As James Dobson wrote, Nothing short of a great Civil War of Values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in a bitter conflict that permeates every level of society. . . It is a war over ideas. And someday soon, I believe, a winner will emerge, and the loser will fade from memory. For now, the outcome is very much in doubt. On one side of this Continental Divide are the traditionalists whose values begin with the basic assumption that “God is. . .” [The other holds] the basic assumption that “God isn’t . . . (Dobson 1995: 29) Those Dobson labels the “traditionalists” are those who value the Graeco-Christian tradition that has broadly informed Western civilization for millennia, sometimes more forcefully sometimes with less authority, but it is a tradition that has always been at play in the West since ancient Greece as that towards which we should aspire. Traditionalists are those who worship a living God that is, in some way and to

45

It is this presence in being absent that informs the irony of all truth claims. The claim that God is only present in being not there has the same onto-theological standing of truth claims that are made in the absence of truth.

49 some degree, knowable. The uniqueness of Christianity, which must be acknowledged especially in an age when all religions are thought to be the same, is believing in a living God that can be known. No other religious tradition in the world advances these basic beliefs. It is also these very beliefs, that God is living and can be known that people no longer accept. As Jung observed in 1933, People no longer feel themselves to have been redeemed by the death of Christ; they cannot believe – they cannot compel themselves to believe, however happy they may deem the man who has a belief. Sin has for them become something quite relative: what is evil for one, is good for the other. After all, why should not Buddha be in the right, also? (Jung 1955: 232) In truth, that Christians believe they know God, that He is a living God, as revealed in the New Testament, that is experienced in their lives and that this knowledge manifests an enduring reality that has an absolute claim over our lives as objective truth, is indeed unique to Christianity and has proven itself historically to be superior to other ways of believing.46 This distinction was what differentiated the word of Christ from other Jewish traditions. As an author wrote at the turn of the 20th century, “According to the fancy of the Pharisees47 in all ages . . . their great mistake . . . they did not know God.” (as cited in Heinze 2004: 16) Against Western Christianity, Gnostic Jews believe that God is utterly mysterious, unknowable, not a part of this world, irrelevant for informing human actions, and therefore should be treated as though He is dead. It truly is a contest between those who believe that “God is” against those who believe, living in this world at least, that “God is not”. It has to be appreciated, the more active God the more passive is humanity and visa versa. If you have an active living God guiding our lives, then our task is to obey Him whereas if God has withdrawn then it is left to humanity to value the world in terms of what works for him. The contest is this simple. Dobson, therefore, rightly observes that the so-called “culture war”, that is not only being waged in North America but throughout the Anglosphere and the West more generally,

46

This will be a confronting idea to most contemporary Western readers. Not that long ago I too would have found the idea that our lives should be guided by an experience of God confronting. I have certainly not believed in God for most of my life. What I have discovered is that there are two broad reasons why so many people today find such arguments difficult to appreciate, firstly we have lost the true meaning of what is being claimed by Christianity. Great Western minds have spoken of a living God for millennia which should be some evidence that it cannot be a claim that should be easily dismissed. Secondly, the reason why most people respond skeptically Christianity is because today, we are raised, from childhood, to dismiss claims that God should be a guiding light in our lives. Every Hollywood movie mocks Christianity. That so many people do accept the claim that God is dead is not an indication of independent critical thought but simply shows how successful those revealed in these pages have been at shaping the way we think. 47 The Pharisees was a term used to be equal to “Jew”. It was understood that the Pharisees, which are criticised by Jesus, were the founders of Judaism. As Travers Hereford, an English scholar of Judaism wrote, “. . . though the name [Pharisee] be now disused, the principles of PHarisaism have been maintained down to the present day; and it si these, more than anything else, which have kept Judaism as a living religion.”

50 is also theological. That there is a theological component to the culture wars has also been noted by Pluckrose and Lindsay (2020) who observed that the culture wars show an incredible capacity to change “spiritual worldviews”, “each of which adopts its own interpretive frame through which it sees the entire world.” This new “interpretive frame” is opposed to everything that Christianity once held sacred. As Daniel Moynihan observed, No doubt there is a struggle going on in this country of the kind the Germans used to call a Kulturkampf (culture struggle or culture war). The adversary culture which dominates almost all channels of information transfer and opinion formation has never been stronger, and as best I can tell it has come near to silencing the representatives of traditional America. (Moynihan as seen in Furedi 2020a) Surprisingly, as D’Souza observes, despite this radical revaluation of everything that the West once most prized, . . . there has been no serious debate in America over the moral content of American popular culture. America has witnessed huge changes in its culture over the past few decades, changes that put contemporary American values sharply at odds not only with non-Western cultures but also with the values of America’s own past. . . there has been a coarsening, a debasement, a collapse of standards in American culture that makes much of it intolerable to older Americans. . . (D’Souza 2007) To be clear, this is not simply a struggle between those who believe in God and those who do not, as it may sometimes appear and is sometimes portrayed, a kind of “progress” towards secularization, but primarily a struggle between those who believe God is knowable, and therefore significant in human affairs, against those who believe that God is unknowable and plays no part on our lives. It is not a struggle between theists and atheists but, as already observed, a religious contest between competing theologies with different visions of reality and different conceptions of humanity’s place in the world in relation to different conceptions of God. It is a political contest that is at heart something deeply religious, as Pluckrose and Lindsay (2020) observed, and certainly has ontological implications. As Nietzsche, a committed Gnostic (although not Jewish) predicted, there will come a time when “the notion of politics will completely dissolve into a spiritual war, and all configurations of power from the old society will be exploded”. (EC Why I am Destiny: 1) This “explosion” will not only mark the dissolution of former configuration of power but will mark, according to Nietzsche, the end of Western civilization. We are living towards the end of this explosion today. The old configurations of power are indeed being delegitimized and are being reconfigured to allow new expression of power. This new ordering of society marks the advent, the realization, of a New Age – the Messianic Age.

51 What is at stake in this spiritual war, therefore, is not only the existence of an ethos derived from a contested understanding of God but, as is always the case in theological disagreements, a contest about the nature of reality itself. As has already been observed, this is an ancient contest that has been fought ever since ancient Greece turned to the Apollonian and recognised it as being superior to the chthonic Dionysian. This contest has gone on for so long that those who know about it have characterised it as the “eternal war”. Evola, I think rightly, believed that all “History is the unfolding in time and space of the cyclical struggle between tradition and the forces of disorder, disintegration, contingency and lack of differentiation, which are inherent in the processes of becoming. Modernity is the culmination of the temporary success of the forces of disorder, the Age of Darkness. . .” (Furton 2011: 9) As self-confessed Gnostic Jew Harold Bloom wrote in his fictionalized Gnostic novel that predicted the end of Western civilization, the aptly named, The Flight to Lucifer, Between the cosmos, between all of the heavenly systems and spaces, and the true, alien God, our Abyss, there was eternal war. In that war, a person’s self or spark fought on the side of the alien God. But the sparks have fallen into the cosmos; they sleep in the prison of the cosmos, and do not know how to escape from that prison. The call from the Abyss calls to freedom. But the battle is endless, and even the spark that has answered the call cannot go home to freedom until all the systems and spaces are destroyed. (Bloom 1979: 240) As will be expanded upon shortly and then elaborated upon throughout this volume, this is a succinct account of how Gnostic Jews understand this contest. They believe that our “inner selves”, what the Gnostic Jews Sigmund Freud described as Id, is fighting on behalf of Lucifer, one name for their God, the “alien god”, while the conscious self, understood as the Super Ego, is fighting for cosmic order. Jesus Christ is the God of order, an Apollonian figure. As it says in John 3: 16, God sent his son “. . .that the world through Him might be saved.” Literally, the “world”, order or being, is saved through Jesus Christ. We now live in a time when the eternal war is being won by the dark forces of chaos that dwell in the shadowy Abyss. They are successfully conquering the once bright light of goodness but unlike the forces of goodness they will not hesitate for one minute to physically annihilate those that resist.48 These dark forces believe that there is an “eternal war” in the cosmos, that which was once understood simply in terms of the “world” or everything that is, against the Abyss, the undifferentiated oneness of Nature wherein nothing exists.49 As Leo Strauss observed, “What you call nihil the falasifa call physis.” (Strauss as

48

To resist is to remain free and the only option to survive, as Kojeve makes clear, is as a Slave. In some ways this is a play on words. It is in the Abyss that the “Nothing”, Nature, exists in terms of being nothing. 49

52 seen in Lazier 2009: 137) What you call nothingness the thinker calls nature. This is, therefore, a struggle between being and not being or, as individuals, the choice between to be or not to be, the ego or the Id, light and darkness, civilization or chaos. This explains why the struggle against “whiteness” is so ontological in nature. The philosopher and Gnostic Jew Franz Rosenzweig claimed in his extremely influential fin de siècle classic the Star of Redemption, that it is through engagement in this very conflict that there is an eternal enmity between Jew and Christian. (Kavka & Rashkover 2014: 184) Of course, Gnostic Jews are not alone in identifying this war in these terms. The important German Catholic writer, Franz Schronghamer-Heimdal, claimed that there was an apocalyptic “eternal” struggle taking place between, “Christ and antichrist” which he characterised as being between the “eternal German” and the “eternal Jew.” (Hastings 2009: 1) This is a war being fought between the forces of light and the forces of darkness and is, therefore, also a war being enacted within every individual subject, every single day, in everything that we do. Again, as it says in John 3: 19, “. . . men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” This is a war that can be characterised as one between a person’s inner self, their “natural drives”, what Gnostic Jews characterise as “the spark” or the “human spirit” that Bloom presents as fighting to “free” itself from cosmic order, the Abyss, and that cosmic order, the ideals of heaven, moral constraint. The sparks about which Gnostic Jews write are truly within each of us. They are the nagging natural drives that can never be permanently sated and therefore offer no promise of contentedness against the heavenly ideal within which one finds fulfillment and an enduring peace. The heavenly ideal has always been understood in the Western tradition as being outside of the subject, beckoning, “speaking”, welcoming us into a civilized world. The Gnostic tradition argues that the “sparks” of true heaven have fallen into Being, into a world, dwelling as unconscious drives, that have been imprisoned by a false experience of the “good”. These sparks, greed, homosexuality, jealousy, can only be freed, as again Bloom suggests, by destroying not only everything once understood to be “good” in the world but by destroying the historical experience of goodness itself. It has been believed in the Western tradition, as observed even by the ancient philosophers, that humanity must responds to the call of the good/God. Gnostic Jews believe, in polar opposition, that it is Nature that ultimately motivates humanity, and it is these natural drives that strive to enter into reality. By following Lucifer, also known in the gnostic Jewish tradition as the Shechinah, the “sparks” escape from the prison of Being, what Westerner’s characterise as “reality”, and seeks to return to true heaven. It is the task of Gnostic Jews, therefore, as the chosen of their God, Lucifer, to free these sparks by destroying the prison of Being. The fullest expression in history of Being was Western civilization. The Abyss is understood by most people today, in our contemporary age, as the space of “individual freedom” or “self-expression”. The Abyss moves into the world through

53 pride. It is after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that Man believed Himself to be the arbiter of values. As Karl Barth writes of the fallen condition, Man has now become a tarnished mirror in which the glory of God can no longer be reflected. To be man means now to be an enemy of God and this means to be the destroyer of one’s own proper glory. To make use of the existence, dignity and freedom given to us means now that we go farther along the well-trodden by-path, in our life as a whole and in all its details, and thus become ever more deeply and completely involved in our corruption. To be in the world now means to be lost in the midst of powers, figures and events, which, after we became men without a lord, ceased likewise to have a lord, and so to have any significance for us. To exist as God’s creature means now to be subject to death and eternal death at that, to be subject to everlasting vanity which is the inevitable counterpart of the eternal efficaciousness of the ordinance which we have broken. . . Above all it is impossible for him to undo or to make amends for his sin itself. (Barth 1938: 50-51) According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, Man remains in this condition of living in the absence of God’s grace as they do not believe in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As we were not redeemed by Jesus then the task remains to redeem Man with God. This redemption is achieved through destroying this illusionary world that, in the West, is informed by Christianity. To do this, Gnostic Jews have entered enthusiastically into battle with the forces of goodness. The battle will only be finally won, according to the Jewish Gnostic tradition, when the cosmos, as such, order, is ultimately destroyed. Both sides fight for their conception of Pleroma, perfection, it is just that this vision is diametrically opposed. One is the vision of the Western tradition that finds its voice in post-Constantinian Christianity, as expressed in the Gospels, while the other is the vision of Lucifer who was portrayed tempting Jesus with earthly pleasures which He overcame. In the Western tradition, destruction of Being has been understood as the very definition of evil. As Eagleton nicely summarizes, . . .evil is not fundamentally mysterious, even though it transcends everyday social conditioning. Evil as I see it is indeed metaphysical, in the sense that it takes up an attitude towards being as such, not just towards this or that bit of it. Fundamentally, it wants to annihilate the lot of it. But this is not to suggest that it is necessarily supernatural, or that it lacks all human causality. (Eagleton 2010) Eagleton is perfectly correct, evil is the desire to annihilate Being, and this is most certainly not a “supernatural” act but is most certainly something dependent upon “human causality”. The cosmic fighters, Western civilization, strive towards the good, towards Being, and realizing an enduring world whereas the Abysmal fighters strive towards darkness, chaos, the Nothing, the emptiness of Lucifer.

54 This conflict, this “eternal war”, can today be understood as a “culture war”. German Jewish Marxist intellectual Herbert Marcuse, who, again, should rightly be identified as a Gnostic Jew50, observed that the American “cultural revolution not only precedes and prepares the soil for the political revolution. . . it has . . . absorbed the political revolution”. (Inglehart 1977: 17) In the United States, the political revolution is being waged first in terms of a cultural revolution. Unlike the Gnostic inspired Marxist revolution in the former Soviet Union, which ultimately failed to realize a gnostic vision because it used the flawed strategy, where there was first a political revolution that was then supposed to be followed by a cultural revolution as also occurred in China, in the United States, from the end of World War II, it was argued that there should first be a cultural revolution that would ultimately realize a political revolution. The Western strategy is in many ways the reverse of that tried in communist countries but has been very successful. In order to achieve revolutionary change in the United States, as will be explained at length, there was no need to first wrest political power, control the institutions of power, but political change was to be realised through cultural change. The cultural values would be changed first, by controlling the production of knowledge, to be followed, without resistance, indeed praised as “liberators”, by a political revolution. The political leaders that advance the Gnostic vision well may not even be Jewish but to be politically successful, to be successful in any sphere, one must promote the new cultural agenda. James Hunter called this “cultural revolution” the fundamental contest between competing worldviews, a “culture war” or “a protracted competition for cultural hegemony”. As American Jew Andrew Breitbart, of Breitbart News fame, nicely quipped expressing this priority, “politics is downstream from culture”. Culture is that which we now call that thing that determines the parameters in which political disputes can take place, determines the acceptable and the unacceptable, the good and the evil. Indeed, as has happened in the United States, once a cultural revolution has been carried through then certain topics transcend political debate and are just accepted without dispute. To question such newly consecrated ideas is then to become something evil. It cannot be discussed, it is not a topic of academic concern, it is beyond dispute. Examples today mark the victories in the culture wars, women working and accepted as social leaders, gender as a choice, homosexuality, opposing systemic racism, gender relationships

50

Gnostic Jews rarely identify publicly in terms of being a Gnostic Jew. Harold Bloom is one of the few exceptions. Many who advocate Gnosticism may not even know that they are themselves Gnostic, but they can be identified by what they argue. In many ways, this text will empower the reader how to rightly identify a Gnostic Jew or, indeed, any gnostic. (There is a Christian variant and Nietzsche voiced what might be called Teutonic Gnosticism) Not all Jews are gnostic and not all gnostics are Jews but they all advance a particular political agenda, and it is through this agenda that they reveal themselves as who they are. “You will know them by their fruit.” Matthew 7:16

55 understood as a power struggle, access to readily available and subsidised abortion51, belief in white privilege, no-blame divorce, sexual liberation . . . etc., etc. Primary school children today are taught to deny the very possibility of universal truth claims as an incontestable fact despite the troublesome nature of such a claim. This is what a cultural victory manifests. Although some of these issues remain contested, the aim of gnostic Jewry in achieving its cultural revolution is to lift these beliefs above political contest so that they truly are merely “culture” as such. This depoliticization allows certain beliefs to be imposed on all cultures around the world and any resistance is portrayed as barbarity. Cultural wars are about who will determine what is to be viewed as “good” and what will be viewed as “evil”, what will be experienced as “base” and what will be experienced as “noble”, what will be encountered as “beautiful” and what will be seen as “ugly”, if there will be “truth” and “falsehood” or if all such claims will be reduced to “power”. What is at stake in this contest, therefore, in this cultural war, is literally everything. As everything, the cosmos, is at stake in this culture war, ultimate victory can only be achieved through ethnocide or the total destruction of another’s ethnic identity. As is evident for anybody who cares to look, it is the Western ethnic identity today that is being destroyed. This destruction is why Westerners no longer feel authorized to pass judgement, their view no longer has any legitimacy. With the knowledge presented in this volume, with the truth, we can, with compassion and restraint proper to the Graeco-Christian tradition, resist this invasion from within,52 resist the moral wasteland of the coming eternal night and become vigilant for the rising of the new moral dawn. As Charles Weissmann said about this very same matter, “Before we can properly act, we need a proper, not just a superficial, understanding of the problem.” This volume is primarily intended to give this “deep understanding”. Every care will be taken to avoid superficiality and error which might result in injustice, so that not only the West can be informed in order to make substantial decisions about the future but so that those who practice any kind of cataphatic, or “positive” religion, can be empowered to move forward with confidence and finally effectively respond to the crisis of Western civilization. Gnostic Judaism

51

Although cast in a different light today, in the past, abortions were understood to be the actions of women who succumbed to the sin of lust. As it said in an ancient Christian account of Hell where women who procured an abortion would be cast into a deep pit of excrement while their aborted children would shoot flashes of lighting into their eyes because, “for fornication’s sake have caused their [the children’s] destruction”. (As seen in Ehrman 2020) 52 The invasion within ourselves and the invasion within our society.

56 As it is being claimed that Gnostic Jews are destroying Western civilization as part of a theopolitical project, the place to start to understand this movement and explain why it wants to destroy the West and why it is taking the strategy that is with a brief introduction of what exactly is Gnostic Judaism. The Need for Secrecy Even though Gnostic Judaism is the single most influential religious movement in the world today, commanding the strict obedience of millions, most people, even those who march on the street passionately fighting for its various causes53, would, most certainly, have never even heard of it. The invisibility of Gnostic Judaism is certainly not an expression of this movement’s incapacity but an indication of its potency. Clearly stated ideas can generate resistance and this movement is determined above everything to avoid resistance. It hopes to achieve its ends without anybody even knowing that they have been manipulated into embracing a heretical theo-political agenda. By working in the shadows, by keeping to the dark, by remaining elitist, this movement has managed to keep its identity and motivations secret from the world while making that world bend to its will. This secrecy has allowed this theo-political movement to thrive uncontested. This strategy of secrecy and deception has enabled Gnostic Judaism to make incredible strides in reversing the values of Western civilization without encountering resistance. As our world evinces, they have been extremely successful. Gnostic Jews self-identify in terms of being a small group of marginalized “outsiders” who must secretly struggle against an overwhelming power of evil forces. The instigators of these evil forces are primarily white, Christian, males. It must be appreciated, that when Gnostic Jew Stan Lee (born Stanley Lieber) helped create his comic superheroes, X-Men, Iron Man, Hulk, Black Panther and Doctor Strange, he had the struggle of Gnostic Jews against Western Christianity at the forefront of his thoughts. Gnostic Jews see themselves as being like these “superheroes”, misunderstood gifted outsiders, superior to those amongst whom they live, continuously fighting their secret struggle against evil forces disguised as just ordinary people. These “agents of change” must remain disguised as “normal” people, journalists, doctors etc., in order to achieve their world shaping goals.54 The importance of secrecy was emphasised by the

53

I met an Ethiopian Jew, a drug dealer, who was certainly fighting for the entire gnostic agenda and although he identified as a Jew, he was unfamiliar with the term “gnostic”. He would speak of their agenda, “fixing what is broken”, but had no idea that this was not just Judaism. Despite being totally ignorant of the Talmud and the rabbinic tradition he had never seemed to even ask why his practices were so different to so many other Jews. This is to observe that not only are many people fighting for the gnostic cause ignorant of gnosticism but many gnostic Jews themselves are unaware about that for which they fight. 54 All of these comics have clear Gnostic themes. They show people gifted with special abilities having to hide their true selves while fighting for their beliefs to be accepted in the world. Prior to movies, comics were used to

57 founder of modern Gnostic Judaism, Sabbatai Tzevi, in the 17th century. He argued that proponents of Gnostic Judaism needed to lie and remain hidden, even from Rabbinic Jews, if they were to achieve their destructive/creative agenda. Indeed, deception was especially important when promoting ideas that were not only noxious to the historically dominant Christian tradition within which most Jews have historically lived but was most especially required, when trying to progress ideas that would have been thought heretical in the broader Jewish tradition. For centuries, really until the late 19th century, Gnostic Jews feared Orthodox Jewry more than they feared Christianity. For this reason, they initially focused their attention on Western European Jewry to ensure that they nurtured a particular kind of enmity towards Jews before turning their attention on Western society.55 It was other Jews who were the greatest threat to Gnostic Judaism in the 18th and 19th centuries, not Christianity. It must be appreciated, as Jewish critic of Gnostic Judaism, Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman (2007) makes clear in his extremely important two volume set, To Eliminate the Opiate, Sabbatian inspired Jews are secretly trying to eliminate all positive religions and that includes Orthodox Judaism as much as Christianity. As the British Jewish author Peter Wilberg (2017) also rightly wrote, Gnosticism “. . . took the form of a spiritual critique of the ruling gods of the era - the gods of both Old and New Testament ‘orthodoxy’ . . . Along with this spiritual critique went political opposition to the priestly and political powers or archons which represented these gods and their theologies.” Old Testament Orthodoxy is just as threatened with extinction as is the new. Gnostic Jews have managed to achieve a great deal, fundamentally changing Western civilization, in less than 150 years. They have been so successful because they have managed to decouple their sociopolitical aspirations from their religious inspiration thereby making their theo-political agenda appear as secular “liberation struggles”. For example, if people knew that opposing “toxic masculinity” or promoting “transgender rights”, was all in truth just different expressions of the same religious agenda, then people might be more cautious in obediently supporting such movements. The reason why Gnostic Jews support transgender “rights” has little to do with transgender people but is primarily informed by the Gnostic belief that the God Most High is properly androgynous, without a specific gender allocation, and, as Man

communicate these ideas directly to children because children are more impressionable than adults and therefore, like DreamWorks today, it was important to shape the children’s thinking before they were captured by the evil ideas of Western Christian civilization. At the time, the subversive nature of comics was appreciated and written about in Fredric Wertham’s book, Seduction of the Innocent. This volume resulted in increased scrutiny of the comic industry by government which, in turn, led to the voluntary adoption of the Comics Code Authority in 1954 to regulate content. Although it did control the more extreme Gnostic expressions and overly sexualized images, everything returned to normal once the furore had died down. 55 Their argument was, as might be predicted from what has been written so far, that the way Jews naturally want to live their lives is being denied by Christian society therefore if they are to be liberated to express their authentic selves then they must destroy Christian society.

58 was made in God’s image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he them,” therefore, humanity is also rightly androgynous. As this is the case, then that there are genders in the world must be simply an expression of human power. As an expression of human power, “gender” is part of the evil world of white, Christian men that must be overcome in order to realize the world as originally created by God. Realizing the world as created by God is to move towards redemption. As Gershom Scholem (1971) observed, “the union of opposites and their neutralization in the principle of unity” will herald a time of “harmony and eternal peace” or what Gnostic Jews understand to be the Messianic Age. That all binaries are properly understood as unities is Gnosticism or it is the knowledge that informs their spirituality. As influential author Arthur Drews wrote, Gnosticism also involves a completely dualistic philosophy in its opposition of God and world, of spirit and matter, of soul and body, etc., but all its efforts are directed to overcoming these contradictions by supernatural mediation and magical contrivances. It treats the “Gnosis”, the knowledge, the proper insight into the coherence of things, as the necessary condition of redemption. (Drews 1998: 18) One of the theological projects of gnostic Jewry, as part of this task of unification, is to ultimately manifest everyone as androgynous. Their hope is that the day will come when nobody identifies with a gender, “man” or “woman”, thereby overcoming the opposition of male and female. By moving beyond male and female, Gnostic Jews believe that they are moving closer to redemption. To “allow” everyone to be what Gnostic Jews believe to be their “true selves”, androgynous in this example, is conceived in their mind, and promoted as such in our universities, as a liberation project. This is liberating people from the stultifying effects of the artificially imposed gender allocations of civilization. They believe they are liberating people to their true natural selves as created by God. In the near future, they believed, people will no longer be mesmerized by human “constructs”, human “idols”, such as “gender”, that have been historically buttressed by false religious teachings such as Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. This is why we live, according to the gnostic Kojeve, at what he describes as the end of history. History is the changing understandings of objective constructions justified in terms of false gods. The past becomes the past with the construction of new objectivities supported by the creation of new gods. Once these changing “norms” are revealed as merely historically imbedded “constructions”, as an expression of human power, then history, as such, has come to an end. There will be no new construction of gender because gender will cease to exist. Opposing toxic masculinity, promoting trans-gender, creating “unisex” toilets, and demonizing traditional understandings of femininity, have all been strategies intended to achieve the same outcome, ensuring that gender no longer has a claim over our lives. As a core belief, Gnostic Jews argue that when opposites that exist in the world, man/women, good/evil, order/chaos, are no longer

59 meaningful, then God, in His/her unity, will once again dwell in the world. It is with God’s entry into the world that the long anticipated Messianic Age of the Jews will begin. The Messianic Age is a utopian time as it is a time without judgement. It is a time without distinction, without hierarchies, and therefore, supposedly, a time of peace. The danger is that if this argument was made explicit, that we must overcome traditional gender identity, which is at least thousands of years old, in order to acknowledge our supposed primordial androgyny as advanced by a heretical religious sect that originated in the 17th century by somebody who claimed to be God, then people would obviously be a lot less enthusiastic about supporting their theo-political program. Indeed, people might even begin to question why the religious beliefs of Gnostic Jews are superior to the religious beliefs of the Christian tradition that has informed Western civilization for millennia. Young people fighting for “universal human rights” is one thing, they can feel that they are doing “good” in the world by liberating people who have been historically oppressed but fighting on behalf of a heretical religious movement with its origins in the 17th century, is something completely different. In short, it is because nobody has heard of Jewish Gnosticism or understands their theo-political program that they have been so successful at implementing their agenda with little or no organized resistance. A former BBC journalist expressing bafflement at the inexplicable bias at the BBC for what he understood as “political correctness” observed that what these “progressives” argue cannot be easily labelled “leftist”, because they certainly did not promote a progressive economic agenda, indeed, quite the opposite, but they did indeed forcefully advance what has become understood as a “progressive” social agenda. At every opportunity they promote radical feminism, multiculturalism, pro-immigration, anti-nationalism, and pro-homosexuality. It is only when the theological aspirations of Gnostic Judaism are understood that this bias that has come to dominate the BBC, as in most public broadcasters throughout the West, becomes understandable. That is why this volume is so important and so dangerous. The Origins and History of Gnostic Judaism It is widely recognised today that Jewish Gnosticism was the original “Gnostic” movement. Although there continues to be debate from those who seek clearer evidence of gnostic origins within Judaism (Burns 2019), the dominant theory today of the origins of Gnosticism is that gnostic Judaism emerged from out of the Jewish tradition itself and was then spread to Christian and Greek communities later. As Bos observes, Now the older theory (1) that Gnosticism represents a corruption of Christianity has long been criticized. But the alternative theory (2) that it was a wild offshoot of Greek philosophy has also received considerable attack during the past few decades. The view which is most

60 generally supported at present, that of G. Quispel and R. M. Grant, is (3) that Gnosticism is a movement which was rooted in and inspired by the Jewish tradition. (Bos 1994: 2) Luminaries of Gnostic scholarship including Moritz Friedlander, Gershom Scholem, Gilles Quispel, Robert Wilson, Hans-Martin Schenke, Karl-Walfgang Troger, Birger Pearson, Kurt Rudolph and Christoph Markschies have all concluded that Gnosticism has Jewish origins. (Trompf 2019c) Although it is generally agreed that Gnostic Judaism is germane to the Jewish tradition, it is uncertain exactly how many years before it was adopted by the Greeks and Christians that Gnosticism existed amongst Jews. Within Gnostic Judaism, there can be seen influences from Ancient Egyptian mythology, Greek philosophy and the Chaldean religion. (Beer as seen in Kilcher 2010: 14) It has been widely accepted that Jewish Gnosticism was influenced by Greek philosophy in the centuries between the end of the reign of the Babylonians (332 BC), during which time Gnosticism was established, and the advent of Jesus (around 30 AD). Revered Israeli scholar of the Jewish mystic tradition, Gershom Scholem56, argued that Gnostic Judaism can certainly be detected in the ancient Jewish mystical Hekhalot and Merkabah literature that dates from the centuries preceding the birth of Christ.57 (Scholem 1941: 40-79) Scholem claimed that “Christian Gnosticism was in part preceded by a somewhat similar development in the midst of Judaism.” (emphasis added Scholem 1965: 2) Although it is generally agreed today that Jewish Gnosticism preceded the betterknown Christian and Pagan forms of Gnosticism by at least a few centuries, exactly when Gnostic Judaism emerged continues to be contested. Important scholar on ancient Judaism, Friedlander, argued that Jewish Gnosticism was the result of “. . .the cultural and religious situation in the Jewish Diaspora prior to the time of Jesus”. This is to suggest that Gnostic Judaism emerged originally outside of the Levant, most probably getting its final gloss in the Hellenised city of Alexandria, and was then introduced from there into “Israel”. Consistent with this belief, Pearson claimed that Jewish Gnosticism presents “. . . a situation

56

Gershom Scholem is the pre-eminent scholar on every aspect of Jewish Gnosticism. Although not having a “classic” Gnostic background, he was neither an Eastern European Jew nor raised within Hasidism, he certainly became this movements most influential intellectual by the middle of the 20 th century. Scholem was probably introduced to Gnosticism by Zalman Shazar and, most importantly, Shai Agnon. Scholem was not only a scholar of the highest order but an enthusiastic political activist. His work directly influenced important Gnostic thinkers like Martin Buber, Leo Strauss and Walter Benjamin. He was extremely well respected amongst Jewish scholars for decades although, most recently, some are beginning to find fault with his conclusions. 57 The origins of Christianity in a Jewish context well may have arisen out of a contest between Gnostic and Hellenized Jews with the Hellenized Jews becoming “Christians”. The pre-Christian Jewish Book of Wisdom seems to present a Christian ethos without acknowledging a redeemer, while demonizing a Gnostic ethos. From these competing communities, the two traditions may have emerged. As it says in Chapter II, “He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord.” Eric Peterson has also argued that there existed a preChristian stratum in Judaism that was engaging with Gnostic ideas. Indeed, interestingly, the entire New Testament can be read as an attack on Jewish Gnosticism. This would mean that the Rabbinic tradition is a kind of Third Way between Christianity and Jewish Gnosticism.

61 in which the ‘new wine’ of Hellenistic culture and philosophy was being put into the ‘old wineskins’ of Jewish religion.” (2006: 12) Pearson is referring to a time when Hellenistic ideas dominated the entire Eastern Mediterranean and this dominance, he is arguing, as have others such as German historian von Harnack (Burns 2019), then shaped what came to be thought of as “Jewish thinking” in the centuries from Alexander the Great through to Jesus. This is to argue that a form of Judaism existed prior to Gnostic influences but this original form of Judaism was then corrupted by the influence of Greek philosophy that resulted in Gnostic Judaism. This conclusion would mean that those who fought against Gnostic influences in the third century AD, were fighting for the authentic Judaism against foreign influences. This idea was the one that has dominated intellectual thinking for centuries. Although the argument that gnosticism was introduced into existing Jewish communities in the centuries preceding the birth of Christ, not everyone agrees that Gnostic Judaism had its origins in this period of Greek cultural dominance. In the late 19th century, some Jews embraced the idea that Jewish Gnosticism preceded Judaism by centuries and therefore it should be understood as the “true” expression of Judaism. By this account, Gnosticism emerged so early in the development of Judaism that true Judaism has “Gnosticism at its core”. (Lazier 2009: 158) The Ancient Greeks, for example, possibly granting some insight into the origins of Judaism, believed that Judaism broadly was just a corrupted form of Egyptian theology, like their own religious traditions, that they unfavourably compared to its highly respected ancestor. (Boys-Stones 2001: 68-69) Because of such claims, some scholars argue that Gnostic Judaism became autonomous directly from primarily Egyptian sources and that this occurred as early as the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (1500 BC). This break with Egyptian spiritual beliefs is recounted metaphorically, they argue, in the Exodus myth which is actually an account of the separation of Jewish spiritual beliefs from Egyptian sources. As one of the core beliefs of Gnostic Judaism is to deny that humanity has knowledge of good and evil, it is argued that Gnostic Judaism is a continuation of the beliefs that preceded the Axial Age. If this is the case, then Gnostic Judaism might be understood as the authentic expression of Judaism that preceded the historically more popular and historically dominant nomian form of Judaism. This legalistic form, it is argued by such scholars, was introduced relatively late to the Jewish people by one of the “new Axial Age elite”, Ezra. It was Ezra, it is theorized, who, under the influence of the Babylonians, introduced the moralizing, patriarchal religion that has more recently become known as Orthodox Judaism. As Herford wrote, “Devotion to Torah, and the duty of regulating life, whether individual or national, according to its precepts, were of the essence of the Judaism which took its character from Ezra.” (Herford 1912) Ezra was a 5th century BC Jewish Priest who returned from the Babylonian Exile to “reintroduce” the teachings of Torah to the people of Jerusalem. People who argue

62 for the more ancient origin of Gnostic Judaism, preceding Ezrian Judaism, claim that it was Ezra who brought to the Jewish people the new ideas of the Axial Age from Babylon thereby corrupting the original, what we think of as “gnostic”, form of Judaism. It was Ezra who turned Judaism into a positive moralizing religion that has since dominated “Jews” for millennia. It is because Gnosticism was not derived from Babylonian sources that attempts to find the origins of Gnosticism in Persian sources have always failed. (Burns 2019) Gnostic Judaism was not, by this account, a “new wine poured into an old wineskin” but originally something entirely new, from extremely ancient sources, from which outside influences, especially Babylonian, managed to corrupt. If it is true that what we might label gnostic Judaism is the original form of Judaism or if it was a later corruption of the original Judaism is not what is really important here but how this particular historical account worked as a kind of “political myth” to shape 20th century Judaism is informative. As McCauly observed, “Those who disseminate these myths often do so because they want to believe they are true and because believing them is advantageous.” (McCauly 1993:77) That gnostic Judaism was the original form of Judaism gained some popularity in the late 19th century, just as the Gnostic Jewish revival gained momentum amongst Western European Jewish intellectuals who had become disenchanted with what they thought were the “Medieval” and “ignorant” practices of what had become known as “Orthodox Judaism”.58 They argued that the rabbinate advanced a “fossilized” religious tradition that encouraged quietism which enabled Christians to be dominant. The emergent gnostic tradition argued that by embracing this “new” activist expression of Judaism then this relationship of domination could be reversed. Promoting the argument that gnostic Judaism was the authentic expression of Judaism helped to advance this agenda amongst global Jewry in the early decades of the 20th century.59 This is a similar dynamic to what was taking place in the early centuries of Christianity when Christian gnostics “claimed

58

The term “Orthodox Jew” is actually a relatively recent invention. It was first applied to certain Jews by Abraham Furtado in relation to the famous, or infamous, Sanhedrin (meeting) conferred by Napoleon Bonaparte in the early 19th century intended to solve the “Jewish Question”. The term “Orthodox Jew” was used to distinguish between who was thought of at that time as “traditional” Jews, who prioritized the interpretations of Jewish law presented in the Talmud, or what Antelman understand as “Judaism proper”, and Jews who appeared to have been more assimilated into Western culture. (Antelman 2007) 59 Although use of the term global Jewry is often criticized, the truth is that Jews always act and talk as though being part of a global community. If a Jew wins a Nobel Prize the Jewish newspaper write about Jewish talents not that they are American or British. If a Jew achieves sporting success, then Jewish newspapers write about the incredible success of Jews in sports around the world. If a Jews finds themselves in a difficult legal situation or even in jail, the Israeli government will often intervene and advocate on that individual’s behalf. In books one reads for example, if the influence of Jews in China who “come from all over the world”. In truth, Jews are allowed to think in global terms it is only non-Jews who are not allowed to think or write about “global Jewry”.

63 to be offering a superior and more authentic exposition of Holy Scripture. . .” while “orthodox” Christianity claimed the movement was heretical. (von Balthasar 1981) Whatever the truth to claims that Gnostic Judaism was actually the original form of “Judaism” as such, it most certainly cannot be denied that Gnostic Judaism was marginalized by those who practiced other forms of Judaism for the better part of the last two and a half thousand years beginning around the 3rd century AD. There were periods after the 3rd century BC when Gnosticism generally, including its Jewish form, rose into some prominence and received broad acceptance, both within and beyond Jewish communities, the 2nd century, the 11th century, and the 17th century, but every time Gnosticism rose into prominence, the positive religions, including Orthodox Judaism, found an adequate response to the gnostic challenge that forced Gnosticism back underground. Despite being forced to the margins of Jewish life time and again, Gnostic ideas continued to be sustained as an oral mystic tradition within some Jewish communities. This oral tradition was written down and formalized as kabbalah. As von Balthasar (1981) observed, “Of course, the Jewish kabbalah . . . were also of Gnostic origin.” Kabbalah was written down in the 13th century AD although it is generally accepted that these writings did not originate in the 13th century. These mystical writings, through the Jewish kabbalist Nathan of Gaza, informed the Jewish messianic movement of Sabbatai Tzevi in the 17th century. A period of Gnostic strength. It was Sabbatai Tzevi who would reinvigorate Gnostic Judaism in such a way that today it is probably the dominant form of Judaism around the world although this is difficult to assess. The 17th century was a time when Romantic ideas swept across Europe creating conditions for a general gnostic revival. Sabbatai Tzevi claimed that he, not Jesus, was the true Messiah. Sabbatai promoted a raft of heretical beliefs that were aimed at overturning the dominance of traditional Rabbinic Judaism. Sabbatai was said to claim that because Jewish laws, or halacha, so central to the rabbinic tradition, were written for a time before the coming of the true Messiah, now that “he” had arrived, and “he” had revealed the true purpose of the Law, then the old laws no longer applied.60 For this reason, Gnostics Jews who were influenced by Sabbatai are, unlike Orthodox Jews, antinomian. In the place of historically dominant Jewish practices and beliefs, Sabbatai developed new sacred practices while deliberately transgressing the old laws and encouraging others to do the same. Finding justification in the Midrash Tehillim, Mizmor 146:5 that in the Messianic Age, “God will permit what is now forbidden”, Sabbatai embraced and encouraged doing what was once forbidden and that which was now the permissible. He even minted a new blessing, Mattir Aurim or “praising God

60

This is the argument made by Christians about their relationship to Jewish law.

64 for permitting what is forbidden”. Sabbatai’s central teaching was that Jews should embrace and practice that which is forbidden or, as he famously phrased these ideas, that redemption is achieved through sin. What is basically meant by this phrase is that by recontextualizing what is considered sinful in the dominant religious traditions to be embraced as “good”, then God will be redeemed, and the messianic age will be realized. To practice what he preached, Sabbatai performed numerous “Holy Sins” many of which were sexual in nature. It was believed that as part of a theurgical ritual, along with his third wife Sarah, who had been a prostitute, he would organize sexual orgies, eat forbidden foods, turn traditional days of fasts into days of feasts, have sex with the future brides of his followers on their wedding night and publicly speak the forbidden name of God. The basic idea that Sabbatai advanced is that the natural, the instinctual, the basest human drives, because they were created by God, needed to be released into the world, as an expression of the feminine aspect of God, the Shechinah, the Sabbath Queen, so that the dominant experiences of good and evil, as civilization, that in the Christian and Jewish traditions were believed to have been derived through reason and sacred revelation, needed to be reversed. Although Sabbatai’s movement initially attracted a great deal of support from the European Jewish community in the 17th century, when Sabbatai’s life was threatened by Muslim Turks, he proselytized to Islam. After becoming a Muslim, many Jews argued that his conversion revealed Sabbatai to be a false messiah and, therefore, his teachings were indeed heretical. Rabbi Jacob Sasportas of Amsterdam, one of the most critical voices opposed to Sabbateanism, quickly denounced Sabbatai’s Messianic claims. Sasportas argued, consistent with the Orthodox tradition, that the true Messiah would not deviate one inch from halacha or the explicit word of the Torah. As it says in the Talmud, “If God sends a prophet, if a prophet attempts to nullify a mitzva61, he is considered a false prophet.” What Sasportas is drawing attention to, is that one must accept an esoteric, mythological, allegorical reading of Torah, which is opposed to the historical reading of Orthodoxy, if Sabbatai’s interpretation of Jewish texts is to be convincing and such a reading simply should not be done. Sabbatai was outspoken about finding a new interpretation of Torah, but he always emphasized that he had not actually changed a single word. This interpretive approach to religious texts that was being used by Sabbatai and his supporters was harmonious with the kinds of hermeneutic strategies used on Christian sacred texts at the time throughout Europe. It was a time, as Kilcher (2010: 16-17) observes, when “philology had taken on the functions of restitution and recovery, even redemption” in the Christian tradition. It was also a time when European scholars believed that through philological study there could be a renewal in the

61

Divine commandments as revealed by Moses at Mount Sinai or Jewish law.

65 “transcendental metaphysical and theological teachings of the Hebrews”. (Knorr as seen in Kilcher 2010: 17) Sabbatai and his supporters saw philology as crucial for interpreting the sacred Jewish texts allowing for new and creative readings. Sasportas was trying to reject such beliefs by arguing that the words of Torah are there and, with the help of the Talmud, easily read by everyone in a transparent way. The words of Torah do not require an imaginative new interpretation. According to Sasportas and his supporters, Jews should not deviate from the word of Torah and its 613 commandments and to do so was to face death at the hands of true Jews. Shortly after Sabbatai’s conversion to Islam, most Jewish leaders at the time asserted that anyone associated with Sabbateanism was herem. Herem means something like being labelled “immoral”, “off-limits” or “exiled”. Such a person was “accursed” or, as Christians might say, “excommunicated”. They were no longer considered part of the “Jewish” people. For the next 200 years, Gnostic Judaism once again became an underground movement that continued to be practiced in secret by only a very small minority of Jews. To be caught practicing Sabbatian inspired gnostic Judaism during this period was to risk death. Despite Rabbinic Judaism being extremely active in trying to stamp out the heretical beliefs of Sabbatian Gnosticism throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, elements of Sabbateanism informed breakaway movements within Judaism across Europe and the Middle East. Most notably the Dönmeh in Turkey, believed to be highly influential in Turkish politics even today, the notorious Frankists in Poland, which was founded by Jacob Frank (Antelman 2007), which were identified by important scholars such as Jonas and Scholem as “Gnostics”, are the most famous. (Biale 1982: 66) Less obviously, but sill directly indebted to Sabbatai’s supposed revelations, is the Haskalah of Western Europe, early expressions of Hasidism in Eastern Europe, Marxism and even Zionism. When properly understood, all these movements can be directly traced back to the disruptive teachings of Sabbateanism. As Gnostic scholar Gershom Scholem attests, Sabbateanism is the matrix of every significant movement to have emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, from Hasidism to Reform Judaism, to the earliest Masonic circles and revolutionary idealism62. The Sabbatian believers felt that they were champions of a new world which was to be established by overthrowing the values of all positive religions. (Emphasis added) Scholem is perfectly correct and without exaggeration when he observes, “every significant movement to have emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth century”. Scholem wrote in the middle years of the 20th century but although many of these movements have, since his time of writing, morphed into something

62

Which might include all the “idealist” political trajectories including liberalism and Marxism.

66 new, they have all continued to find inspiration from the Sabbatian legacy. After his own extensive research, Rabbi Antelman agrees with Scholem, arguing that there were, . . . connection between the radical 17th century Sabbatian movement, and the 18th century Frankists connections with the Reform and Conservative movements, and the Jacobins . . . The thesis was that there exists a connection between the Reform and Conservative movements and Communism. The thesis was pursued and was found not only to be valid, but it appeared that there was a conspiracy in history to hide this relationship. (Emphasis added Antelman 2007) Antelman is perfectly correct, many Jewish scholars who may be aware of this debt owed to Sabbateanism do everything that they can to hide this relationship. Marxism, for example, when properly understood is “a secularization of the Gnostic salvation myth into the dialectical process of the loss and regain of man”. (Colpe 1981: 38) Sabbateanism itself can be traced back to a group of Jewish scholars who combined the traditions of Hermeticism and kabbalism in the 15th century. As the Jewish scholar Wieczynski observes, “Those who explored Hermeticism and kabbalism were fascinated by the idea that man can master creative power and become divine himself. Thus, was born a dream and a quest of which Marxism is the most forceful modern expression.” (Wieczynski 1975: 23) As Wieczynski observes, it is this new standing for Man, as creators of the world, as Hermetic God-like figures, that is a signature of this movement which finds expression in all these movements, from Marxism to reform Judaism. Perhaps the greatest challenge to established Jewish traditions stamping out all expressions of Sabbateanism, is that Sabbatai’s adherents are not only permitted to lie about their beliefs, practices and commitments, but they are encouraged to lie. Lying is an affirmation of their beliefs. In a world without an experience of reality, without moral constraints necessary to make “honesty” a virtue, then lies become nothing more than a practical convenience or even a strategic necessity that have been carried out by all throughout history. Sabbatians argue that just as the seed needs to be covered over with soil if it is to grow so must those who adhere to Sabbatai’s Messianic message hide their true beliefs if the movement is to ever flourish. That practitioners were not only allowed but encouraged to lie meant that suspicion and paranoia grew within European Jewry and the resultant accusations caused a great deal of conflict that ripped that Jewish community apart in the 18th and 19th centuries. During these years, many Jews who were not Sabbatian’s were accused of promoting Sabbatai’s teachings and were killed or had their lives destroyed while many who truly were Sabbatians managed to move into positions of power and influence within the Jewish establishment working their toxic schemes secretly from within. As a direct result of Sabbateanism, the once united Jewish religion of Rabbinic Judaism, which had existed since the 3rd century AD, became fractured into multiple often conflictual movements. The broad battle lines

67 were that on one side was traditional Rabbinic Judaism which prioritized the writings of the Talmud clarifying halacha, determined to wait for redemption, which stood opposed a plethora of emerging movements, Frankists, Dönmeh, Marxism, Zionism, and the Haskalah, to name just a few, all drawing inspiration in their own way from the Gnostic dictum of redemption through sin and who were actively determined to bring about the messianic age through human agency. Perhaps most importantly, through the activities of the founder of Hasidism, the Ba’al Shem Tov (or “the Besht”), Sabbatai’s ideas were incorporated into early Jewish “Hasidism” of Eastern Europe and, through this movement, were then successfully spread throughout eastern Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. During this time, Sabbatai’s teachings became accepted by a very large and receptive audience of uneducated and economically vulnerable Jews in Eastern Europe while remaining marginalized in the West. Through the writings of Dov Baer, the Great Magid of Mezerich, the Besht’s63 teachings became formalized and institutionalised into a series of “courts”. Around 1815, large numbers of Hasidim were reabsorbed into the historically dominant Rabbinic Orthodox tradition thus neutralizing them as a danger to the positive religions, but a few courts continued to be true to the original Gnostic message. The difficulty confronting the broader Jewish community was how to identify which were gnostic and which were orthodox. This general movement from authentic Beshtian Hasidism to Orthodoxy was motivated by fear of the emerging modernizing strategy of the centralized European states whose project to homogenize national identities appeared to threaten the unique and distinct Jewish identity which had always rejected “the values, cultures and civilizations into which they have been historically thrown”. (Braiterman 1998: 124) This “return” to Orthodoxy meant that many Hassidic courts advanced a form of Judaism that was again harmonious with the historically dominant Talmudic Judaism. That the Hasidic tradition adopted a strategy of continued isolation is important for understanding shifts that take place later amongst European Jewry. In the late 19th century, because of tensions between Jews and Russians, many of the most radical Gnostic Jews, those who continued the original Gnostic inspired Hasidism, amongst them Sigmund Freud’s father, moved into Western Europe where, unlike in Eastern Europe, Jews and Christians had lived in relative harmony for decades. This wave of immigration, bringing with them what many Western European Jews initially thought were heretical, Eastern beliefs and practices, initiated a wave of

63

An acronym used to name the Ba’al Shem Tov, the Gnostic founder of Hasidism.

68 resentment across Europe directed mainly against the newly arrived Eastern European Jewish immigrants. As Ansel observes, When population pressures and pogroms propelled Russian Jews of the shtetl towards the West . . . Eastern European Jews . . . awakened a sense of resentment, if not open hostility, on the part of the established Jewish community in that country. By 1891, a pattern of intra-Jewish discord had emerged . . . [as a result of] mass migration of Russian Jews . . . (Ansel 1970: 151) Not only were many Western Jews angry with the incursion and criticisms being voiced by the newly arrived Eastern European Jews but Western Europeans themselves came to despise the newly arrived Eastern European Jews beginning a new wave of anti-Jewish sentiment. This resentment continued into the 20th century, as Albert Einstein said expressing concern about such resentment, Eastern European Jews are made the scapegoats for certain defects in present-day German economic life, things that in reality are painful aftereffects of the war. The confrontational attitude towards these unfortunate refugees, who have escaped the hell that Eastern Europe is today, has become an efficient and politically successful weapon used by demagogues. When the government contemplated measures against Eastern European Jews, I stood up for them in the Berliner Tageblatt, where I pointed out the inhumanity and irrationality of these measures. (Einstein as cited in Gimble 2013) Stories like Bram Stoker’s Dracula, a none too subtle commentary on the fear and resentment that Eastern European Jews attracted when they moved into Western Europe, shows what Westerns thought of these newly arrived, sometimes extremely wealthy, Eastern European Jews. On the 13th of April 1881, a petition was submitted to the Prussian leader Bismarck requesting that there be both a prohibition against further Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe into Germany and for the exclusion of all Jews from any official government position.64 (Holub 1995: 106) Here is a concrete example of how resentment towards the newly arrived Eastern European Jews, some of whom were indeed enthusiastically promoting destructive Gnostic ideas, came to be applied to all European Jews without distinction. This period in history marks the end of decades of rapprochement between Western European Jews and European Christians because it was argued that, What the Jew lost in the process of the Emancipation and acculturation was what Gershom Scholem calls “Jewish totality” . . . The change in the civil status the Jews experienced in the late eighteenth century and nineteenth centuries brought about the dismantling of

64

As will be revealed in Vol. III, 20th century history would be vastly different if Jews such as Arthur Zimmermann were not allowed to hold official government positions. Today, this petition is called “anti-Semitic”. The supposedly anti-Semitic Friedrich Nietzsche thought that this petition showed the weakness and uncertainty of the German people when faced with “a stronger race”.

69 the all-encompassing religious civilization of medieval Judaism. . . this dismantling occurred with the full complicity of the Jews themselves. (Mittleman 1990: 1-2) Scholem was observing that Eastern European Jews supposedly revealed to Western European Jews that they had compromised too much of their “Jewishness” to be accepted by Europeans as mere equals. Scholem’s own life attests65 that this intra-Jewish tension did not only rip communities apart but, as is the case in the West today being shaped by these same gnostic forces, also families. Sons turned on their fathers and fathers denounced their sons as a direct result of the growing influence of these Eastern European gnostic Jewish immigrants who were especially influential on young Western European Jews. Western European Jewry felt well liked and deeply embedded within Western society and had just experienced decades of improved relations and entitlements, but Eastern European Jewry were extremely critical of this harmonious arrangement and claimed that Western Jews had lost too much of their superior thoughts and special purpose for this acceptance. Although the older generation of Western European Jews rejected outright Gnostic arguments as at least ridiculous if not dangerous, young angry Jews, as young men so often are, were extremely open to such arguments. Many had, more than likely, experienced some expression of hatred towards Jews in Europe as they grew up despite being granted equal standing and instead of reflecting on how a Jewish dominated society might have treated a religious minority who had at times been antagonistic against the majority, such as the case in Israel today against the Muslim Arabs, they instead became angry and sought their moment of revenge. The increasing hated of Jews towards Christians only intensified the conflict between Jews and Christians which manifested more moments of conflict that would reach a moment of crisis in Nazi Germany. By the turn of the 20th century, in part motivated by this growing animosity against Eastern European Jews in central and Western Europe, from Western European Jews and Christians alike, a Jewish revivalist movement adapted some elements of Hasidism and the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment) to form a new, reinvigorated, form of Gnostic Judaism that continued to draw inspiration from Sabbateanism. By the turn of the 20th century, young Jews, . . .brought a sense of a dawning new age but also a cultural pessimism about prevailing forms of social life. The general culture experienced a turn against established authority and norms. Young intellectuals, full of contempt for the petit bourgeois ideal of still und ruhig Leben, searched for new forms of communal life, free from alienation, rationality, and metaphysical impoverishment of the present. (Mittleman 1990: 8)

65

Scholem developed a terrible relationship with his family, particularly his father, who was very critical of Gershom’s sympathies with the new Eastern teachings. He was thrown out of the family house which only ensured that he would move closer to the Gnostics.

70 This emergent movement that was determined to destroy the “prevailing social life” was specifically and explicitly opposed to “rationality and metaphysical impoverishment” that they identified with Christian Western civilization. The mature articulation of uniting elements of eastern and western Jewry finds its first expression in the work of Michael Levi Rodkinsohn (Frumkin) and Micha Berdishevsky. Other important intellectual contributions were made by Isaac Peretz, Peretz Smolenskin, and Georg Brandes. Most of these scholars understood 18th century Hasidism, which was more directly shaped by Gnosticism, as expressing the true essence of Judaism. This new movement went by the name of neo-Hasidism, and it marks the beginning of modern Gnostic Judaism. The movement that is primarily considered in these volumes. The tension that arose around the turn of the 20th century between Western Jewish populations and those who were coming to accepted Gnostic inspired neo-Hasidism is nicely capture in the work of assimilated Jew Max Nordau’s fin de siecle classic Degeneration. The very idea of “degeneration”, to become a “degenerate”, could only make sense from within a traditional Christian or Orthodox Jewish moral framework that recognized binary hierarchies and established morality shaped by rationality. Degeneration identifies all the aspirations of Sabbatian inspired Gnostic Judaism, sexual license, disregard for the visual arts, and, advocating for the basest sensuality, as expressing a “contempt for the traditional views of custom and morality” that would “carry humanity back to the condition of savages living in sexual promiscuousness without individual love, and without any family institutions whatever”. (Nordau 1898: 275) Nordau rightly observed that these “new Jews”, “do not at all hold themselves ‘beyond good and evil’ but plunge themselves up to the neck in evil, and as far as possible from good.” (Nordau 1898: 275) They were not, by Nordau’s account, beyond good and evil but simply evil. Nordau rightly identifies the central features of Gnostic Judaism and how this can only result in the ultimate loss of truth, goodness and substantial love. Advocates of this degeneracy is not one, Nordau argues, of the wilful assertion of “values” as ubermensch but the abnegation of values which is, in some traditions, he observes, the very definition of evil. No better criticism of Sabbatian influenced contemporary Gnostic Judaism can be found at around the turn of the 20th century than Nordau’s work and this was being voiced by a Western European Jew. Importantly, Nordau also critically questioned the personal qualities of anybody who sympathized with 19th century Gnostic convert and amoralist Friedrich Nietzsche, who also explicitly identified, as did Sabbatai Tzevi, as the anti-Christ. Nordau identified such sympathies as being nothing more than further evidence, if further evidence was needed, of “degeneracy” and most certainly not the expression of a “New Hebrew”. Nordau’s book nicely captures the contest within the Jewish community at the turn of the 20th century between those who remained true to the established Jewish tradition and

71 those who had come to accept the newly minted Judaism promoted by those living under the sway of Gnosticism. As an example of just how successful the gnostic movement has been over the preceding century at reshaping Judaism broadly, in 2004 Jewish author, Jacob Golomb, argued that Nordau’s Degeneration was nothing but an expression of Jewish self-hatred as “features of degeneration . . . could be attributed to Jews. Thus, his attack against the patterns of degeneration is simultaneously a critique of Jews, containing in no small measure the element of deeply rooted self-hatred.” (Golomb 2004: 50) What Golomb does not observe is that such arguments could not apply to Jews of old who practiced orthodox Judaism, but only contemporary Jews shaped by gnosticism. Golomb goes so far as to say that Degeneration is the work of the person trying to advance morality, therefore it is Nordau who is the real degenerate. Golomb justifies the claim that Nordau was a degenerate for arguing on behalf of morality with reference to none other than Nietzsche. According to Golomb, “It is noteworthy that Nietzsche sees in “self-contempt”, that is, in self-hatred, a clear symptom of degeneration. Thus, by his standards, Nordau, who suffered acutely from this, is a degenerate person.” (Golomb 2004: 53) As can be seen in Golomb’s arguments, by 2004 the once marginal and minority position of Gnostic Judaism had become Judaism as such. To question Sabbatai’s agenda is nothing more than to express Jewish self-hatred. In truth, when understood historically, Nordau was not self-hating at all but valued an alternative, and up until that time dominant, form of Judaism. One that, by the time of Golomb, had become so alien to many Jews that to express such traditional views is now seen as expressing a general hatred towards Judaism itself. The truth is that what is captured in the debate between Golomb and Nordau, though written over a century apart, is the difference between Sabbatian influenced Judaism, primarily from Eastern Europe, that many contemporary Jews now embrace and their increasing conversion and promotion of a relatively novel political agenda of gnostic Judaism and the traditionally dominant Orthodox Judaism with its strong sense of morality. Although it will be claimed that Sabbatian influenced neo-Hasidism has shaped 20th and 21st century Judaism in dangerous ways, it must be noted that many Jews continue to reject these relatively new teachings as Antelman’s own work evinces. Sadly, against these, there are many, many Jews who are simply either ignorant of how much Judaism has changed over the last 150 years and believe that the Judaism that they practice today is the same Judaism practiced by their great grandfathers or who have truly embraced this new Gnostic Judaism knowingly, accepting it as a new revitalized form of Judaism and enthusiastically advocating on behalf of its various causes. This distinction, between traditional Orthodox Jewish practices, that I am expressing sympathy with, against contemporary Gnosticism, is important

72 because it shows that any claim of anti-Semitism being directed against what is being argued here is necessarily wrong as it most certainly does not group all “Jews” together. Between the wars, neo-Hasidism developed a range of strategies that allowed the movement to grow and become an increasingly influential force within the wider Jewish community, particularly in Germany. This Gnostic influence was not felt only within Judaism but was spread by these Eastern European Jews throughout Europe and North America creating, . . .widespread interest in all sorts of psychic phenomena as manifested in the growth of spiritualism, astrology, theosophy, and so forth. The world has seen nothing like it since the end of the seventeenth century. We can compare it only to the flowering of Gnostic thought in the first and second centuries after Christ. The spiritual currents of the present have, in fact, a deep affinity with Gnosticism. (Jung 1955: 206) The rising influence of Gnostic Judaism also saw renewed enthusiasm, still attracting only a small fraction of European Jewry, for Zionism which, as Lazier acknowledges, was inspired by Nachman’s form of Hasidism (Breslov). It was neo-Hasidism that encouraged a new militant Jewish identity called “Semitism” that was thought to be in contest with German “Aryanism” for global dominance. A conflict first voiced in work of German Jew Moses Hess but sustained and developed by Jewish and German thinkers alike as the 20th century progressed. Despite Jews being treated relatively well in Germany for many years up until the First World War, certainly better than Arabs are treated in Israel today, it was the conflict between Aryan and Semite that promoted the emergence of fascism in the aftermath of World War I. The main ideological expression of anti-fascist sentiment, that was also heavily influenced by neo-Hasidism and Gnosticism, was the Frankfurt School of Marxism through their Institute of Social Research.66 As with all the militant political activists that created a highly contested cultural war in Germany between the wars, not dissimilar to what is taking place in the United States today, those of the Frankfurt School managed to flee Germany prior to Jewish persecution leaving behind only those Jews who refused to accept Gnostic Judaism either because, as with Nordau, they were highly assimilated or because they embraced Orthodoxy. The Gnostic inspired neo-Hasidim in their various guises, neo-Marxists, Zionists, anarchists, libertarians, Reformists and Conservative Jews, managed to flee Germany with the rise of Hitler and successfully secured positions in universities across the Anglosphere in places as far afield as New Zealand

66

Which was founded by Felix Weil with a donation from his wealthy father Hermann Weil. They nominated Kurt Albert Gerlach as the first director, but he suddenly died at just 36 years of age. Gerlach’s death opened the way for Carl Grünberg, a German Jewish Marxist who quickly changed the shape of the Institute filling it almost exclusively with Gnostic Jews. How often are well funded research institutes which are not accountable to anybody for their research made available. I believe Gnostic Jews did not let this opportunity go by and killed Gerlach and took over the institute to carry our their Gnostic research.

73 and the United Kingdom but, most importantly, in the emergent global super-power of the United States. It was with this wave of German Jewish immigrant academics that began the Gnostic Jewish dominance of Western universities. Tragically, the victims of Nazi oppression, those to whom Antelman dedicates his books, were those very Jews who presented no challenge or threat to Germany or Europe but were, intentionally sacrificed by the Gnostic Jews to advance their aspiration to realize a Jewish state in the Levant. It was not until after WWII that the theology of Gnostic Judaism established itself in the United States through the work of people like, Theodor Adorno, Leo Strauss, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Walter Benjamin, and Harold Bloom (1981: 60), who self-identified as a “true Gnostic”, Ernst Bloch, and Isaiah Berlin. More recently, people such as Jacques Derrida, Milton Friedman and Jacques Lacan, have progressed the gnostic agenda.67 Although the vanguard of this movement continued to be populated by people who identified as Jews, by the 1980s enough Westerners had become deeply indoctrinated into their theo-political agenda that others, such as Michel Foucault, became advocates for their program although apparently ignorant of the primary source. The final form of Jewish Gnosticism that came to shape the latter half of the 20 th century can be seen expressed as a turning away from the religious materialism that had inspired the Gnostic Judaism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that informed the theories of its founders, instead emphasising ideas in relation to “narrative”. What might be called the “psychological” or “cognitive” turn in Gnostic Jewish thinking that was championed by the “critical theorists” and the “Straussians”. Gnostic Judaism became primarily concerned with how people interpreted the world and how this interpretation needed to be harmonious with certain understandings of “Nature”. It became less materialistic and more cultural. So, the movement’s influence can be felt through the first half of the 20th century, but it is only in post WWII United States that they Gnostic Jews achieve the intellectual dominance over the entire Western world.68 They achieved this by coming to terms with the “production of culture” and taking control of the mechanism by which culture is produced and transmitted. It is for this reason that, The Frankfurt School will undoubtedly be identified with what we now call “cultural studies”. One of the main areas of investigation for the members of the Frankfurt School was what they called the “cultural industry” and mass or popular culture. The study of the mass production of a mass culture was pursued in terms of what are called media studies,

67

Indeed, Boas and Friedman used in the first half of this introduction, both of whom argue against Western civilization, are Jews with Boas expressing many of the beliefs of Gnostic Judaism. 68 And if you doubt this dominance chose any academic discipline and see the massive overrepresentation of Jews as influential thinkers in that tradition. Once their presence is made explicit it truly is astounding how Jewish thinkers came to shape the intellectual landscape of post-World War II Western thinking. This phenomenon is elaborated upon in Chapter III of this volume.

74 the study of the way in which different media convey through their very form, i.e., technological and material mediation, different cultural norms and ideological messages. (Mendieta 2004: 2) This research was then used to re-shape the American mind to become harmonious with their agenda. With this phase of Gnostic Judaism, we have arrived at the contemporary “culture wars”. Their move to the United States entailed using new strategies, most especially not aspiring to achieve political revolution first followed by a cultural revolution but achieving the cultural revolution first. This new strategy meant using historically marginalized minorities to undermine the social cohesion of Western societies while maintaining high levels of economic integration or, to put the same thing differently, to advance a program that is socially “progressive”, read as harmonious with the Gnostic agenda, while being economically conservative. This was a reaction against their earlier support for radical redistribution as voiced by Marx because they discovered in the 1960s, as American Jew Milton Friedman expresses, that free markets are more disruptive to established social hierarchies than social democracy. This new approach for realizing social change included supporting social unrest, perhaps most successfully and importantly second wave feminism, the civil rights movement, the cultural revolution and the antiVietnam war peace movement, while maintaining its hatred of femininity and practicing the most extreme form of racial elitism and promoting violent conflicts around the world when it suits their agenda. Amongst the important ideas inherited from the Gnostic Jewish tradition includes the desire to realise a Jewish homeland in Palestine, hatred of Christian European culture because they believe that all cultural norms are the worshipping of false idols, and an onto-theology which has been called ‘Hassidic idealism’ whose foundational commitment is the destruction of all positive existents. The Russian Revolution, which was initiated and carried through by Russian Gnostic Jews, outlined its agenda, which is perfectly harmonious with that of Gnostic Judaism in the West today, • • • •

The old world must be destroyed, and a new one built in its place. To destroy the old world and build a new one, it is necessary to gain political power. Gaining political power requires using all measures, ranging from the most peaceful to the most violent, from the most open to the most secretive. The main struggle is not with political institutions but by shaping subjectivities to conform to our belief system. [author’s note: cultural change] The struggle for a new world must unfold not on a national scale, but on a global scale. The interests of the World Revolution are more important than the interests of individual countries. (Suvorov 2008: 6)

Gnostic Judaism, in its broadest definition, has had a range of different expressions but they are all informed by Jewish Gnosticism as their foundation beliefs and, therefore, can all be seen to aspire to

75 realise the same agenda. Redeeming God by redeeming the world which is achieved by redeeming man. Everything rests on successfully “shaping subjectivities”. The Beliefs of Gnostic Judaism With this brief mapping of the historical development of Gnostic Judaism, what exactly do Gnostic Jews believe? The defining feature of Gnostic Judaism is that there is a “knowledge of an esoteric character”, or gnosis, which reveals Man’s true relationship with God, the world and other men. For millennia, these ideas were passed on through Jewish communities by, . . . secret cells of initiates – spiritual teachers who taught that the key to salvation lay neither in political rebellion nor in redemption from “sin”, but rather in overcoming spiritual blindness and ignorance. In place of ignorance, they offered knowledge of gnosis – not in the form of dogmas but in the form of direct spiritual experiences undergone by individuals through initiation. (Wilberg 2017) It is believed that this knowledge, gnosis, is contained, although hidden, within certain sacred texts. Although these teachings can be found in various text written throughout history it is most primarily sourced from the Torah. As it says in the opening passage of Masserkhet Azilut, an anonymous kabbalistic text believed to have been written in 14th century69, “God’s glory is a hidden thing”. (Proverbs 25: 2) When will you make glory for God? When you are occupied with the hidden aspects of Torah . . . the Shechinah was adorned before them and protects them and reveals to them sublime secrets. . . Learning the secrets of Torah can never be accomplished through academic pursuits alone. Knowledge of God is a “hidden thing” that can only be revealed through understanding the hidden aspects of the Torah. This is the new reading of Torah introduced through the Sabbatians. Despite this hidden knowledge being found within Torah it is not revealed through study alone but is primarily revealed by the Shechinah and is therefore revealed through states of ecstasy such as unstructured emotive dancing and sexual arousal. This “hidden knowledge is understood to “liberate” humanity’s authentic inner self from the evil constraints that Man has come to understand as “morality”. As British Jew Peter Wilberg observes,

69

Scholem emphasizes that it is wrong to assume that just because a text is written in a certain century that it originates from that century. He argues that many of the mystical text written between the 12 th and 14th centuries were part of a much older oral tradition that reaches back into history to the classical period. He argues that many of the texts that constitute the Jewish mystical tradition of kabbalah date from at least the centuries preceding Christ if not long before.

76 At the heart of gnostic spirituality is the understanding that the inner human being has a trans-personal, trans-human, and trans-physical character – that it is a being fundamentally other than the personal, human and physical self we know. Man’s alienation from his inner being can lead him to interpret and experience it as a being of an entirely foreign or alien nature – a libinal unconscious, an unidentifiable presence . . . (Wilberg 2017) This “alien” god, this foreign presence, which is the type of language they themselves use, which inhabits the inner self, is often called the Shechinah but has also been known as Lucifer. The knowledge revealed by the Shechinah is kept secret because, for the rest of society, as Foucault observes, such knowledge generally, “. . . is forbidden knowledge, it anticipates at the same time: the reign of Satan, and the end of the world; the final bliss and the ultimate punishment; the almighty power on earth and the infernal downfall.” (Foucault as cited in Preparata 2011: 84) It is hidden because this “inner human being”, this libinal self, had been thought to be our “animal” selves, our “base” desires, that expresses everything that has historically been viewed as evil. Because these actions, greed, lust, vanity, revenge have been thought to be expression of “evil”, publicly promoting such knowledge as “good” has been criticised as seeking the “reign of Satan”. Because gnosticism was thought to advance something evil, it had to stay hidden if it was not to be passionately, often violently, resisted. According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, this knowledge is also soteric in revealing how through the liberation of Man’s authentic or “natural” being humanity is “redeemed” before God. (Scholem 1965: 1) That Gnostic Jews adhere to all these beliefs means that the Jewish movement under consideration, although not all advocates of such beliefs would self-identify as “gnostic”70, the term is rightfully applied because, as Broek’s argues, Gnosticism or gnostic, “. . . are perfectly applicable to all ideas and currents, from Antiquity to the present day, that emphasize the idea of a revealed secret gnosis (spiritual knowledge) as a gift that illuminates and liberates man’s inner self”. (Broek 2008: 2) So this movement is most certainly gnostic by Broek’s definition. Most importantly, the acquisition of gnosis, the secret spiritual knowledge, is not through rational reflection, it is not through careful study, but is revealed by entering into our subjectivity, to reveal our inner drives. This inner self is revealed through powerful emotions like passion, ecstatic drugs, wild dancing, and sexual arousal. It is in these ecstatic states, not through calm reason, that the inner self is thought to be liberated from evil and can then cleave to God.

70

Indeed, I have spoken to “Jews” who advanced this full agenda, anti-Christian, highly sexual, promoting drugs and committing acts of extreme violence, as a religious commitment that they simply identified as “The Truth”, who had never even heard the term “gnostic”. This has been an important achievement because gnostic Jews have always argued that what they practise is not gnostic Judaism, as such, but simply true Judaism. It is the orthodox tradition, they argue, that are presenting a false account of Judaism.

77 What is actually liberated in these ecstatic states, what is thought to be our true inner selves, as the Masserkhet Azilut makes clear, are primordial instincts that have been historically constrained by civility. The person who seeks to encounter the immanent aspect of God, the goddess, the Shechinah, must lose their human selves, must leave reason behind, in order to release their animal selves, their inner “madness”, as it is these irrational animal drives that true access to the “concealed aspect of God” – nature itself - is achieved. The starting point for accessing this secret knowledge is to accept, as Jewish scholar Magid observes, that “God is present and absent in creation, suggesting a kind of monotheistic pantheism where the presence of God as transcendent (eyn sof) is beyond human comprehension and the presence of God in the world is concealed but can be disclosed through mystical gnosis.” (Magid 2008: 22) This tradition presents a kind of dualism that has found expression in various Jewish traditions both ancient and contemporary. As Stroumsa observes, “The same dualistic structure of the Divinity was retained in a number of traditions from the rabbinic period, usually centred on the figure of Metatron (“he who sits near the Divine throne”) or of another archangel. Various rabbinic sources mention that there are “two Powers in Heaven”.” (2015) In some traditions that identify as Jewish, despite what it says time and again in their sacred texts, they claim that there are two “powers” in Heaven, one that cannot be encountered and is utterly unknowable in being transcendent, and one that is immanent, within us and the Earth, which can be potentially encountered and known. The transcendent or as yet unknown aspect of God is associated with the masculine expression of God, the God Most High, the “Father”, while the immanent aspect, that which is concealed but can be encountered and known through states of ecstasy, is associated with the feminine aspect, the “Mother” or “Sabbath Queen”. This goddess, as already observed, goes by various names including Astarte, Anat but is primarily known by the name the Shechinah (but also identified in Greek as Metatron71), as was presented in the Masserkhet Azilut. The Shechinah is associated with “Earth”, the darkness of the Abyss, and is rightly conceptualised, in the Gnostic tradition, as active matter. That the Shechinah is conceptualised as active matter is extremely important especially for understanding how this tradition is different from Christianity. In the Western Christian tradition, matter is conceptualised as passive, inert and therefore not an aspect of God. Matter is not divine.72 In the Gnostic

71

As with a lot of the mystical Gnostic tradition, the name “Metatron” does not appear in the Torah but is mentioned in the later rabbinic literature. Metatron appears three times in the Babylonian Talmud. Although mentioned in the rabbinic literature, it is not until the kabbalistic tradition that Metatron become more commonly used. Metatron is a Greek word that is derived from the Semitic word Mitatrun which means the “angel of the veil” as in the one that is veiled. 72 It is for this reason that Jesus’ mother, Mary, is mortal and not a goddess. She is the feminine side in Christianity, but she is not a God. She is a virgin. She is characterized as being impregnated by God, but she herself is not a God. This difference in the role of the feminine is extremely important for understanding the difference between Gnosticism and Christianity.

78 Jewish tradition matter is thought active and, therefore, an aspect of God, something divine, the feminine aspect of God. As French philosopher, Georges Bataille, who converted to Gnostic Judaism and presented a “blueprint for chthonic religious awakening” (Preparata 2011: 81), wrote, In essence, it is possible to single out as the leitmotiv of Gnosis the conception of matter as an active principle, possessing its autonomous eternal existence, which is that of the tenebrous depths (which are not the absence of light, but the monstrous archons revealed by this absence), that of evil (which is not the absence of good, but a creative act).73 (Bataille as seen in Preparata 2011: 42) Bataille is drawing attention to the centrality of matter being active and that, at least in some traditions, active matter is considered something “evil”. The secret knowledge that Gnostics receive is that it is not knowledge that drives society and man but living matter. The primordial problem that motivates Gnostic Judaism is, if the world was created by a God that was all good, all-knowing and all powerful, then why is it so imperfect? Why is there so much suffering, pain and hardship, in a world created by God? As the Christian scholar Kindelberger asks, If the world we live in exists under a God with complete meticulous control, a God who knows the future in every detail and has ordained all that will be, we have no choice but to look around at the suffering and pain and question whether he really is the “God [of] love” that Scripture declares him to be? (Kindelberger 2017: 1-2) Surely, one would think, a perfect being without constraints that loves His creation would want to create a perfect world, a world full of joy, a world without sin, a world where everyone lived fulfilled lives free of labour. Yet the world that actually exists, the world in which everyone lives, appears to be far from perfect. We live, as the Tanakh74 confirms, in a world where people are continuously “sinning” and, therefore, are at best, forgetful of their relationship with God if not living without God in their lives. It is in this apparent

73

This, of course, explains Marx’s entire philosophy. He argued that it was matter that drives humanity and social change and not reason. This basic reversal of Western values is why the means of production is so central to his thinking. 74 The Tanakh refers to the three division of the Hebrew Bible: Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim. There are many similarities between the Tanakh and what Christians call the Old Testament. The Old Testament, a Christian document, is drawn from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Tanakh that was written in Alexandria. The most significant difference between the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament is that the Old Testament contains a number of books not included in the Tanakh. Despite their similarities, Jews find it offensive to call the Tanakh, the “Old Testament” because it is to accept the claim made by Christians that Jesus’ word marks a New Testament thereby making the Old Testament redundant. The claim that Jesus’ word makes the Tanakh obsolete is called supersessionism or the claim that the New Testament supersedes the old. Although I personally am a Christian and do indeed believe in supersessionism, I am here specifically referring to the Tanakh and not the Old Testament. Jews often complain when Christians refer to the Tanakh as the Old Testament, but this identification is more often done out of ignorance than as an expression of supersessionism.

79 absence of God, that we do sin, that we do hate our neighbours because we judge them for being who they are. People tend to be violent, greedy, lustful, and yet we judge them harshly simply for living as nature intended. According to the Jewish Gnostic tradition, that humanity acts in such a way reveals the truth of our condition. The condition in which most of us still live today, despite the efforts of Gnostic Judaism, is in a state of “. . .forgetfulness and heavy sleep; being like those who dream troubled dreams, to whom sleep comes while they – those who dream – are oppressed.” (Emphasis added Wink: 19) According to Gnostic Jews, we actually live in a false world, a dream world, an illusion, a simulacrum, and it is knowing this, the secret knowledge, gnosis, that we do not know what we think we know, that will begin to awaken humanity to the falsehood that is this World to the primordial unity of reality. By releasing humanity’s inner being, their instinctual selves, they overcome the delusion of objective “reality” that is oppressive thereby reuniting Man with the immanent aspect of God, the Shechinah. What has led to us accepting living in our dream state where everyone, often without knowing it, is oppressed is positive religions.75 Most Christian traditions attribute positive features to God and the world for which He is responsible thereby making it a “positive religion”. This knowledge, knowledge of what is right and wrong, good and evil, true and false, real and unreal, then informs the way people live their lives in the World. In the positive religions, this knowledge, knowledge of good and evil, is in part divine revelation and in part accessed through reason that ends in knowledge. There is something cataphatic about the Christian God that is supposed to inform one’s life. Judaism too, has historically been a positive religion. As Louth rightly observes, “the Hebrew scriptures contain records claiming to be God’s self-revelation” in the sense of God revealing something positive about Himself, in the Jewish tradition through text, to Man in order to guide Mankind to living a good life by knowing what is “evil”. This revelation, knowledge of good and evil, is then used in the Orthodox Jewish tradition to articulate laws that should be obeyed in living a good life. The binding laws of Orthodox Judaism are similar to those historically found in Christianity. In opposition to these positive religions, Christianity and Orthodox Judaism, Gnostic Judaism denies that we currently know anything positive about God whatsoever. The only knowledge we have is that we have no knowledge. This knowledge in itself is not positive knowledge, how to live a moral life or what is the “true” objective reality, but negative knowledge in terms that it is knowing that we do not

75

A positive religion is a religion that believes positive things can be said about God and the world. Positive simply means affirmative claims about what God is and what “God” wants. In contrast to negative religions or religions that believe nothing is known about God or what He wants. Both commitments, as will be discovered, motivate religious actions (that is commitment to a negative religion does not mean that adherents are not influenced by their beliefs in the world). For example, to be committed to a negative religion might mean strict opposition to all positive religions as “evil”.

80 know. It is a knowledge acquired, according to the Gnostic Jew Theodore Adorno, through a negative dialectic – a dialectic that ends best in knowing nothing. As this is the case, then any positive account of God, including that expressed in Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, is actually evil. Positive religions are evil, according to this gnostic account, because it is sacrilegious to claim that humanity knows anything about the creator God or His creation. To claim that we actually know good and evil or know the world is to actually worship a false idol and idolatry is the greatest sin in the Jewish tradition. Because positive religions claim to know good and evil and claim to reveal the real world as it is then all positive religions must be destroyed. As Gnostic Jew Erich Fromm wrote, “. . .the question must be asked . . . out of concern for man’s soul: Can we trust religion to be the representative of religious needs, or must we not separate these needs from organized, traditional religion in order to prevent the collapse of our moral structure?” (Fromm 2013) Fromm is claiming that organized religions, the positive religions, present a false teaching and it is this false teaching that keeps us from living a truly moral, “life affirming”, existence. Historically in the West, it was Christianity, as voiced by the organized Churches, that was believed to be the bulwark against immorality. Gnostic Jews, as Fromm writes, reverses this valuing and argues that it is actually organized religions, including Orthodox Judaism, that results in moral collapse. Although Orthodox Judaism is implicated in Gnostic Judaism’s criticism of positive religions, it is the Christian Church, above all else, that must be destroyed. This simple argument, we cannot know the God Most High, therefore, anything positive claim about God, morality, or the world, is necessarily false and evil is the starting point of Jewish Gnosticism. Gnostic Jews hope to realise the destruction of all positive religions as a sincere attempt to save Man’s soul. In this project to destroy all organized religions, as statistics confirm, they have been extremely successful.

81

Today many people will claim to be “spiritual but not religious” and this “spirituality”, often called the New Age Movement, is always by necessity outside of organized religions. It is because under such conditions, cut free from the sophistication and complexity of ancient religions that have been developed over millennia by the greatest minds in history, people can then be more easily manipulated into worshipping anything, even something that has been understood for millennia to be evil. Gnostic Jews are thoroughly apophatic when it comes to God and therefore deny any positive knowledge. It is for this reason, as influential Hasidic Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav would simply assert, “The ultimate knowledge is that we do not know.” True gnosis is that humans do not have any positive knowledge. As that thoroughly gnostic Jewish physicist Wolfgang Pauli observed, “. . .negative theology, that is what we need. As Schopenhauer said, he [God] cannot be personal, for then he could not bear the suffering of mankind. This is it, the Unknown God of Gnosis.” (Pauli as seen in Quispel 1981: 27) Pauli is expressing the belief that the suffering in this world confirms that God cannot be in this world, or He would have to do something to address all the suffering.76 Because the Gnostic God is not of this world

76

The opposite is actually the truth and in this the entire argument of gnosticism is found wanting. It is that we can experience suffering as suffering, a distinctly human experience, that we know God is in the world. If Pauli was

82 He is exhaustively “unknown”. The explanation the Gnostic Jews give for this less than perfect world, as Pauli observes, a world in which man suffers terribly, is that this world was not created by the God Most High. This world, the one we live in that consists of all these objects that surround us, this world that appears so meaningful and permanent, was actually created by what the gnostic tradition calls the archon. Archons have at times been understood as lesser gods, Christian gnostic thought Yahweh was an archon, who created this evil world out of malice or ignorance. Archon are simply those who “keep humanity imprisoned in a world of suffering and delusion”. (Smoley 2005) Gnostic Jews understand the archon today to be mortal Men who create the world according to their religious beliefs. The reason why humanity made this world and not some other, is simply because it reflects the sectional interests of a particular cruel and ruthless minority. This world, according to gnostic Jewry, is primarily an expression of Christian, white, male power, who are today the archon, and man can create this world only because this world is autonomous of God. As Jewish scholar Lazier (2008: 164) observes, “. . . “Gnostic Judaism” was less concerned with establishing God’s radical transcendence than with the autonomy of the world as a scene for human endeavour.” One of the central teachings of Gnostic Judaism is that this world is not shaped by God. Drawing on the older mystical gnostic tradition of Lurianic kabbalah, which Scholem rightly observes is actually nothing but the “reappearance, in the heart of Judaism, of the gnostic tradition”, post-Sabbatian Gnostic Jews argued that God had voluntarily withdrawn, tzimtzum, in order to make a space for this imperfect world. A perfectly good God could not exist within the flawed world of existent things. As Scholem (emphasis added 1997: 84) observed, “The question as to why God did not create a perfect world, Himself being perfection, would have seemed absurd to the Kabbalists of the Lurianic school: a perfect world cannot be created, for it would then be identical to God Himself, who cannot duplicate Himself but only restrict Himself.” In the Lurianic tradition of kabbalah, it is emphasized that God must “withdraw” or “restrict himself’, set a self-imposed limitation, if there is to be an actual world of existent things at all. This withdrawal means that there is a gulf created between the creator Man and a now impotent creator God. Again, as Hans Jonas claimed, The sublime unity of God and cosmos is rent asunder, a monstrous chasm ensues; God and world are made foreign to one another, set in opposition . . . God is the world-alien77, the world-alienating, the anti-worldly. The gnostic concept of God is first and foremost a

really ignorant of God then he could not experience suffering as such. Pauli’s argument confirms Jesus’ redemptive message and shows that he has already been saved if he would only affirm Jesus as God. 77 This idea of God being “alien” or what they also refer to as an “alien God” or just “alien” is found in many Jewish Gnostic authors as already displayed in the earlier quote of Bloom.

83 nihilistic one. God – das Nichts der Welt [the nothing of the world] (Jonas as seen in Lazier 2009: 177) There is a space opened between God and everything that is, the cosmos, so that this world is actually devoid of God. The space opened is the result of the withdrawal of what they call the Ein Sof (the undifferentiated), one of the descriptions of the God Most High, which then opens a space, tehiru, where God is totally absent. It is in the tehiru, the space in which we inhabit, that is the source of dinim or human judgements (dinim is the plural of din “judgement”) and is, as a result, demonic. It is that God withdraws that opens a space for human creation through making judgements regarding what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. As Scholem (1946/1991) wrote, “For in its classical form, religion signifies the creation of a vast abyss, conceived as absolute, between God, the infinite and transcendental Being, and Man, the finite creature.” As the judgements that constitute the world are made in the absence of God, without knowledge of God, they are only expression of human interests, expressions of human power, and are, therefore, actually demonic. The need to manifest a world as an expression of human power is also the moment that marks the beginning of religiosity as such. The more primordial condition of Man knew no experience that corresponds to “religion”, the right way to act, because of the intimacy between God, man and the cosmos was such that religion, as a kind of institutional arrangement that operates within society to constrain certain behaviours, was simply not conceptually possible. Religion itself signifies, perhaps ironically, Gnostic Jews argue, God’s withdrawal from this world. The advent of religion marks the absence of God in our lives and most certainly not, according to gnosticism, the means for reconciliation with God. Positive religions, by the Gnostic account, is evidence of the ignorance of God not knowledge of God. Positive religions are a kind of veil hiding God and, therefore, they must be destroyed. Man’s ignorance of the God Most High has left Him shivering, cold and alone in a world of darkness that is in reality devoid of meaning. It is as a result of the anxiety of meaninglessness that Man in His weakness flees into Being but now as an expression of power legitimized as an experience of God. Humans seek security thereby manufacture Gods, religions, in order to try to secure an enduring world. Religion is Mankind’s response to the anxiety of nihilism that results from losing his intimacy with God. Religion, understood as nothing but human judgment, is an expression of sectional interests, manifests a demonic world in the open space of tehiru simply as an expression of power. Historically it was white, male, Christians who have been the Masters, and they have enslaved everybody else, according to the Gnostic Jewish understanding, but that era is coming to an end. According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, this account of the human condition can be seen to be portrayed in the Garden of Eden myth in Genesis. In that myth, the “original sin” of Man, eating from the

84 Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, marks the time when humanity is removed from an intimacy with the Father and is exiled to live in an evil, distorted world. The Garden of Eden myth, according to the Gnostic tradition, captures a real time in human development, before morality, when Mankind lived intimately with God in nature. Prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Mankind had been invited to eat from the Tree of Life. It is only after eating from the Tree of Knowledge that God then forbids Man from eating from the Tree of Life. So, Mankind has eaten deeply of knowledge of Good and Evil, but this has meant that he can no longer affirm life. He can no longer affirm “spirit”, the Shechinah. It is through eating from the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge that Mankind and the feminine aspect of God lives in a condition of knowing sin, a world of shame, guilt, and labour. According to the kabbalists, The two trees [the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil] are fundamentally one: they grow from a common root, in which masculine and feminine, the giving and the receiving, the creative and the reflective, are one. Life and knowledge are not to be torn asunder from one another: they must be seen and realized in their unity. So long as the two trees are connected, the Tree of Life retains control over the power of severity, the harsh critical power within the Godhead, which for this author, following Sefer ha-Bahir, is conceived in the image of Satan. (Scholem 1997: 70) In this quote, Scholem is observing that when knowledge of good and evil, the masculine, is separated from the Tree of Life, the feminine, then it becomes distorted, and that distortion distorts all of Creation. Humanity from this time onwards seeks justice but justice independent of life is nothing more than a hideous abstraction. It is evil. What is manifested from judgement devoid of life might be considered harsh or unreasonable judgement as it is judgement that occurs in the absence of a full understanding of the human condition. It is under these circumstances, harsh judgement, that humanity becomes the creator of the World. It is through harsh judgement that the world of white, male, Christians emerged as dominant. In such a world, Man marginalizes joy in preference for justice. In the absence of joy, knowledge of good and evil separated from the Tree of Life cannot truly be knowledge of good and evil at all. It is judgement that exists in the absence of affirming life and such judgements must be evil. By the Gnostic Jewish account, Adam, in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, . . .kindled the fire of Judgment everywhere and corrupted all the worlds with it, so that even the air of the lands of the nations was corrupted by the host of the princes of impurity, who are literally objects of pagan worship; and each one took his portion and his land . . . and we have an absolute obligation to repair the external air . . . And particularly because we are learned in Torah, we are obligated to repair the air of the lands of the seventy nations with the breath of Torah which emerges from our mouths. And when that air is repaired to its limit, the Messiah will come to redeem us and will conquer the entire world under his dominion, and then good will overcome evil, as it was. (Emek ha-Melekh p121b as seen in Scholem 1997: 82)

85 This separation encourages humanity’s facility for critical judgement that from this time onwards is abstract because it no longer affirms life. Sex, for one important example, can be understood as being both an act for procreation and an act of a man trying to bring joy, even ecstasy, to a woman. To believe to know what sex, for example, is primarily about, for example “procreation”, means that those who pursue sex for pleasure are then judged harshly, as “evil sinners”, and it is this judgement that then constitutes a world, and institutions in that world, that are all distorted by evil. It was for this reason that in gnosticism “licentiousness was permitted or recommended”. (von Balthasar 1981) To judge people as sinners, according to the Gnostic tradition, is just an expression of authoritarianism from positive religions. Again, as Scholem observes, Hence, when Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which is of the side of evil, and separated it [through his awareness or his contemplation] from the Tree of Life, the Evil Urge dominated him in his eating and in his soul, for his soul took part in the eating of the fruits of the Garden, as we said above. Thus, impurity and death and removal of the soul from the [supernal] soul took place [within Adam] . . . For after he separated the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which is of the side of evil, from the Tree of Life, and increased the strength of Evil Urge and sated his soul with it, he separated the Tree of Knowledge from the Tree of Life, and also separated his soul from all the good qualities of the supernal soul and united himself with the Evil Urge. (Scholem 1997: 67-68) Knowledge is not evil but when separate from life, when the masculine disregards the feminine, knowledge is on the “side of evil” in terms of no longer affirming life. For example, Man makes clothing, according to this account, not out of necessity, not to keep himself warm, but out of a moral imperative, to hide his “nakedness”, as a result, clothing is an outcome of knowledge of good and evil. Nakedness is “evil”. The danger is that clothes designed only with knowledge of good and evil, that denies life, that we are also sexual beings, vibrant beings, active beings, then distorts all of creation. Clothing made out of a moral imperative alone, that is no longer informed by life, is overly restrictive, especially for women, in terms of being primarily designed to hide human sexuality and inhibit activity. Life affirming clothing, as people wear today, Gnostics would argue, are primarily for comfort as well as for displaying our sexuality. Think, for example, of the clothes imposed on Muslim women in some countries in contrast to the extremely revealing clothes of contemporary Western women. Clothes designed in response to knowledge of good and evil deny the sexuality of humanity, most especially female sexuality, and deny the need for comfort. Such clothing is “life denying”. Clothes instead should be designed, from the Gnostic perspective, primary for comfort and to secure high quality sexual partners that will enable highly orgasmic sex. Clothes informed by moral imperatives, which still exist today even in the West, is evil from a Gnostic perspective because such clothing is the result of decisions made by Adam, a man, which

86 resulted in harsh judgements of good and evil operating in isolation from divine love and the natural drives of life. As Scholem again observed, “Both man’s experience of reality and his moral nature are damaged by this misguided contemplation.” (Scholem 1970: 70) The separation of knowledge from life can only be corrected by the actions of the “righteous” in overcoming the distorting effect of this imbalance and reconnecting humanity with the Tree of Life, the feminine, the Shechinah. We must return to the Shechinah first before we can ever reach out to the Father. In the Zohar, the “Other Side”, the evil side, is the “fire” of severity from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, externalized, and independent of the Tree of Life. Under these conditions, it becomes a hierarchical system, good over evil, male over female, rational over emotional, and as a hierarchical system, one that does not find balance between these forces thereby acknowledging everything as the product of God. (Scholem 1997: 73) According to Gnostic Jews, the divine spark, the vibrancy of life, which can be understood as “natural drives” or “the instinctual”, continues to exist, even in Western Christian societies, though it is oppressed. This oppression is conceptualised by Gnostic Jewish intellectuals as authoritarianism and as something evil. Everything that is evil, the world in which we all live as moral agents, is in reality only an outer “shell” that contains within it an inner goodness. The “shell” is lifeless whereas what is within the shell abounds with life. This means that there is no absolute discrete realm, “good” or “evil” but in evil the good resides. (Scholem 1997: 76) Two consequences flow from this. Firstly, that good and evil do interlace explains why it is so difficult for humanity to differentiate between the two and, secondly, it offers the potential of bringing all deeds, many of which are now deemed “evil”, into the sphere of the good. (Scholem 1997: 76) As Scholem observes, “There is nothing so depraved that it cannot be returned to its source, to this spark of the divine within.” (Scholem 1997: 76) The task set Gnostic Jews, therefore, is to return this spark to God. To show how what is “the most depraved”, such as child sexual abuse, is actually good in freeing child sexuality. The returning of the sparks of life to God is to redeem both God and the world. This redemptive project requires reintegrating what has become understood as evil back into the unified whole that is true goodness/God. This task is thought to be captured in one of the more common Jewish names of God, Sa’el. When evil becomes independent of good then the divine name becomes transformed into Samael, the Hebrew name for Satan. But within “Samael” lies God’s name Sa’el. That Sa’el hides within Samael grants insight into the relationship between good and evil. Just as Sa’el dwells within Samael so does good dwell within the demonic shell. (Scholem 1997: 77) The demonic shell are those things that the Western Christian tradition has thought of as “good”. Everything that Western Christianity has thought to be good is actually, by the Gnostic’s account, evil. Importantly, the word “ma” in Hebrew, that are the letters removed from Samael to reveal Sa’el, is the pronoun

87 interrogative “what?” or “how?”. These are ways of asking for reasons or logos. Such questions are to be answered using judgements. “What is that?” or “How did that happen?” are asking for reasons and for these reasons to be accepted requires judgements. It is these human judgements, made necessarily in the absence of God, that are understood from a gnostic position as nothing but an expression of power and are therefore evil. They are Samael. By no longer judging, by removing logos, according to the Gnostic tradition, then one finds God. It is important to appreciate, Gnostic Jews do not want to find balance between good and evil, this is not simply the claim that knowledge of good and evil has become too dominant, and we need to find a more balanced account. What they are arguing is that we need to affirm evil, we need to destroy what has historically been seen as good and valorise its opposite, redemption through sin. When properly understood, Gnostic Judaism really aspires to be the polar opposite of the Christian tradition. What Christianity thinks is evil, lust, greed, material comfort, is actually what is good in terms that these features are thought to affirm human life while chastity, according to the Gnostic Jewish tradition. In contrast, everything that is seen as good in Christianity, abstinence, temperance, and austerity is what is actually evil because such attitudes deny life. One of the things that has been historically prized but which Gnostic Jewry hopes to demonize, as the account of God’s name attests, is reason. As will be elaborated upon in this volume, one of the early Christian conceptualizations of Jesus was, as he claims in the Gospel of John, logos. What is deemed evil in the Gnostic Jewish tradition is logos, one of the names of Jesus. The outer shell that is evil, is the world that is known, the world that is the result of “harsh” judgement, the world that results from reason. This kind of reasonable judgement has been rightly associated by Gnostic Judaism with masculinity, whiteness, and Christianity. According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, we cannot know this aspect of God because the masculine aspect withdrew and is, therefore, no longer a part of this world. What can be sought, recovered, and encountered, according to Gnostic Jewish beliefs, is the feminine aspect of God, “life”, who Gnostic Jews call the Shechinah. The word Shechinah is from the Hebrew root shakhan or “to dwell”. It was claimed that the Shechinah inhabited the Holy of Holies in the Second Temple in Jerusalem. There she would “dwell” in the loving marital embrace of her husband, Yahweh, in the quite isolated darkness of the Holy of Holies. (Patai 1990: 32) In his best seller, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown seems to draw inspiration from this myth when he rightly observed that the Star of David actually represents the two deities, the masculine and the feminine, because this, he wrote, “marks the Holy of Holies, where the male and female deities – Yahweh and Shechinah – were thought to dwell.” The Star of David does indeed represent the Holy of Holies in the Gnostic Jewish tradition and it was the Gnostic Jewish tradition that made the Star of David, previously it had been the

88 menorah, into the central symbol of Judaism. The Star of David represents the two aspects of God, the two triangles, the masculine and the feminine, which, when reunited, constitute all of reality. The creative father and the reflective Shechinah. That the Star of David adorns the Israeli flag says much about Israel, Zionism and the contemporary power of Gnostic Jews. Jews that want to remain true to the monotheism of rabbinic Judaism argue instead that the Shechinah did not represent the feminine aspect of God but that this interpretation arose from a basic misunderstanding of the text. What was actually being claimed was not that Yahweh was being united with the Shechinah, his consort, in the Holy of Holies but simply that God’s spirit “dwelt” in the Holy of Holies or “God’s Shechinah” in the sense that the Holy of Holies was “God’s dwelling” and not God’s wife. The Star of David, from this account, would be meaningless. Whatever the original meaning, by late antiquity, the Shechinah had become conceptualized as the “consort” of Yahweh by at least sections of the Jewish community. From this time onwards, at least some people who identified as Jews embraced what had become a true Hebrew “goddess”. (Stuckrad 2010: 286) As Patai observes, “she became the manifestation of God’s presence, the Shechinah – a feminine name just as God’s is masculine – the loving, rejoicing, motherly, suffering, mourning, and, in general, emotion-charged aspect of the deity”. (Patai 1990: 32) It was at this stage in Jewish history, in late antiquity, that the Shechinah also began to be associated with the eventual salvation of the Jewish people by becoming part of the redemption narrative of some sections of Jewish people that was just becoming a central theme in Judaism more generally. As Stuckrad (2010: 287-288) wrote, “. . .the Shechinah represents the female aspects of the godhead; she is the Sabbath on which God unites with his bride, exactly as he does with Israel on the Sabbath”. The narrative that developed in relation to the role of the Shechinah to human redemption was that when the Temple in Jerusalem burnt down in 70 AD, then the Shechinah, like the Jewish people whose spirit she personifies, became “exiled”.78 Like the Jewish people, she wandered the earth hoping to create a world which would again be a home for her spirit and the Jewish people. This new place of “dwelling”, this new Holy of Holies, that which the Star of David represents today, the place where God comes into the world as the uniting of Heaven and Earth, was from that time onwards understood to be the entire world. Gnostic Jews did not want a particular region or

78

Although it should always be remembered that the Romans never “exiled” the Jewish people from the land of Israel. There was never a law ordering Jews to leave or forbidding them to live in Palestine. Jews seem to have simply chosen to leave after a series of natural disasters and military defeats. They were probably motivated to leave by the hardships being experienced in Palestine and the prospect of better opportunities in other regions of the Roman Empire. Despite this, the language of “exile” is highly emotive and suggest a future right to return to “their” land. If this period was simply called “leaving” then people might be less supportive of their supposed entitlement to “return”.

89 area in the world, they did not really care about “Israel” or rebuilding the Temple, but they were promised the entire world by God. It is to rule the entire world and everybody in that world that is the project of Gnostic Jews. They just needed the power and resources of an entire state, Israel, if they were to achieve their real project. It was in the dwelling place, the world as such, where the Shechinah would be reunited with her partner. By the Gnostic account, Jews were “exiled” throughout the world not as a punishment by God, but as the best opportunity for them to realize their God given project to redeem God, Humankind, and the World. In the Messianic Era, the Jewish God would reign over the entire world, and, as it says in their prayers, everyone would “bend the knee” to their God. In order for the Shechinah to be brought into this world, the world had to be made in such a way as to accommodate Her. The Shechinah is often represented as a Mother Earth goddess, who is also, as with most Mother Earth goddesses, a warrior Queen who fights, like a mother whose children are endangered, viciously on their behalf. As long as there is a world of things, she remains exiled or entombed, in the darkness of the Underworld. As long as Her underground crypt remains intact, as long as there is a World of judgement, a World of “morality”, then she remains apart from the light. The only way to destroy the World is to break the existing world’s creator’s relationship with their God or, to say the same thing, to overcome the idolatry that constitutes our world as a thing consisting of extent things. As Gutkind observed, “Idolatry is absolutely prohibited for Israel. This is the condition on which the people are founded. Thus, the saying, “He who refrains absolutely from idolatry is called a Jew.” (Gutkind 1952: 22) To ensure that the Goddess is worshipped and no longer the false Father of Christiantiy and his “son”, there is the need for the revaluation of all existing values or, to put the same thing in terms that might be expressed by Gnostic Jews, to find redemption through sin. The ultimate hope of Gnostic Jews is to realise a new matriarchal order that will replace the current supposed patriarchy so that female principles will again reign supreme. It will be a world which is emotional, non-judgemental, highly sexual and nurturing. It is only then that the Shechinah will once again rule in this world thus bringing about an age, it is believed, of prosperity, peace, and harmony with nature, the Age of Aquarius, the Messianic Age. This new matriarchal order is already finding many expressions throughout the West once one knows what such an order would look like. Anderlini-D’Onofrio (2010) recently wrote of the apparent need for a “new politics of love”, a new politics where “loving allows [the] emotional resources to multiply and become abundant on a planetary scale” this is a politics which “confirms that nonconventional styles of erotic expression [which] are playful enough for our Earthly mother to welcome . . . in her multifarious body.” For this new order to be realized they not only need women in positions of power, which is being forcefully realised, but they need a new way of leadership

90 that is reflective of these female virtues. This new situation is necessary for the Shechinah to return (Stuckrad 2010: 288) and is, in its most simple terms, the rule of the Jewish people, in terms of their God informing government practices, over the entire world. As none other than Max Weber observed, For the Jew . . . the social order of the world was conceived to have been turned into the opposite of the one promised for the future, but in the future, it was to be overturned so that Jewry could be once again dominant. The world was conceived as neither eternal nor unchangeable, but rather as being created. Its present structure was a product of man’s actions, above all those of the Jews, and of God’s reaction to them. Hence the world was a historical product designed to give way to the truly God-ordained order . . . (as seen in Bendix 1998: 216) Matriarchy is just one aspect of systemic reversal that is required for the Gnostic Jewish ethos to rule the world. Just as the reversal of the world was the result of the actions of the Jewish people so will be its return to the proper order, where Jews rule the world, which demands the destruction of the existing order.79 As Nietzsche, who was familiar with Gnostic Judaism through his friendship with the German Jewish scholar Paul Rèe, reveals in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “And whoever wants to be a creator in good and evil: verily, he must first be an annihilator and shatter values. Thus, does the highest evil belong to the highest good: but this latter is the creative.” The existing world must be “shattered” if that which is most evil, the most reviled, everything that the Shechinah symbolizes from a Western Christian perspective, can be affirmed as that which is to be most highly prized. It is only because the divine sparks remain within everything evil that revaluation remains a possibility at all through the destruction of the existing world. That what was once seen as evil must now be revealed anew as the highest good and what was once valued above all else, things that were worthy enough to die for, must now be revealed as evil. If there is to be a destruction of the experience of the divine through the revaluation of all values, thereby robbing the false God of all its powers, there must first be the destruction of all values or, to say the same thing, the destruction of everything. Because, according to Jewish Gnosticism, everything is only constituted through human judgement, undermining the authority of those who were once thought to make authoritative judgements, is to destroy the world those judgements have built. As Lazier (2003: 33) observed, “The gnostic impulse was not merely otherworldly but anti-worldly, characterized above all by an Entweltlichungstendenz, a tendency toward “de-worldification”.” Wink (1993: 3) also observed that,

79

It should be appreciated that when it is claimed that Jews will rule world it does not mean that the world will be ruled by one ethnic or racial group, although this is how it is sometimes interpreted by Gnostic Jews themselves, but that people who reject idolatry, the core feature of “Jewishness”, will rule over a world that is no longer idolatrous. This is simply a world where reality is conceived as a “social construct” and nothing, literally, has endurance in terms of being “real”.

91 people “. . .have attempted to account for the Gnostic abhorrence of the world by pointing to the political disillusionment of Jews following their catastrophic defeats in the uprisings of 66-70, 115-117 and 132135.” According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, white, Christian men are qelippoh or “evil”. What will be realized once the Christian world has been destroyed, there will be, “. . .the utter disintegration, collapse, and death of the qelippoh once the completed tiqqun (healing) deprived it of the sources of its vitality. . . As the divine parsuf, or “countenance”, is restored in the world, that of the qelippah vanishes.” (Scholem 2016: 46) There is only one end point to this destructive project, “the human agents of evil will be either physically annihilated or otherwise disposed of”. (Cohn 2001) Gnostic scholar after gnostic scholar argues for this outcome, either white men will be killed or they will “disappear”. This destructive act is not just destructive but is, at the same time, creative. This destructive act is what they understand to be creative destruction. Of course, Karl Marx was the first to popularize the phrase “creative destruction” in Western literature, but it was the Hegelian scholar Alexandre Kojeve, in the shadow of the political intrigues of Parvus, who reinvigorated the term for modern Gnostic Judaism. Kojeve argued that all of history was an endless conflict between competing groups hoping to be recognised as superior. The most important aspect of this conflict is not armed conflict but about having your values affirmed in the world or to have your God recognised as the one true God by everyone. For example, there are two groups, one group wants to “consume” a particular cow for meat while another group wants to “consume” the same cow for dairy. These two groups enter into a struggle, what is really a life and death struggle, over how this cow will be consumed. If the cohort who want the cow to be meat “wins”, and they consume the cow for meat, then in the destruction of the cow they have at the same, constituted reality in a particular way. This “reality” is not only reality for the victorious cohort, the cow was consumed for meat, but it is also reality for the other group as well. The victorious group, the Masters, have created a universal truth. This act of destruction, consuming the cow for meat, is also creative in the sense of creating reality, creating a world. This is creative destruction. Imagine if what was at stake was not a cow but a young, white, Christian male. This man can be “appropriated” as a confident, Christian or society can be shaped in such a way that not only will he not grow up a Christian but the music he listens to is from another culture, the movies he watches denigrates everything that he was raised to believe, and then he goes through an education system that is designed to reject his heritage. In a way this person is “destroyed” as who he might have been, but he is also “created” as something else. This process of Gnostic Jewish creative redemption through destruction is nicely summarized by Mendieta who claims that what will be remembered of the 20th century is a certain trajectory of Jewish messianic thinking that has shaped contemporary society and most certainly not Protestant theology.

92 First, this Jewish messianism is profoundly characterised by a restorative element. This has to do with anamnesis as a fundamental aspect of rationality. In contrast to the idea of the restitution of an Arcadian past, or golden age, this messianism seeks to restore by way of an apocalyptic re-enactment. Second, this messianism is utopian in that it projects as new age that which is not brought about by the progressive accumulation of improvements, through a quantitative meliorism. This utopianism is unlike Enlightenment utopianism, which sees the future as the mere actualization of the present. Instead, the truly utopian is to be seen as an irruption into the historical continuum by a trans-historical agent. With Benjamin, we may say that progress is catastrophe, and utopia is ahistorical. The third element, already alluded to, is the apocalyptic dimension of this messianism. This restoration of wholeness, Tikkun, and the irruption of utopia, two aspects of one and the same process, are only conceivable as a radical discontinuity with the present. This past, as the past of injustice, is not to be superficially reconciled in the present, and the future is not imaginable from the present, lest it become a mere mirror image of what that present can alone think and project. . . Fourth, and finally, the restorative, utopian, and apocalyptic elements converge in the ambivalent image of messianism. This messianism, most importantly, is not personalizable. It is not the waiting or announcement of a messiah, but the call and discernment of the messianic forces and elements that, like fragments of utopia, break into the continuum of history. (Mendieta 2002: 4) This is an insightful account of the creative destruction of Gnostic Jewish messianism that was instrumental in shaping the 20th century but of course, only grows more influential in time as it “progresses” unchecked. The primary way that redemption will be brought to the world by overcoming the dominance of white, Christian, males, thereby liberating the Shechinah into the world was through female sexuality. Gnostic Jew, Wilhelm Reich, who believed that “sexuality was the centre around which revolved the whole of social life as well as the inner life of the individual” (Reich as seen in Tramontana 2021), argued that it was the female orgasm that would repair or heal the world. It was Reich who popularized this Gnostic idea of a “sexual revolution” in the United States in the years following World War II by proposing, what is described today as, an “anti-authoritarian orgasm theory, which stressed the importance of open relationships and sexual freedom with women’s economic and bodily autonomy. . .” (Tramontana 2021) The centrality of sex in Gnostic’s teaching was a development on the Gnostic teachings of Isaac Luria’s older version of kabbalah that was brought from Poland to the Near East by Nathan of Gaza, the man who shaped the messianic message of Sabbatia Tzevi. The basic idea was that the immanent aspect of God, the presence of God in the world, the female aspect that they call the Shechinah, was not accessed through the intellect, it could not be accessed through learning or reason, but through corporeality and extreme emotions. Consistent with the strategy of reversal, it was the heart, in a state of ecstasy, that should guide the mind in the Gnostic Jewish tradition and not the rational mind that should dominate the heart. Joy, especially sexual pleasure or the euphoria of drugs, which are both marginalized when eating

93 from the Tree of Knowledge, was how the female aspect of God was to be encountered. This might include frenzied dancing, like that engaged in nightclubs every night of every week, hallucinogenic drugs, as taken by those very same denizens, and, of course, extreme sexual activity especially as that experienced in group situations, as practiced at the end of many nights of “clubbing”. It was for this reason that Eastern Hasidic Jews, some of whom sustained Gnostic Judaism through the difficult 18th and 19th centuries, would practice a frenzied form of dancing themselves, not dissimilar to the more famous gnostic tradition of the Sufi dervishes, in an attempt to lose their individual selves and cleave to the immanent Goddess. Sex, particularly ritualized group sex, orgies, was another means to the same end. As Magid wrote of Lurianic beliefs, A healthy cosmos is a cosmos in the state of erotic desire leading to sexual union. An unhealthy cosmos is one where the masculine and feminine are uncoupled due to their proximity to the demonic. Erotic desire is aroused through the materialization of female desire which is reciprocated by male desire. . . That is, female desire initiates the erotic encounter. It is because of this current in Judaism that, in particular Jewish traditions today, “sex has now been exalted to the status of God”.80 (Chitkara 2004: 242) This thinking, the emphasis on sex but most especially female sexuality, is being forcefully promoted in the West. Sex education to primary school children, freely available extreme pornography, using payola and control over the music industry to ensure sexually explicit songs become popular, changing the purpose of sex from an act of procreation to an exclusively orgasmic pleasure where women today feel entitled to orgasms, the introducing of birth control and easily accessible abortions, are all aspects that allowed the “sexual revolution”. As will be revealed in detail, gnostic Jews were instrumental81 in realising this world and it was intended to aid in the destruction of Western civilization. Sabbatai Tzevi enthusiastically embraced Luria’s teaching and advocated that a “healthy” cosmos or a “healthy” society is achieved through sexual liberation with special attention paid to the female orgasm. As Jerry Rabow wrote of Sabbatai’s successor Jacob Frank, “He extended the paradoxical teachings of Tzevi that the coming of the messianic age had transformed sexual prohibitions of the bible into permissions and even obligations. According to Frank, engaging in sexual orgies became the means to purify the soul from its sins.” It was argued that humanity “naturally” enjoyed sex and it was

80

Freud actually extended the meaning of the word “libido” which, traditionally, was the energy that drove people to want to have sex, so that it now, as Laing observes (2021), “refers to a positive life force, an instinctive animal energy that drives each individual from the moment they are born”. Libido is literally recast by the Gnostic Jew Sigmund Freud so that it is harmonious with their idea of the Shechinah. The sex drive literally becomes a Goddess. 81

94 only by being in the proximity of evil, adhering to the moral restraint or Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity, the power of the rational mind over bodily desires, that people would not continuously and enthusiastically participate in sex. The positive religions require one to embrace reason and morality, as knowledge, to inform one to restrain themselves from participating in casual sexual encounters so that love informs personal relationships and not lust. This is what is meant when people observe that gnosticism destroys love, it undermines substantial love, as has been argued since at least ancient Greece, in promoting sex. In opposition, gnostic Judaism aspires to overcome reason and morality so that people continuously participate in casual, pleasure seeking, sexual encounters. The Gnostic Jew Sigmund Freud would argue centuries after Sabbatai’s influence, contrary to the Western tradition, that the only unhealthy sexual activity was not promiscuity, not homosexuality, not even paedophilia, but abstinence. According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, as expressed by Freud, sex needed to become a central aspect of the human condition, so important that it becomes the primary way by which we identify, because it moves us away from what they think of as “the demonic”. The point is that erotic desire, lust, historically portrayed in both the Western and Orthodox Jewish traditions as base and animalistic, a practice that blocks one’s access to God, is of central importance for the Gnostic kabbalistic tradition because it moves humanity towards the spirit of Nature, what they symbolically represent as the Tree of Life, or towards the goddess the Shechinah. This Gnostic belief was ritualized by Gnostic Alastair Crowley in the “Gnostic Mass” for what he named his “Gnostic Catholic Church”82. This ritual ended with the body of Christ, symbolized by the wafer of bread as in Christian Eucharist, being placed on the end of a lance, which was a phallic symbol, that was then plunged into a goblet of red wine, which symbolized a vagina. The lance is the masculine while the goblet is the feminine when these two aspects of God are brought together, the masculine and the feminine, then the wafer, the body of Christ, is stabbed and destroyed. Stabbing the Eucharist wafer is an established form to “desecrate the Host”. As the lance was plunged into the goblet, the High Priest and Priestess would both moan “hriliu” in unison which Crowley admitted was “the shrill scream of the orgasm”. What was being performed in this desecration of the Christian mass was the symbolic destruction of Jesus which was to be achieved through bringing together the masculine and feminine through orgasmic, pleasure oriented, sex. This is a ritualization of the Gnostic Jewish agenda. What must be appreciated is that historically the West prized reason, the intellect, order, in terms of the cosmos, over passion, sexual ecstasy and chaos. It is this hierarchical ordering, masculine/feminine,

82

Which has nothing to do with Christian Catholicism but “catholic” is being used here in the sense of universal. Crowley oversaw the universal gnostic church.

95 intellectual/material, reason/emotion, order/chaos . . . that Gnostic Jews, perhaps most famously expressed in the “post-modern” philosophy of European Jewish intellectuals like Theodor Adorno, JeanFrancois Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida, that they not only consistently criticised but were quite explicit in claiming was evil and therefore must be reversed. This changing priority is extremely destructive as Christian intellectual Pageau rightly observes, “The sexual revolution has been just as devastating to the spiritual worldview as the Copernican revolution.” (Pageau 2018: 60) It is not only destructive to the “spiritual worldview”, which it truly is, but it is that the shared spiritual worldview unites the West as a people where the real devastation occurs. To conceptualize what is happening in Freudian terms, if the subconscious is understood as “Id” and the collective conscience as “superego” then what Gnostic Judaism hopes to realize is to destroy the superego, the experience of a transcendent God, and embrace the “pleasure principle” in order to “liberate” the Id or the subconscious thereby overcoming the supposed “schizophrenia” that forms the ego. The ego is formed through the schizophrenia of the human condition which is formed through a tension between the self oriented to God and what is good and a baser self oriented to satisfying human animal drives. Our animal drives means that we all want to have sex all the time, but morality demands that we get to know each other, become familiar, learn what kind of person the other is and thereby “loving” them emotionally in a way that transcends mere lust. In the Western tradition, sex is rightly an expression of love not the pre-condition for love. It is the tension created between the incessant drive for sex and moral restraint that is problematic according to the Gnostic view of the world. They suggest that we return to our animal existence and just have sex all the time for pleasure without the need for entering loving enduring relationships. As Jung observed of Gnosticism, “What is striking about Gnostic systems is that they are based exclusively upon the manifestations of the unconscious, and that their moral teachings do not baulk at the shadow-side of life.” (Jung 1005: 207) Jung is observing that Gnosticism seeks redemption in the unconscious drives, the “shadow-side”, and therefore they rely exclusively on guidance from this domain which, historically, has been associated with the feminine. According to Shaul Magid, this reconnection of the self with human natural drives is best achieved particularly by “liberating” women’s sexual desire. Women, in particular, were the site for sexual restraint but this disciplining act enabled women to be more disciplined in all areas of life, creatively, financially, and morally. In the 19th and much of the 20th century, women were thought to be more moral than men. Humanity became human, broke with animal existence, ate from the Tree of Knowledge, an act first performed by women, that led to enduring relationships, resulted in the family, encouraged selfimprovement and, eventually, informed civilization itself. As Kreeft observes, humanity can “discriminate

96 not only between truth and falsehood but also between good and evil. We can be bad or good. Nothing else in the universe has that choice. Our selves, unlike acorns or stars, are not wholly given to us but made by our choices.” (Kreeft 2007: 8) Therefore, to “liberate” women’s sexuality, to encourage them in particular to look away from good and evil, encourages them to be sexually aggressive, define sexuality in terms of the entitlement to female orgasmic pleasure, then all of humanity is quickly torn away from civilization, away from the ideal of self-improvement (beyond making ourselves more sexually attractive at the local gym), away from the family and, finally, away from any kind of enduring relationships that have been so prized by the West. We all become, in such a world, as can be clearly seen, utility maximising “individuals” cast adrift from the communities in which we once lived to live lives like isolated animals. It is believed by Gnostic Jews that it is through the female orgasm that humanity will become detached from the entire Western Christian edifice of family, morality, civility, and virtue. Sex, they believe, purifies the soul from sin in the sense that sexual pleasure affirms life, as they understand it, while working against established morality. If women are chasing men for sex, then men are also consumed in sexual activity and morality, self-discipline, self-improvement, the pursuit of excellence, are all neglected in the neverending pursuit of sexual pleasure. The ultimate aim of Gnostic Jewry is to destroy the historically dominant experience of the sacred by manifesting a matriarchy that will ultimately worship this goddess. Matriarchy is so prized by Gnostic Jewry because they believe that women’s Motherly love, unlike men’s, is unconditional. Women love their children no matter what they do or who they are. There is no judgement in a woman’s love. By creating a matriarchy, they move humanity away from judgement generally or away from the demonic forces, what was historically called morality in terms of being guided by an experience of “the good”, towards their God, the Gnostic God, the God of lust and depravity, the God that also goes by the name Lucifer. It is because Jews in particular believe that they have been set this onerous task, the salvation of all mankind and God through the destruction of this world, that Gnostic Jews believe themselves to be “God’s chosen people”. As Schoeman wrote, If there is one theological issue that both Jews and Christians should be able to agree on, it is that “salvation is from the Jews”. It has been a constant teaching of Judaism from the days of Abraham onwards that the salvation of all mankind is to come from the Jews. That is the primary sense in which the Jews are “the Chosen People”. (2004: 9) Jews believe that they are the chosen people of God because it is their responsibility alone to bring about redemption through their God for all of Mankind. In the Gnostic Jewish tradition, salvation, the reuniting of heaven and earth, Yahweh with the Shechinah, is the unique task of the Jewish people collectively and

97 it is for this task, to spread knowledge that the world is not redeemed and to thereby bring redemption to the world, that they are the “chosen” of God. As Borowitz wrote, “Instead of God sending an ideal king, they foresaw all humankind working together and by social reconstruction producing a perfected world. In place of people being relatively passive, performing their religious duties by relying on God to redeem history, they would become activists, applying their reason and conscience to effect their own salvation.” (Borowitz as seen in Weisman 2018) The task of the Jews is to bring “all humankind” to the task of “producing” a “perfect world”. This “perfect world” though, is very different from Christian conceptions of a “perfect world”. This mentality, that Jews are responsible for redemption, is what informs Gnostic Jewish political activism. Gerrits claims (2009: 106), “The question as to why Jews, “Jewish Jews” or “non-Jewish Jews”, were so disproportionately attracted to radical politics has been identified as “one of the most basic problems of research in Jewish history””. The explanation for this disproportionate political activism is because Jews believe they have been called to destructive/creative political activity by God. According to research undertaken by the Israel Democracy Institute, around 2/3rd of Israeli Jews today believe that Jews are the chosen people of God with a special mission to heal the world. Two out of three Jews in Israel today believe that they are held by God as uniquely obligated to change the world into their vision. From a Gnostic Jewish perspective, as the chosen of God, they are intermediaries that stand higher than gentile humans, who are thought to be little better than talking animals best suited to service, but lower than God. As Reb Leibel Egar claimed of this intermediary condition, “. . . man is a man and an angel is an angel; that if a man wants it enough, he can be higher than an angel; and that G-d created the Beginning, just the Beginning, thereafter man must create his world.” The point that the rabbi is making is to acknowledge the special standing of Jews in relation to God. Humanity is above the angels because they, unlike the Angels who are simply messengers of God, are free and, as such, are responsible for making the world in the absence of God. The Gnostic Jewish tradition places Man in a very powerful position in relation to God. As Gnostic Jew Eric Fromm observed, The mystics have been deeply imbued with the experience of man’s strength, his likeness to God, and with the idea that God needs man as much as man needs God; they have understood the sentence that man is created in the image of God to mean the fundamental identity of God and man. Not fear and submission but love and the assertion of one’s own powers are the basis of mystical experience. (Fromm 2013) Whereas Christians are taught about the superiority of God and, therefore, the need for Man to obey God, Gnostic Jews are taught that they must hold God to account. The Christian tradition teaches that “God actually doesn’t need people in any fundamental way”. (Kindelberger 2017: 2) In the Jewish Gnostic

98 tradition, by contrast, man is in some respect an equal to God, a peer, and, therefore, not only extremely powerful but necessary for God’s salvation. Man, when he recognises his full potential, is above all the other animals, is above those humans who do not have gnosis, and are even above “Angels”. The reason for this superiority is that Jews are “free”.83 Jews do not only stand beside God but also act as an active intermediary between God and everyone else. Jews are so powerful in Jewish Gnostic theology that they can even hold God to account in terms of judging Him. To be passive in the face of God, like Christianity teaches, to accept the demand to obey God and his teachings as communicated by Jesus, in Christianity that means listening to one’s conscience, is to Gnostic Jews to adopt a position that is overly passive. To simply obey God is to adopt a position where one does not realize humanity’s full creative potential and, most egregious, is life denying. God wants humanity to express his full freedom so that he can redeem the world. It is not only an insult to Man’s potential to adopt a passive orientation of obedience to God but dangerous in that, by granting God too much authority, it means that God Himself will never be redeemed. God does not even want Mankind to be obedient, according to Gnostic Judaism, but wants Man to go His own way so that He will eventually be redeemed. According to the Gnostic tradition, God wants Man to reach his full creative potential as world fabricators. Gnostic Jews believe most fundamentally, “. . . that the world is malleable, and that Jews were obliged to participate in the transformation . . .” (Gerrits 2009: 108) Gnostic Jews believe that God withdraw from the world in order to open a space for men, Jews, to realize their full potential. It is this understanding of the role of Man as world creators who hold God to account that differentiates a religious tradition, which defines how to act, like Christianity from Gnostic Judaism. As Erich Fromm wrote, “The question is not religion or not but which kind of religion, whether it is one furthering man’s development, the unfolding of his specifically human powers, or one paralysing them.” (Fromm 2013) Gnostic Judaism believes that it develops “man’s” full potential by arguing that God is not part of this world, that God needs Man, and that Mankind is world creating. If we accept God’s living presence, by contrast, as Christianity teaches, that Man’s full power is in obedience, then one reaches his highest powers by obeying his individual conscience. According to Fromm, this Christian position is “authoritarianism” in the sense that obedience to God, what every believer should do, is to deny the capacity of humanity to create the world as they want. Christianity

83

It should be emphasized at this point that “Jews” here are not a racial group but anyone who reject idolatry. It might be argued that somebody like Friedrich Nietzsche or Michel Foucault are truer “Jews” by this account than an Orthodox Jew obeying Talmudic laws. It is such people as these who are “free”.

99 denies “humanism” in the fullest sense of this word, that humanity is understood as the creator of worlds.84 To gain an insight into Man’s relationship with God in Gnostic Judaism, the German Jewish scholar Erik Fromm differentiated between what he termed an “authoritarian religion”, like Christianity or Orthodox Judaism, and what he calls a “humanist religion”, the worship of Man, like Gnostic Judaism. According to Fromm, an authoritarian religion is simply a thin veneer laid over a much older, premonotheistic religion resulting in a kind of synthesis between pagan and monotheistic elements. Fromm is perfectly correct to suggest that Christianity was indeed heavily influenced by the Pagan Graeco-Roman tradition. Evidence for this influence is readily found. The people of the region in which Jesus lived probably spoke both Aramaic and koine Greek, Paul is shown quoting Greek poets and the entire ethic of the New Testament is Pagan Greek. Although Christianity, in trying to be “pure”, has usually tried to deny this Greek heritage, I would argue that this debt has greatly benefited Christianity. Against this, Fromm argues because Christianity is not exhaustively “Jewish”, it is really just a form of idolatry. As Fromm wrote, What is the religious situation in contemporary Western society? It resembles in curious fashion the picture which the anthropologist gets in studying the religion of the North American Indians. They have been converted to the Christian religion, but their old preChristian religions have by no means been uprooted. Christianity is a veneer laid over this old religion and blended with it in many ways. Christianity is just in reality paganism. According to Fromm, because of this, Christianity is an authoritarian religion. Christianity really consists of ancient pagan practices like, “ancestor worship, totemism, fetishism, ritualism, the cult of cleanliness, and so on.”85 It is authoritarian because it requires Man to obey, demands Mankind to be moral, insists on humanity denying their natural drives. A humanistic religion, by contrast, is one, unsurprisingly striking an accord with Gnostic Judaism, where God has reached a kind of agreement or covenant with Man that empowers Man. A humanistic religion is one that recognised Man as a near equal to God. That Jews invented a religious tradition that gives them a unique

84

It should be appreciated that “humanism” informed Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Tsi Tung, the most barbarous men of the 19th and 20th centuries, were all humanists. This is what humanism produces, despots who believe they can re-make the world according to their basest desires. 85 That Fromm pays so much critical attention to Christianity’s focus on “cleanliness” as exemplifying its fetishism shows just how much Judaism had changed by the middle of the 20 th century. Cleanliness is listed by both Menachem Mendel Lefin in his 18th century The Paths of Life and by the Italian kabbalist Moses Chaim Luzzatto in his 16th century Accounting of the Soul as a Jewish virtue. Indeed, both their lists, Lefin’s: Equanimity, Patience, Order, Resolution, Cleanliness, Humility, Justice, Frugality, Industry, Silence, Tranquility, Truth (Sincerity), and Separation (from lewd thoughts) and Luzzatto’s: Watchfulness, Zeal, Cleanliness, Abstinence, Purity, Saintliness, Humility and Holiness, (As seen in Heinze 2004: 41 & 44) are both thoroughly consistent with Christian virtues and yet a thousand miles away from contemporary Gnostic Judaism.

100 standing in relation to their God that has been observed by other scholars of Judaism not just Jews themselves. None other than Max Weber, who tragically died shortly after writing these words at the age of just 56 while researching his book on Judaism, claimed, His (God’s) relation to the people of Israel, who had accepted him under oath, together with the political confederation and the sacred order of their social relationships, too the form of a “covenant”, a contractual relationship imposed by Yahweh and accepted submissively by Israel. . . this contractual relationship also involved very definite promises by the divine partner; it was deemed appropriate for the human partner to remind him of their inviolability . . . This is the primary root of what is most distinctive in Israelite religion, the trait of mutual promise which despite various analogues is found nowhere else in such intensity. (emphasis added Weber 1965: 16) Weber is observing that Jews believe that they have been placed in a position where they become empowered, through their unique covenant with their God, to judge God, to fight with God, and, if necessary, to constrain His actions. The agreement between Man and God was a bilateral agreement, not one made by people to their God, as is usually the case, but one equally made by God to Israel. From their escape from Egypt, according to Weber, Yahweh was the “contractual partner to the ritualistic and social order of the confederacy” between the Jewish tribes. From that time onwards, all other people were now inferior to the people of Israel in the eyes of God, according to Judaism, because they were granted knowledge and power as expressed in their agreement. This new standing of Israel is what allows Moses to stop God from destroying all the people of Israel for worshipping false idols. Only Jews are part of this original covenant, only Jews were “the chosen”. Fromm appears to be suggesting that God may falter on His side of this agreement, and at such times it is the responsibility of the Jewish people to “stay the course” and keep Him to the covenant. This is humanism, claiming Man is equal to God. As Weber argued, A power conceived by analogy to living persons may be coerced into the service of man . . . Whoever possesses the requisite charisma for employing the proper means is stronger even than the god, whom he can compel to do his will. In these cases, religious behaviour is not worship of the god but rather coercion of the god, and invocation is not prayer but rather the exercise of magical formulae. (Weber 1965: 25) Because Judaism has personified God, it allows Him to be treated just as a person. God becomes a genii, ready to be ordered forth to do the bidding of the people who know the instruments of control. Weber is arguing that in the same way somebody gains a certain amount of power over a worker once a contract has been entered into, to ensure that he adheres to his side of the contract, so it is with the Jewish understanding of their relationship with their God. Under such conditions, Man is conceptualised as the active side of the relationship while God becomes the passive side of the agreement. Man, by this account, becomes equal to a God.

101 It now becomes Man’s task to create a world to please His God, now feminised as passive, not the task of an active God creating a world. The God that the Jewish people must please becomes conceptualised in terms of a Goddess, a feminine figure, who is to be lured or seduced into the world by mortal men. It becomes an erotic relationship where Man must create a home adequate to his demanding lover. Man becomes extremely powerful in this new role. As Kindelberger wrote, “Abraham now has a voice that impacts the direction of the nations and the world, a privilege no one before him had enjoyed.” (Kindelberger 2017: 23) Mankind now directs the nations of the world in order to realise an “ideal” future for God and not God creating conditions for man. This is why Gnostic Jews, informed by such beliefs, become so highly politically active. It is their task to realise a world for their God and anything, any brutality, any cruelty, can be justified in such a privileged task. In the aftermath of this type of thinking, it becomes the case that Judaism should “be expressed through social and political action”. (Heinze 2004: 77) Man creates while God receives. Man fulfills what has historically been seen as the masculine role, the creator, the doer, while their God becomes, literally becomes, something feminine. This idea has precedence in the Hasidic tradition of Eastern Europe when a worshipper was thought to bring “delight” to God, then God becomes the feminine in being the recipient of the “delight” brought by Man. This is obviously a sexual relationship, one that has erotic undertones. As the Hassidic scholar R. Nahman of Bratzlav, one of the most influential Gnostic theologians on contemporary gnosticism wrote, It is known that the recipient of delight from someone else is called a female . . . Therefore, when the Holy One, blessed be He, receives delight from the prayer of Israel it is as if He becomes female in relation to Israel . . . since by the smell that God receives from the prayers of Israel, He becomes the secret of the female. (as seen in Idel 2008: 122) It is almost as though the masculine spirit of God has withdrawn because of the active love of Israel for their God. Israel’s love has meant that all that remains of God is a feminine spirit that now waits passively for Her love to prepare their future home. God has been turned into something feminine because of the peculiar relationship with the people of Israel. This might explain why Gnostic Jews primarily worship the female spirit of God/Nature and why they are so pro-active, why they are so political, in creating a world for their God. It is like a Man building a house in which his lover will one day dwell. The people of Israel become like a Bowerbird building a nest and decorating it with beautiful blue things to lure their God into the world. This is also why Gnostic Judaism is a humanist religion, because humanity is, by their account, responsible for everything. As Barth wrote of the Adam and Eve, “They have refused God the gratitude which they owed Him. They have set themselves up as the lords of their life, as if they were Gods.” (Barth 1938: 50) God is no longer active. It is as though the story of the Tower of Babel, that seems to warn against such human hubris, was never written.

102 It is as a result of seeing humanity as the primary agents of redemption that Gnostic Jews understand themselves as destroying/creating a world for their God to enter as the promise of redemption was part of their contract. Weber claims that such an understanding of the relationship between God and Man is the “origin of the orgiastic and mimetic component of the religious cult”. (Weber 1965: 25) Weber is drawing attention to the fact that God needs to be seduced into the world and that Man is responsible for the seduction. Such an understanding of relationship between God and Man is why orgiastic rituals are so central to gnostic Jewish practice. Certain practices, such as orgiastic behaviour, are now understood as being required by God. This is the origins of the ritualistic sex that was intended to honour the Goddess through orgasmic pleasure thereby, through the act of sex, bringing “Her” into the world. In the same way that ecstatic dancing is thought to bring God into the world in the Gnostic Sufi tradition, so does sex function in the same role for Gnostic Jews. This is what is found in Hasidism which was, in its original form, an expression of Gnostic Jewry. In truth, “this erotic interpretation of the mysticalmagical model moved to centre stage in Hasidic literature”. (Idel 2008: 123) As Idel wrote of Hasidism, The members of the “royal” pair mentioned here are the sefirot Tiferet and Malkhut, that is to say, the male and the female divine manifestations respectively, and their erotic union is considered to be of paramount importance for the state of harmony in the higher and lower worlds. Their delight depends upon the human performance here below, and hence by adding delight below a person induces an addition of delight on high. (Idel 2008: 116) This passage captures a central idea in the gnostic tradition, “As above so below. That which has been, will return again. As in heaven, so on earth”. By participating in ritualized sex, to symbolically represent the union of the masculine and feminine aspects of God in sexual union, reflects the union between the Tiferet and Malkuth, between heaven and earth. Ritual is required in order to realize God/Man’s aims. This is in part why sexuality, particularly female sexuality, becomes so central to the project of global redemption. Weber observes that such ritualistic practices do “not yet involve any awareness of sin, and it initially takes place in the mood of cool and calculated trading”. (Weber 1965: 27) “Sinning” is not considered under such conditions but the sexual rituals, along with the frenzied dancing and hallucinogenic drugs, become a way of “trading” with God to bring her into the world. It is just part of a contractual agreement, part of “cool and calculating trading”. This contractual arrangement places humanity, or at least Jews as Jews, at the vanguard to realise redemption for all mankind and their God. This means, according to influential 20th century Jewish Gnostic theologian Rabbi Heschel, that God needs man as much as man needs God (Heschel 1955: 146; De Lange 2002: 182) “It is within man’s power to seek Him; it is not within his power to find Him. . . But the initiative, we believe, is with man. The great insight is not given unless we are ready to receive it.” (Heschel 1955:

103 147) Man is responsible for taking the initiative, just like any act of “courting”, because he is the active component and not God. Kabbalah, believed to be a received revelation of the Divine that is discoverable through an esoteric reading of the Torah, (Pinson 1999: 157) teaches these Gnostic ideas in terms of “uniting the name of God”. As it says in the Aleinu (which means “it is our obligation”), a prayer said by practicing Jews three times a day, :‫ְו ֶנאֱמַ ר‬ ‫וְהָ יָ ָ֧ה יְהוָ ָ֛ה לְ ֶ ֶ֖מלְֶך עַ ל־כָל־הָ ָ ָ֑א ֶרץ‬ ‫בַ יּ֣ ֹום הַ ֗הּוא י ְִהיֶ ָ֧ה‬ ‫יְהוָ ָ֛ה אֶ ָ ֶ֖חד‬ ‫ּוש ֥מֹו אֶ ָ ָֽחד׃‬ ְ

And it is said: “The Lord shall be King over all the earth; On that day the Lord shall be One And the Lord’s name Shall be One

Uniting the name of God requires the destruction of everything. It is only when everything, all that “is”, is destroyed, which is the bringing together of God’s fractured name, that we are again returned to the paradise and unity of primordial Nature, Eden, that humanity can again know the God Most High and be redeemed. As David Roskies wrote about the apocalypse, as a result of the Jewish people, “All past divisions would ultimately cease to have meaning, for all of the people were now holy . . . Liberated from their physical reality, from the vast contradictions of their life and their death. . .” (Roskies 1999: 224) All contradictions, all apparent tensions that result from this false world, are overcome by acknowledging, and realizing, the unity of everything by overcoming all that once had meaning. This is the exact nature of their Goddess. In Hebrew, God’s name consists of four letters which compose the tetragrammaton YHWH.86 The first two – the yod and the he, represent the Holy One, the transcendent aspect of God, the masculine and rational, and the second two – the vav and the he, represent the Divine Presence, the immanent aspect of God. This immanent aspect is the feminine side which is emotional. She is the Earth otherwise known as the Shekinah. According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, these two aspects of God, the feminine and the masculine, become divided when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. As Atwood (2011: 14) observes, One of the most important ideas, which has its roots in Jewish Kabbalah, is that God has both a masculine and a feminine nature that was part of the image of God in the original creation. . . Adam was originally androgynous and all seeing but his longing . . . caused his

86

Ancient Hebrew has no vowels, so the entire word is written only in consonants. Although the origins of God’s name “Yahweh” is unknown, this is not a Semitic word, I believe that it consists of two names for Egyptian lunar Gods brought together, Yahw and Ah. Together, of course, this would be Yawah but, as Hebrew does not have vowels, it would be written in ancient Hebrew as YHWH. This matter is explored in some depth in the following volume.

104 fall into mortality and sexuality. No longer androgynous, Adam was now united to the woman, Eve, but their descendants long for their redemption and the redemption of the cosmos through reunification of the divided self. The task for Jews is to reunite this divided God. God is removed from the world, humanity is ignorant of God, and He remains unknown, as long as He remains divided. The project for Gnostic Jews is that all their actions should be oriented to bringing these two aspects of the one God together so that the Holy One is Present in the world. As Idel writes giving voice to these views, The Shekinah and the sparks are redeemed by their being returned to their original place in the divinity. You might say heaven and earth are united. This action is “nothing less than the process of redemption embracing God, world and man.” . . . the Jew redeems the sparks exiled in the world and returns them to their source; and by doing this he redeems God Himself. . . the Jew in his own unique way intends to redeem God, himself, and the world. (Idel 2010: 161-162) Once God’s name is united then the world will be redeemed, and He will be fully present in the world. This project of healing the world by uniting the name of God appears to be a kind of theurgy, where human actions or rituals brings God, after satisfying certain condition, into the world. This places Man, or more correctly Jews (who are the only true “men”), in an incredibly powerful position. One that is now unconstrained by any binding experience of sin. Man is no longer subjugated by God, but he becomes understood as His partner, God’s equal. It is a licence to do whatever is necessary, any barbarous act, to realise the redemption of God, Man, and the world. To show what this understanding means for gnostic Jews, Fromm draws on a story from the Hassidic tradition to affirm has claim that Judaism is indeed a “humanistic religion”, it posits humanity as the active aspect in the God/Man relationship. He wrote, A poor tailor came to a Hassidic rabbi the day after the Day of Atonement and said to him, “Yesterday I had an argument with God. I told him, “Oh God, you have committed sins and I have committed sins. But you have committed grave sins and I have committed sins of no great importance. What have you done? You have separated mothers from their children and permitted people to starve. What have I done? I have sometimes failed to return a piece of cloth to a customer or have not been strict in the observance of the law. But I will tell you, God. I will forgive you your sins and you forgive me mine. Thus, we are even” Whereupon the Rabbi answered, “You fool! Why did you let him get away that so easily? Yesterday you could have forced him to send the Messiah.” The story begins by observing that this world, if it was created by God, appears to be terribly unjust. Children die of cancer before they have even had an evil thought enter their minds while paedophiles live on into their 8th decade apparently without a care. The purest soul starves on the street, happily giving away their last morsal of food to another who they deem to be more needy, while the most corrupt villains

105 accumulate millions, give nothing away, and yet want for nothing while living long lives. If God created this world, the Hasidic tale begins, then God must truly be a sinner.87 The real point of the story is not simply that God may not have created this world but, the real point is that God allowed Jews to know what is good and evil and, as observed, to then judge God. In judging God, in holding Him to their agreement, it is Man that has the power to coerce God to do His bidding, at least within the constraints of the agreement. The rabbi is chastising the tailor because he missed the opportunity to shape the world as he wished, the tailor had failed in his responsibility to be active and, primarily, to be active in forcing God into the world to realize redemption as He had agreed. The tailor has committed the crime of being too passive and not fulfilling his role as a Jew in forcing God into the world. Fromm concludes that the tale, “. . .demonstrates even more drastically than that of Abraham’s argument with God the idea that God must live up to his promises just as man must live up to his. If God fails to put an end to the suffering of man as he has promised, man has the right to challenge him, in fact to force him to fulfill his promise.” (Fromm 2013) It is a contractual agreement that empowers humanity to do whatever it takes to not only fulfill his side of the agreement but to ensure that God fulfills His side of the agreement. The task set Man in their agreement with God, the outcome that the Gnostic Jews are wrestling with God to achieve, is to heal the world or unite the female and male aspects of God, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life, and thereby make whole what has been rent asunder. The creation myth told by Gnostic Jews, indebted to kabbalah, is that the God Most High, the Ein Sof, withdraw by dividing into two aspects. There is a Heaven, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and an Earth, the Tree of Life. When these two halves come together again, then there will be a world. The masculine Heaven aspect is transcendent and unknown, but the female aspect is immanent, can be experienced, and it is this aspect that is called the Shechinah. The Shechinah, who those in the mystical tradition of kabbalah refer to as the Sabbath Queen (Shabbat Hamalka), (Sherwin 1997: 3) is often thought to be identical to the ancient Semitic goddesses Anat, Asherah, and Lilith. In the ancient Semitic tradition, the Shechinah was the goddess of the earth or the Goddess of Nature, sometimes characterised as Mother Earth, who is God’s remaining presence on Earth. Today it is widely believed that it is to the

87

What the Christian tradition would claim is that the possibility of experiencing events how we do is the “best of all possible worlds”. So that we experience a corrupt man do well means that the “world”, that which is meaningful, is good in allowing the behavior of the rich man in terms of being evil. Without God’s Grace how could we even judge good and evil? The world, meaningfulness, is good, it is human actions in that world given to us by Jesus as Christ that may be evil but, the experience of evil, is evidence of God’s grace, not evidence of it lacking. That we experience evil or wrongness is the greatest evidence for God’s presence not evidence for His failure or “withdrawal”.

106 Shechinah Jews turn to on the Sabbath and not Yahweh. It is believed by many Jews today that “the candles, flickering on a Friday night [they are] to welcome the Sabbath Queen”. The female aspect of God is, like His people, alienated from the Godhead and so redemption demands that humanity first redeem the Shechinah. As Jewish scholar Byron Sherwin observes, “The physical exile is no longer considered, as it was in previous generations88, as an obstacle to the attainment of spiritual fulfillment; on the contrary, the individual in the state of physical galut (alienation) is able to commune with the presence of God in the world (Shechinah), which is also in a state of exile (Gulut ha-Shechinah).” (Sherwin 1997: 104) As Sherwin observes, this is a new feature of Judaism. Whereas historically it was believed that humanity was alienated from God because he was no longer present in the world, more recently, within a generation, it has become understood that humanity is not completely alienated from God but is in communion with the exiled aspect of God, understood as the Shechinah. Unlike the heavenly Father, Man can commune with the Shechinah. It was the 20th century poet, Chaim Nachman Bialik, an important figure for the Gnostic Jewish tradition, who invented the rituals of Oneg Shabbat or the “Sabbath Joy”, which requires textual study, a festive dinner, lectures, and mystical sexual rituals on the Sabbath to honour the Shechinah. Unlike the unified God Most High, the limitless, the Ein Sof, this Goddess is potentially imminent in the world and can be brought into the world through correct ritualistic practices which often involves orgiastic sex. The Shechinah is also released into the world by “freeing” the divine sparks or natural drives of humanity from the evil “shells”. The “shells” are just the objective presence of things and the conscious mind of humanity, which is understood to be the creation of white, Christian males. God is present, according to Gnostic Judaism, in the pre-ontological “earth” so is, in a way, absent. The goddess is not yet in the world because the world, as it exists, is her tomb. It is only with the destruction of the world that the true God can be brought into the world. Our world, the world supposedly created by the Father, is, by this account, merely the realm of the demonic. As they claim, “Material existence is thus composed of demonic materiality that contains hidden sparks of divinity”. The world of objective realty must be overcome, destroyed, for the divine sparks to be recovered. The Gnostic God therefore is often associated with both life and death because “nature” is both, as Paglia observes, “womb” and “tomb”, that from which we come and is that to which we return, “for dust you are and to dust you will return”. But for this goddess to be revealed and allowed into the world, the world as such, which forms her tomb as long as it is in existence, the world of objectively present things, must be annihilated. As it says in

88

It is always important to remember that this is not part of the long tradition of Judaism but was introduced by Sabbatai Tzevi and was then nurtured within the Hasidic Jews of Eastern Europe before being transferred around the world. This is a relatively new practice and must be recognized as such.

107 Jeremiah 30:11 to the Jewish people; “For I am with you to save you, says God; I will bring annihilation upon all the nations among whom I scattered you, but upon you I will not bring annihilation.” According to Gnostic Judaism, as God is no longer active in the world, to be the agents of God’s wrath. It is they who will bring annihilation upon those amongst who Jews live. This burden of world destruction/creation, in the Gnostic Jewish tradition, is tasked the messiahs.89 What is first recovered on the road to redemption, according to this Gnostic tradition, is the goddess of the earth. Because the masculine God in heaven permits judgment, therefore allowing a “world”, the things that are, the trees, the houses, the desk, the sky, the birds, the fleas, everything that is, is understood in the Gnostic tradition to be an expression of the masculine psyche. This belief finds expression in Christianity which claims that the objective world is the responsibility of the “Father”. As it says in Romans 1:19-20 “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” God is known, in the Christian tradition, through His creations, the World, because in creation90, in the things that furniture this world, there is the experience of the good, the beautiful and the true. An experience of mind of God. As Heidegger wrote, in “Christian theological belief that, with respect to what it is and whether it is, a matter, as created (ens creatum), is only insofar as it corresponds to the idea preconceived in the intellectus divinus, i.e., in the mind of God . . . in this sense true.” (Heidegger 1993: 118) To know God, to know the Father, according to the Christian tradition, one just need come to know the objective world because through his “creations” He reveals Himself directly to Man. Christianity is not rightly understood as a religion of faith in the sense

89

It is here that there are interesting resonances with Greek philosophy. In Plato’s Symposium, love is presented as being a spirit, like Hermes, between the gods and man, which loves explicit intellectual knowledge. So, Plato is subtly associating the spirit of love as that between the gods and man with the philosopher. The philosopher, in pursuing sophia, is above men who merely accept tradition and gods who truly have sophia. Just like Socrates, the task of the philosopher is to reveal how humanity is ignorant of sophia and needs to spend their lives pursuing it with single minded passion. I think these same ideas might motivate Gnostic Jews, reveal to other people what we do not know, thus making them question the authority of tradition. Socrates, of course, was killed by the Athenians for questioning tradition as it was believed to corrupt the youth. 90 Heidegger argues that the ancient Greeks did not think in these terms of “creation” or “cause” but instead thought in terms of “being responsible for” so he argues that the telos, that which bounds the thing, “is responsible for what as matter and what as aspect are together co-responsible” for things. (Heidegger 1993: 315) By this account, the mind of God, experienced by mortals as the good, the beautiful and the true, might be thought to be responsible for the limit of things, the telos, and, therefore, allows things to come forward as what they are. God is not the “creator” by this account but that which is “responsible” for things, Being as such. A subtle but extremely important reimagining of the role of God in manifesting a world but one essential if God is to again be thought plausible.

108 of belief without justification but a religion of faith in terms of a particular kind of knowledge. As Barth extrapolates, Faith knowledge in the sense used by Reformed teaching does not mean a knowledge which is based merely on feeling, which is peculiar to the individual and which therefore has no binding character for others. On the contrary, no more objective and strict form of knowledge can exist, and no type of knowledge can lay claim more definitively to universal validity than the knowledge of faith. (Barth 1938: 25) The knowledge gifted by God is initially implicit but is made explicit through reason or logos or is made “flesh” through the Son. Again as Barth observed, “Because God reveals Himself to man in Jesus Christ, it is established firstly that not only does God Himself exist but that from God, by Him and for Him there exists also a real world. . .” (Barth 1938: xii) It is that the Father is revealed through the Son that there is reality, there is a “real world”. As Peter Kreeft has rightly observed, “A world created by God is real, not a dream either of God or of man. And that world is rational. Finally, it is good. Christianity is a realistic, rational and world-affirming religion, rather than a mythical, mystical, or world-denying religion . . .” This capacity of bringing the world forward as already potentially made present by God through reason has long been associated with the masculine. As the feminist scholar Ruether (1998: 70) critically observes, “The self was defined as split between reason and passions, mind and body. The self is rightly ordered when the male powers of mind rule over the female elements of sensuality and bodyliness. The self falls into disorder and sin when the power or female part of the self gets out of hand and subverts the higher male rationality.” Ruether, though critical, is perfectly correct. It has been historically believed that when decisions are made on an emotional basis, when people are driven by desire, when action is taken only in terms of protecting those with whom one identifies, that is when bad decisions are made and when the world falls into chaos. The Father is revealed through His creation, through the world that He is responsible for because it exists only through knowing what is good, beautiful, and true. It was for this reason that consciousness of this World is thought to be an expression, Gnostics Jews argue, of the male psyche or the rational aspect of the soul. As contemporary feminists might say, and they are quite right, the world, as a world, is the result of the male gaze. It must be appreciated, of course, that the male gaze is not something exclusive to males, obviously women too experience a world through reason, but, as contemporary second wave feminists argue under the influence of Gnostic Jewry, everyone sees the world of objective things through the male gaze, biological males and females alike. All consciousness, in requiring a reason, in answering the questions “what?” or “how?”, is an expression of masculinity. What this means in the Gnostic Jewish tradition, which denies the presence of the Father, is that in fact it is male power that determines how the world is experienced, in terms of good and evil. By the gnostic

109 account, the objective world is an expression of male power. What white Christian males value, by the Gnostic Jewish account, is good while what they do not value is evil. Monogamous relationships, by this account, affirms male control and guarantees paternity and is, therefore, “good”, while female promiscuity, which allows women to seek pleasure but challenges male power and undermines paternity, is cast as “evil”. In traditional Western societies, women, in being Christian, also saw the world through this masculine lens. So, although monogamy, Gnostic Jews would argue, is actually oppressive to women, denying them one of their greatest pleasures in the world, historically women did not just advocate for monogamous relationships but were probably its greatest defenders of the institution of monogamous marriage. They first accepted and then promoted the male gaze. This is how masculine consciousness is thought to cover over the female “earth”, the primordial, the Natural, the emotional, the unified holistic experience that is prior to objectification. As Jung observed of psychoanalysis, The gods whom we are called to dethrone are the idolized values of our conscious world. . . People are laying bare the dubious foundations of our belauded virtues and incomparable ideals and are called out to us in triumph; “There are your man-made gods, mere snares and delusions tainted with human baseness – whited sepulchres full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness”. (1955: 212) Jung is observing how it was, by 1955, being argued that what was historically prized in the Western tradition, “the idolized values”, were being revealed to have “dubious foundations” and were being revealed as “delusions”.91 By this account, there is no primordial limits manifested as the mind of God, nous, but there is simply the Natural continuum that becomes artificially constrained by human made, or more rightly man made, borders that are legitimized by claims of there being a God. It is this prior continuum, Earth, the feminine, in the fullest sense of that word, that is forced into the darkness of the Underworld and becomes understood as evil, chaos, ignorance. As Bloom wrote when giving an account of Gnostic Jew Hans Jonas’ work, Gnosis is, A knowledge that is at once “secret, revealed and saving” is indeed the language of a “transcendental genesis”. Like Milton’s Satan in his fall from the Godhead, a fall that opens up a new, Sublime, Negative creation in the abyss, so the Valentinian creation/fall brings about a Sublime and Negative cosmos, with the difference that the Gnostic fall is within the Godhead, and not just from it. (Bloom 1981: 61) What the Gnostic Jew Bloom is drawing attention to in a way that might be missed by the casual reader is that gnosis is oriented towards the abyss of Lucifer which can also be understood as Venus/Shechinah.

91

Jung is unclear whether he believes this or if he is observing it about his times. In truth, if he did clearly write against this claim then he would not only not get published but he would have lost his entire career. Already by 1955, Gnostic Jewry controlled publishing and academia especially within the tradition of psychoanalysis.

110 This world become the domain of Satan. Gnostics also fall, as do Gentiles, but they do not fall away from the Godhead but within the Godhead in terms of towards the female aspect. It is here, in its movement down towards the feminine, the earthly, the instinctual, that gnosis is oriented as a “negative cosmos” in the sense that it is reversal of the positive cosmos. It is for this reason that many Jews, quite openly today, have come to embrace Satan. Rabbi Skobac, for just one example, argues that Satan is an agent of the God Most High sent to punish humans who interfere with His plans and oppose the Gnostic Jewish project. (Skobac 2013) Satan/Shechinah, by this account, rules on earth in the absence of the God Most High. This rule has been disrupted by evil men and the project now is to reverse this evil. This is why Gnostic beliefs informed “critical theory” which uses a “negative dialectic” which is a dialectic oriented away from the gentile92 fall into Being towards the negative cosmos, the abyss, of Satan/Lucifer/Shechinah. It is oriented towards the Earth or the feminine. As Flowers (2013) wrote when writing about gnosticism, “The base and the noble are, after all, parts of the same whole, or substance. Therefore, the transmutation of one thing to another is theoretically possible”. With the advent of the Christian male world, the Earth becomes not only an underworld, the domain of Lucifer/Shechinah but also, within the subject, the human “subconscious”. The conscious is literally the masculine while the feminine becomes the subconscious. The “world” is in the bright light of day, a masculine god like Zeus or Apollo, whereas the “earth” is in the darkness of the crypt, a chthonic goddess, away from the light, a Pandora like figure. According to the Gnostic view, the experience of reality, knowledge of good and evil, is the false separation of the unity of reality itself, idolized reality, as captured in the human gender division, which reflects the division of “World” and “Earth” into discrete spheres. As Gershom Scholem wrote, “The sin of Adam was that he isolated the Tree of Life from the Tree of Knowledge to which he directed his desire. Once the unity of the two trees in men’s lives was destroyed, there began the dominion of the Tree of Knowledge.” (Scholem 1995: 86) When humanity no longer lives in harmony with Nature, but tries to dominate Her, control Her, domesticate Her to do his bidding using knowledge, then He enters into a relationship of violence, a relationship of power/knowledge. With the manifestation of an enduring World, which is captured, just

92

Unlike the Yiddish term “goy”, “gentile” is not a derogatory term but simply means foreigners from a Jewish perspective. It is from the Latin word “gens” meaning “family” or “race”. Gentilis means to be “of a family” or “of a nation”. Gentile is simply the English version of Gentilis. It might be considered to be the Latin form of the Greek ethnikos which is from ethnos, meaning “nation” and “-ikos” “from” so ethnikos might also be translated as “of a nation”. “Gentile” is used in English in the same way that people once referred to “foreigners” as being “ethnic” as in the sentence, “Those people who moved in next door are ethnic” to mean simply that they are foreigners. “Goy”, by contrast, although often claimed to be a translation of gentile is actually a pejorative term. The true plural of “goy” is “goyim”, but English-speaking Jews will use the insulting term “goys”.

111 for one example, in the dominance of clock time. Clock time means that the natural temporal flow of the Goddess of Nature is driven into the darkness of the abyss. This is why there is an intimacy between God and time, different Gods constitute different experiences of time. Time, like moral judgement, is a purely human

experience. This act

of reification/temporality, what becomes

the

“problem of

objectification/time”, through atomization, drove the holistic feminine aspect of the God Most High, the Shechinah, the receptacle, the primordial arche, the prior continua that can be divided, into the darkness of the “under-world”. From this time onwards the male gaze defines the world by breaking it up into discrete objects that exist in time. As a result, as the Lord says to Eve in Genesis 3, as punishment for living according to knowledge of good and evil, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This is not a prescriptive punishment but merely a description of what has been done as a result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. By the Gnostic Jewish account, men rule in an absolute way, as second wave feminism later argued under the influence of Gnostic Judaism, not simply by instituting laws that benefit their continued dominance, not through formal inequality, but by making reality itself as the expression of male power. The more the world comes forward as a World, the more the Present endures through time, the more dynamic Nature withdraws into the darkness of the Underworld. “God’s lovely bride” (Green 2004: xxvii) is banished into the dark abyss.93 In 1972, Gloria Steinem gave a much more prosaic account of the myth of the lost matriarchy to which they hope to return writing, Once upon a time, the many cultures of this world were all part of the gynocritic age. Paternity had not yet been discovered and it was thought . . . that women bore fruit like trees – when they were ripe. Childbirth was mysterious. It was vital. And it was envied. Women were worshipped because of it, were considered superior because of it. . . Men were on the periphery – an interchangeable body of workers for, and worshippers of, the female centre, the principle of life. The discovery of paternity, of sexual cause and childbirth effects, was as cataclysmic for society as, say, the discovery of fire or the shattering of the atom. Gradually, the idea of male ownership of children took hold. . . Gynocracy also suffered from the periodic invasions of nomadic tribes. . . The conflict between the hunters and the growers was really the conflict between male dominated and female dominated cultures.

93

Christianity, again drawing inspiration from Greek thought, acknowledges that “earth” precedes “world” or the intelligible precedes the intellect but that as the intellect is quite separate from “earth”, earth played no active role in creation. Earth, if you like, is not a God. Jewish Gnosticism claims that it was with the rejection of the primordial role in creation of “earth”, usually portrayed as a Goddess, this was the origin of Western patriarchy. For this reason, one of the agendas of Gnostic Judaism is to overcome patriarchy, this involves not only removing men from positions of power but destroying the nuclear family which they see as the true site of patriarchal power.

112 . . .women gradually lost their freedom, mystery, and superior position. For five thousand years or more, the gynocritic age had flowered in peace and productivity. Slowly, in varying stages and in different parts of the world, the social order was painfully reversed. Women became the underclass, marked by their visible differences. (Steinem as seen Eller 2001: 1) Eller would later observe that Gloria Steinem’s idealized account of a matriarchal past is just one example of “the myth of matriarchal prehistory”. This myth has no basis in historical truth. Despite it being simply untrue, that there weas indeed a matriarchal prehistory has come to be accepted by many Western scholars as fact when it actually originated out of Gnostic Jewish theology. Eller observes that the matriarchal prehistory myth claims that there was, . . . a time before written records, [when] society was centred around women. Women were revered for their mysterious life-giving powers, honoured as incarnations and priestesses of the great goddess. They reared their children to carry on their line, created both art and technology, and made important decisions for their communities. Then a great transformation occurred – whether through a sudden cataclysm or a long, drawn-out sea change – and society was thereafter dominated by men. This is the culture and the mindset that we know as “patriarchy”, and in which we live today. What the future holds is not determined, and indeed depends most heavily on the actions that we take now: particularly as we become aware of our true history. But the pervasive hope is that the future will bring a time of peace, ecological balance, and harmony between the sexes, with women either recovering their past ascendency, or at last establishing a truly egalitarian society under the aegis of the goddess. (Eller 2001: 2) Although the narrative of there once existing a matriarchal society to which, God willing, one day we will return is not historically true, many religions in the past did indeed have a goddess with many of the characteristics of the Shechinah. Indeed, there are several myths that speak of a situation in which women dominated society that is then overcome by a male heroic figure. For just one quick example, the Ancient Greek myth of Python. According to this myth, at the centre of world, where the omphalos or “navel” of the world was erected, there stood a great temple to Gaia, Mother Earth.94 This temple was protected by a great serpent, Python, who is portrayed as either being Gaia’s son or daughter depending on the account. There was a great deal of animosity between the Olympian God Apollo, who was a solar deity, a God of truth, healing95 and poetry, and Python who was a chthonic God associated with the earth. One day, Apollo fought and slew the Python. He then took over the temple to honour himself and established

94

Gaia, like Geo, is from the ancient Goddess Ge, which was a chthonic goddess much older than the Greek gods of Olympus. She was conceived as a very ancient, primordial power with the epithet “thousand-fold”. 95 Healing is often a feature of solar Gods because healing was once thought in terms of returning to a lost order.

113 the oracle at Delphi. From this time onwards the high priestess, the Pythia, named after the serpent, would function as an oracle or “prophet” under the divine possession of the God Apollo. Here appears a myth which shows the transition, which was thought to have occurred around 200 BC, from the dominion of an earth Goddess, Gaia, to the dominion of a male solar God, Apollo. Unlike the Gnostic Jewish tradition, in most religious traditions, it is the female aspect of God that was understood to be something evil, something that must be overcome, something that must be kept in Her dark crypt if civilization was to exist. In most societies, this expression of the Goddess is thought to be evil itself. Lucifer was originally derived from the feminine, the goddess Venus who was associated with the planet Venus, which went by the name Φωσφόρος (phosphoros) “light-bringer” or, in Latin, Lucifer. Venus was very much like the goddess Shechinah and like the Shechinah was symbolized by an eightpointed star. Opposed to this Goddess were masculine Gods, like Ares, whose planet was Mars or θοῦρος (thouros). For the Semitic Canaanites of the ancient near east, the Shechinah was the Goddess Astarte, for the Semitic Carthaginians who lived in modern-day Libya, she was the Goddess Tanit, in the ancient Egyptian tradition she the Goddess Hathor, which may be the oldest known expression, while in the Hindu tradition she/he was known as Shiva, the creator and destroyer of Worlds. In all these traditions there are common themes for these goddesses. They are all goddesses because woman have long been associated with the Natural, the wild, the untamed, the irrational, the sexual/fertile, “Mother Earth”, the emotional and the instinctual. Although she is often portrayed as a woman, she is always seen as being primarily androgynous in terms of expressing both male and female attributes prior to the division into genders. So alongside traditional female attributes she is also portrayed as being a ruthless, violent though loyal warrior. These goddesses are also often associated with uninhibited sexuality because they are supposed to live according to their instinctual drives, uninhibited by morality, they are literally uncivilized. As Lazier (2009: 16) observes, Embedded in both physis and nomos, after all, are claims about how to live. Those who prefer physis hold up nature as a standard by which to measure the rightfulness of human law or convention, and by extension our cities and states. Those who prefer nomos hold that nature, human or otherwise, has little to say about the matter, and if it did would lack the voice to say it. Because these Goddesses are of the earth they retain their mysteriousness. They are the mysterious beautiful woman who is seen but, despite the emotions she initiates, she retains her mysteriousness. She is from the earth, physis, who dwells in darkness. In some traditions, these goddesses simply cannot be brought into the light because to know such a goddess would require knowledge. They are unknowable, mysterious, because they are prior to division, they embody contradiction. They are both male and female,

114 good and evil, life and death, destruction and creation. Their actions can be viewed from a mortal perspective, when she flattens a city for example, but that is depending on a perspective. Her actions can be interpreted from a mortal position as creative or destructive, but her actions are always her own, she keeps to herself. Such Goddesses embody everything because they are prior to all categorizations. There is a religious tradition, the Mandaean (from Aramaic manda, “gnosis” or “knowledge)96, perhaps the only openly gnostic movement still operating in the world today, (Quisel 1981: 29) which believes in an evil spirit Ruha Matanita, who is personified in a female form. She is viewed negatively as the personification of the lower, emotional, instinctual, violent and feminine, elements. She shares many of the same features of the Jewish Gnostic Goddess, the Shechinah, in being an expression of pure contradiction. As is written as an epithet to Ruha Matanita, I am death, I am Life, I am darkness, I am light, I am error, I am truth, I am destruction, I am construction, I am the wound, I am the healing. (Right Ginza, 207) The contradictory nature of the Shechinah is captured in the Gnostic Jewish concept of tikkun olam or “repairing the world”. The ultimate purpose of World destruction, according to the Gnostic Jewish tradition, is to “heal” or “repair” the world or what they call tikkun olam. The commitment that it is humanity’s task to “heal the world” is just one idea that is adopted from, what Gershom Scholem, amongst many others, readily acknowledges is gnostic Kabbalah. (as seen in Biale 1982: 66) Tikkun olam is not a phrase used in the Tanakh but is used in passing in the Mishnah. It became an important idea to Jews through the Jewish mystical tradition as a result of Rabbi Isaac Luria only in the 16th century. Tikkun Olam came to mean the overcoming of all forms of idolatry and thereby separating what is evil from what is sacred.97 Luria’s account has come to be interpreted by the Gnostic Jewish tradition as God assigning humanity the task of destroying the objective world which is the creative act of healing. It is really only in the late 20th century that the phrase becomes firmly established in mainstream Jewish thinking. This is just

96

Just an interesting sidenote to tell your children but the name of the people in the Star Wars franchise, the Mandalorians, one of whom rescues the young Yoda, is most probably derived from the words Manda, meaning “gnostic”, and Loria, a Nordic goddess of beauty and wisdom akin to the Gnostic Jewish goddess Anat. So, Mandalorians could be translated to mean “knowers of the goddess Anat”. Gnostic Jews are so influential in American society that they do not only shape narratives in a Gnostic way but posit many characters who are archetypal of Gnostic Jews. This is especially true for children’s entertainment to shape their thinking early. 97 Luria’s greatest and most enduring contribution was to see this act of healing to be primarily a human task and not a task to be left to God. It was up to Jews to destroy the false idols of the world which he understood as the objective world. These ideas then influenced, Sabbatai Tzevi, who claimed in the 17th century that he was the true messiah. Sabbatai Tzevi is the founder of modern Gnostic Judaism.

115 one example, along with certain Sabbath rituals, that is evidence of the recent invention of the theology of Gnostic Judaism. Shlomo Bardin, the founder of the Gnostic educational program in California, the Brandeis Camp Institute, who was instrumental in institutionalizing the idea of tikkun olam into contemporary Jewish theology through his training programs, argued that the idea of tikkun olam actually captured the essence of Jewish values that ties various movements together. As Adler asks tying different strands of what is really one Gnostic movement together through the idea of tikkun olam or healing the world, Is there a strand in Jewish thought that reconciles religious belief and social commitment, a common thread which finds resonance both in the established Jewish community and among the Jewish activists . . . who claim that they acted not so much as Jews but as communists or liberals? I would suggest that this strand exists as the Jewish commitment to tikkun olam, to the redemption of the world. (Adler 2000: 196) The healed world is a time when the goddess of the underworld is freed, a time constituted by the Shechinah, and she is then ready to be reunited with her husband. The world that is healed is the End of Days, . . . when presumption will increase, and respect disappear. The empire will turn to heresy and there will be no moral reproof. The house of assembly will become a brothel, Galilee will be laid waste, and the people of the frontiers will wander from city to city and none will pity them. The wisdom of the scribes will become odious and those who shun sin will be despised; truth will nowhere be found. Boys will shame old men and old men will show deference to boys. . . On whom shall we then rely? On our Father in heaven. (As told by Scholem based on the Mishnah tractate Sota 1971) A time without respect, a time without morality, a time when the governmental institutions will do everything for money, a time when the scholars’ arguments will be “odious” and those who are opposed to sin will be hated. A time when “truth will nowhere be found”. This seems to be a time very much like our own. It is then that the evil of this world, white, Christian males, will be destroyed and reality will be reunited into its primordial oneness without the disruptions of enduring objectivity. As a destructive force, the Shechinah is like a flood in the natural world or revolution in the human sphere. It is destructive but that destruction is also creative. The Shechinah is actually good, at least according to the PseudoDionysius’ account of the goddess, but good in a way that transcends human understanding. The Shechinah is so good, yet so mysterious, so unknown, that she also encompasses all that we mortals might understand as evil. She is life and death. Truth and falsehood. She can therefore be said to be beyond good and evil just as she is beyond destruction and creation and beyond male and female. The Shechinah is beyond all binary opposition and is therefore their union. That her goodness can be thought evil from a moral perspective turns out to be extremely important for the gnostic Jewish tradition whose sole aim is

116 to herald the new epoch of the Shekinah. The Greek tradition, by contrast, has the personification of heaven, Cronus, castrated by Uranus so that the lost unity of heaven and earth, the separation that allows a World in which mortals may live, can never be undone. In the Greek tradition, the separation of Heaven and Earth is good, at least from a human perspective, in that it is only through this separation that a world, as such, can exist “in-between” at all. It is the exact opposite, as is so often the case, in the Gnostic Jewish tradition. Gnostic Jews aspire to realize the destruction of the World in order to reunite Heaven and Earth in eternal sexual bliss. It is that Jewish Gnostics worship this manifestation of God that explains why they oppose all positive expressions of religion including Orthodox Judaism. As Rubenstein, a Gnostic Jew, wrote about his understanding of God and Messianism, Messianism’s real meaning is the proclamation of the end of history and the return to nature and nature’s cyclical repetitiveness. . . The deliberate turning of the people of the religion of history to the religion of nature is a moment of Kairos. . . earth’s fruitfulness, its vicissitudes, and its engendering power will once again become the central spiritual realities of Jewish life . . . Here Rubenstein is capturing the major fault line within Judaism itself, between those who read the Torah as a historical text, thereby understanding it primarily as a legal document, against those who read Torah as a mythological text, revealing secret knowledge. Gnostic Jews want to disregard the legalistic reading and read it has holding secret knowledge about returning to Nature’s rule and returning to the predictable cyclical repetitiveness that Nature promises. The eternal return of the same. Just by way of contrast, according to the Christian tradition, as a positive religion, that believes that positive things can be known about God, the world and other people, Jesus was the redeemer, who has already opened the way for uniting heaven and earth thereby manifesting a true World.

117

The Star of David was not always synonymous with Judaism but was a widely used symbol that Christians also used. Jesus is being portrayed here as the figure who combines heaven and earth to realise a World

Jesus unites heaven and earth in such a way that is not world denying/destroying but World affirming. World becomes truly a World by linking earth with heaven. As Jesus prayed, “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made You known to them, and will continue to make you known . . .” (emphasis added John 17: 25-26) This passage is important because it points to the pre-Messianic condition of ignorance, what Jesus then brings, “knowledge”, and, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, what God promises in the future, to live within Jesus/World. As Hegel presents Jesus as saying, “I cling to the untainted voice of my heart and conscience . . . This inner law is a law of freedom to which a person submits voluntarily, as though he had imposed it on himself.” Jesus has freed humanity from external Laws by granting humanity a conscience. Man’s conscience is now the Law and he responds to that voluntarily as though it was something he created himself but is really God’s. By this account, Jesus is the personification of the temple in Jerusalem. As it says in the gospel of John 2: 18-21 . . . [the Jews] said unto him (Jesus), What sign shewest though unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

118 Jesus is the temple and he is “destroyed” only to be raised again three days later. In being the embodiment of the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus is identifying himself as the new way to God the Father in Heaven. According to Christianity, Jesus, not the Shechinah, is the embodiment of the Holy of Holies. Reason and not “nature” is to be the guiding light. One no longer sacrifices animals or relies on accounts given by the rabbinate, they had, after all, turned his house into a brothel, as it is Jesus, through his blood sacrifice, who opened the way to God. As it says in Hebrews 9: 12-14, He [Jesus] did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once and for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! Jesus’ untainted blood is the ultimate sacrifice that God could make so that Man’s consciences would be cleared of taint, no longer guiding them to animal like acts but would direct Man to the living God. Man, in the embodiment of Jesus, could give to God the Father. The Holy of Hollies is opened for everyone through the sacrifice of Jesus and forever because Jesus’ body, everything that is as united with logos, is now sacred. Because of Jesus’ revelation, Christians know the Father through the Son and live forever in the presence of the living God. Christians dwell forever in the Holy of Holies in terms of living in Jesus. As Klein observes, “The God of Christianity is neither unknowable, inaccessible, nor ineffable.” (Klein 1974: 170) As Miller elaborates, I would suggest that the central message of Christianity is that God has communicated God’s self to human beings so that human beings can share in God’s life. God has communicated God’s self to human beings without God ceasing to be infinite reality and without human beings ceasing to be finite existents. And the capacity of human beings to receive that selfcommunication is made possible by God. As Karl Rahner correctly maintains, “God’s selfcommunication is given not only as a gift, but also as the necessary condition which makes possible an acceptance of the gift which can allow the gift really to be God and can prevent the gift in its acceptance from being changed from God into a finite and created gift which only represents God but is not God himself.” We do have access to God. God has revealed God’s self and we do know God. (Miller 2011: 360) This knowledge is the greatest gift bestowed on Man in history. It is through Jesus, and his blood sacrifice, that we know God. Jesus is the way to God and there is, according to Christiantiy, no other way. You cannot embrace Buddhism and find God or read the latest Louise Hay’s book to find your own way. God’s gift of knowledge, experiencing the good, the beautiful and the true, is actually the very condition for being able to be good. One cannot find their own way to Heaven but must follow the way opened by Jesus the Messiah. There is a saying in the East regarding Buddhist monks, “He who wants to do good deeds

119 should not become a monk.” That is because actions intended to realize good things as an outcome cannot be performed by monks as all actions intended to change the world, including labour, is, according to Eastern thinking, really the product of sin. Because we are ignorant of God, we cannot do good as we do not know what is the good. The ultimate aim of Buddhism, like Hinduism, is to “overcome” ones beliefs and experiences in the world in order to united with the universal consciousness which is God in Eastern thinking. (Mangalwadi 2011) The knowledge that Jesus allows of God the Father is not something wholly new, according to the Christian tradition, but a return to our condition in Eden in terms of being intimate with the Father. As it says in the Gospels (John 17: 3-5), “Now this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” It is to renew the relationship with God, the Father, the God of creation, like that before the world, before separation from God, when humanity knew only implicitly, but, after Jesus, humanity knows explicitly. In the Christian tradition, the attitude towards the Shechinah, their goddess, Venus/Lucifer, is nicely captured in a poem written by Allan Ramsay the Goddess of the Slothful (from The Gentle Shepherd, 1725); O Goddess of the Slothful, blind, and vain, Who with foul hearts, Rites, foolish and profane, Altars and Temples hallowst to thy name! Temples! Or Sanctuaries vile, said I? To protect Lewdness and Impiety, Under the Robe of the Divinity? And thou, Base Goddess! That thy wickedness, When others do as bad, may seem the less, Givest themthe reins to all lasciviousness. Rotter of soul and body, enemy Of reason, plotter of sweet thievery, The little and great world’s calamity. Reputed worthily the Ocean’s daughter: That treacherous monster, which with even water First soothes, but ruffles into storms soon after. Such winds of sighs, such Cataracts of tears, Such breaking waves of hopes, such gulfs of fears, Thou makest of men, such rocks of cold despairs. Tides of desire so headstrong, as would move

120 The world to change thy name, when thou shalt prove Mother of Rage and Tempests, not of Love. Behold what sorrow now and discontent On a poor pair of Lovers thou hasat sent! Go thou, that vaunt’st thyself Omnipotent. Humanity explicitly comes to know the good, the beautiful and the true through Jesus. As Karl Barth wrote, “. . . knowledge is absolutely and alone God Himself, who reveals Himself to man by speaking to him as his Lord in Jesus Christ . . .” This is the core and most basic teaching of Christianity that informed the West for millennia. Humanity does know God/the good directly and that this knowledge affords a reality that then guides action. We know it is wrong to lie, we know that we should be faithful to our partners, we know that stealing is wrong, we know that we should not murder, we know that we should love our enemies, in short, we know The Good in part through divine revelation of Jesus, his life and his words, and in part as the result of reason. This knowledge is possible because it originates as a gift from God which is then secured through reason, secured through logos, the very reason or judgement demonized by the Gnostic Jewish tradition. In the New Testament, “. . .the entire creative process of the universe is regarded as one in which Mind (Nous) autocreates by “conceiving” and “throwing forward” (pro-jacere) onto the surface of the universe the visionary realities discovered by an inner process of spiritual discernment.” Not by accident, what is revealed as Christianity is the very thing demonized in the culture wars as “whiteness”, positive knowledge of the world, an encounter with the essential. Knowing God does not only have existential ramification, in terms of moral guidance, but, equally, ontological implications in that the world becomes something real, something enduring. As Wink writes when rejecting accusations that he himself may be Gnostic, “I love this created world, life in the body, sexuality, my wife, my children, and the God I encounter in them all. I look for redemption of the body, this planet and the whole of creation, not their dissolution.” (Wink 1993: 49) Wink is affirming the redemption of Christianity and the love that this Christianity allows. The love of world, the love for his wife, the love for his children, and the love of all of creation. Jesus is a God of love because love is possible because of human, uniquely human, knowledge. Wink is right in opposing this relationship of love to the Gnostic aspiration of “dissolution”. Love is the central idea in Christianity. Love of knowledge, love of God, love of the knowledge that God gifts, sophia or, equivalently, philosophia. Christians affirm the world as good, and the people and beings in them as God’s creations. Redemption is not of this world in terms of material well-being, quite the opposite, but it is love of what permits this World as something real.

121 Gnostic Jews, by contrast, loath this world. They hate this world with a single-minded passion. They want nothing more than to see this world annihilated. They do not believe in love beyond lust and understand sophia, the highest knowledge of the Graeco-Christian era, at best result in the creation of the abortive world. (Trompf 2019) It is for this reason that this theological contest, between Gnostic Judaism and Christianity, can also be explored in philosophical terms. The Father can be understood as the divine intellect, nous, for which we should get down on our knees and thank God every day for His presence in our lives. That Jesus was cast, as He himself self-identifies, as logos, by the ancient Christian Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch. Logos is not reason in the modern sense of that word but can variously mean, “word, speech, statement, discourse, refutation, ratio, proportion, account, explanation, reason and thought”. (Hillar 2012: 6) Logos is all disclosure of truth/God. It was thought to be, according to the ancient Greeks, “the creating and structuring force of the universe” (Couliano 1992: 9). In theological terms, logos means an “inward thought or reason, an intuitive conception; and as an outward expression of thought in speech” (Hillar 2012: 6). The inner intuited conception is the Father while the “outward expression of thought in speech” is the Son. Jesus, in terms of logos, is the only way to the Father. In the 2nd century AD, Christians began to think of Jesus as logos. The movement that supported this claim became known as “high” Christology to capture its philosophical sophistication. (Couliano 1992: 9) High Christology was particularly supported in Alexandria. By the 3rd century AD, most Christians had accepted that Jesus Christ was logos. Importantly, Christians understood Christ in trinitarian terms, as the logos incarnate. (Couliano 1992: 10) The Father is not identical to the Son but are both different expressions of the one Being. The Father was most certainly not higher than the Son, this would mean our world was being revealed by some kind of lesser God, but Father and Son, creation and revelation, are different aspects of the one reality. They are Being. It is for this reason that the World IS good. To observe that Christ is symbolic of logos means that the person of Christ is also allegorical of something beyond himself in terms of the ancient Greek word, symballein, (symbol) “to bring together”. Christ brings God, the Father, into this world, understood as Heaven, through what He said, by what he did and the Spirit he opened for the world. This does not mean that Christianity no longer has a claim over our lives because Jesus has only symbolic meaning, contrasting symbolic to real, but, quite the opposite, Jesus revealed how to access the Father through word, deed, and symbol because He is God. Gods are active, Gods are eternal. That Jesus Christ permits us to know the Father, that He shows us “the way”,98 that He is the way, is

98

This is why Jesus must be rightly understood as antinomian or as overcoming Halakha (Jewish Law). Halakha can be literally translated from Hebrew into English as “the way” as in, these instructions, “laws”, are “the way”, to God. This is what He meant when He said, “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”, He did not come just to do away with the old laws but to fulfill their purpose as the way.

122 deserving of our most passionate expression of appreciation that humanity can give, and this appreciation should be given with the greatest sincerity every day. As already quoted, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. . . From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” What powerful words in the context of what has been written here, we do know Him, we have seen Him through Jesus the Christ. The world becomes constituted through an experience of the good/God as reveal though Jesus as logos. It is both the ontological and moral implications of Jesus’ revelation that Gnostic Jews hope to destroy because they do not recognise him as the true messiah therefore, he does not grant moral guidance nor access to reality. Gnostic Jews, by contrast, believe that as Jesus was not the messiah the world is not redeemed. As Rabbi Sacks admits in his answer to the question as to why he remains a Jew, “I am proud that our ancestors refused to be satisfied with premature consolations, and in answer to the question, “Has the Messiah come”” always answers, “Not yet.”” (Sacks 2015) This is a rather transparent criticism of Christianity, which is typical of many Jews, who did, it would be assume, accepted the “premature consolation” that Jesus, the Messiah, had indeed come. As Jesus was not the Messiah, what Christians believe they “know” to be good is, because it is not informed by God, actually evil. What Christians believe is good is just an expression of white male power. Jews understand discursive intellectual reasoning only in instrumental terms so it can never uncover truth as God. As Quispel writes of French Jew Henri Bergson, “who warned us that reason is a useful instrument for making tools and machines and cars, but that discursive, intellectual reasoning is neither meant nor authorized to uncover the truth”. (Quispel 1981: 27) Although this would be missed by most readers, what Bergson is attacking here is the central teaching of Christianity. Reason is not revelatory, it is not poetic, according to Jews, Jesus is not poesis, and therefore reason can only be instrumental and never substantive. Logos, reason, can communicate instructions or help to build machinery, but it does not bring the World forward as what it truly is. Bergson would argue this because, as a Jew, he believes that reality, as such, is simply no longer available to Man. Gnostic Jews believe that it is because Christians hold a false belief in the reality of the world of “things”, portrayed by Gnostic Jews as idolatry, a crime in Judaism deserving death, that humanity is blocked access to the true God, the Shechinah. It is for this reason that this world must be destroyed, and Christianity overcome. As Wink observes, “In the Gnostic understanding, the coherence of heaven and earth tears apart. Hatred of this world casts it off from the life of God. Hence the Power are no longer seen as created, fallen, and needing redemption, but as misbegotten abortions requiring destruction.” (Wink 1883: 50) This destruction is not destruction like that realized in war, the destruction realized in war would be inadequately thorough for the total destruction required by the goddess, as wars leave beliefs and

123 principles behind, and a world destroyed through war can be rebuilt. The kind of World destruction achieved by Gnostic Jews is the most devastating and total destruction possible. It is absolute destruction. It really is the final solution. Nothing can be rebuilt after this kind of total destruction. It is the end of everything. As it says in the prayer Adon Olam (which means “Lord of the world”) ‫אַ חֲ ֵרי כִ כְ לֹות הַ כֹּל‬ ‫נֹורא‬ ָ ‫לְ בַ ּדֹו י ְִמלֹוְך‬

And after the end of everything, He alone will reign terribly.

The new epoch, the advent of the reign of the goddess, relies upon, is only possible under, conditions of the “end of everything”. It is only with the end of the cosmos as such that the God of the Underworld will indeed reign “terribly”. According to Gnostic Jews, this world exists because, as already observed, the once dominant Christian tradition believed it experienced the good, knew the good, through the redemptive revelation of Jesus. Existential destruction, the end of everything, is only realised by severing Man’s relationship with the creative God which is, equivalently, to deny Jesus’ message. This rupture is achieved by recontextualizing all that was once thought evil as good and all that was once thought good as evil. It is through the reversal of all existing values that Man’s relationship with the false God of Christianity is severed and a relationship with the Earth, the goddess of darkness, is opened as a possibility. With this reversal of all existing values, the “world”, experienced as such, no longer exists as such and is truly annihilated. The world, as a world, is laid waste through re-evaluation. The world of the Shekinah is redeemed by revealing what was once thought to be evil as the true good or, what the gnostic messiah Sabbatai Tzevi, described as, “redemption through sin”. This idea of “redemption through sin” is originally indebted to Lurianic kabbalah which teaches that there is the need of “descent for the sake of ascent”. According to the Gnostic Jewish tradition broadly, holy Jews must descend into the space where the demonic has dominion, our World, and rectify the broken condition by redeeming God, Man, and the world, thereby returning to God. This redemption is achieved, according to Gnostic Jews, by reversing the values that dominate, indeed allow, the corrupted, putrid world that we all call home to exist. The need for the total destruction of this world is because demonic people rule as long as the demonic god, Jesus, is worshipped. In the same way, the sacred people will rule, the Jews, when the true God, the Shechinah, is freed into the world. As Nietzsche, who expressed a kind of Gnosticism that he learnt from his Jewish friend Paul Rèe, nicely characterizes, “I am by far the most terrifying human being there has ever been, this does not prevent me from being the most benevolent in the future”. Nietzsche is not saying here that now he is the “most terrifying” but one day in the future he will change into something different and become the most benevolent, as though these

124 ideas, “terrifying” and “benevolent” have some kind of transcendent, binary meaning that is essentially exclusive. What he is saying is that at one moment in history, as history, he can be seen as the most “terrifying human being” because of his “immorality”, but, in the future, these same thoughts will be understood as the “most benevolent human being” because it is God who grants thoughts and actions meaning. The same act can be experienced under the sway of one God to be terrifying while under the influence of another God the same act can be understood as benevolent. These are the changing times. Nietzsche’s immorality, as has happened, was seen by his peers as something loathsome, his friends ceased contacting him because his ideas were so offensive. Today, of course, he is seen as the foundational thinker of our age. A man who liberated the oppressed by questioning the moral dominance of Victorian society. By identifying as the anti-Christ, he is a man for today’s world. So, his observation has indeed come to pass. He was seen at the time as terrifying and dangerously immoral and yet today he is seen as benevolent in “liberating” people from the demands of moral conformity. This different experience of somebody’s thoughts marks the advent of a new God better than anything we may theorise. This exact situation is exemplified, for just one of a thousand of possible examples, in the work of German Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas who claimed in the 1930s that “primitive tribes” were more moral than Western societies. At the time these claims caused an outrage and Boas’ ideas were soundly criticized as he was proposing, for the times, something evil, something terrifying. Barbarism was civility and what weas thought civility was really barbarism. After all, to assert that Western civilization was barbarity and what was thought barbarity was the true civility was, according to the standards of the time, to advance something that was literally evil. As a teacher at university at the time, he was corrupting the youth and such corruption was worthy of the fate of Socrates. Today, of course, Boaz is seen as a genius and groundbreaking intellectual whose ideas were before their time. He was the first truly virtuous anthropologist to break free of the Western white, male prejudices to appreciate the superiority of “people of colour” and indigenous cultures. Such thinking has, of course, become orthodoxy. Boas has moved from being “terrifying” to becoming “benevolent”. From being “corrupting” to being “insightful”. Today, Boas is acknowledged as the “Father of American Anthropology” and is certainly amongst the most respected intellectuals of the early 20th century. This section has introduced the basic ideas of Gnostic Judaism. It is not an easy movement to uncover because it is, most importantly, a secret movement. One of the core teachings of its modern founder, Sabbatai Tzevi, is that its practitioners must lie, they are told to lie, if they are ever going to advance their project. Secrecy and deception have been core features of Gnostic Judaism, and this makes uncovering their beliefs extremely difficult. On one hand, they are highly critical of Christianity and its

125 supposed historical treatment of Judaism while, at the same time, intentionally and systematically trying to destroy Christianity with a determination that, frankly, if Christianity had adopted the same attitude would have seen the end of Judaism in Europe a thousand years ago.99 One of the most important features that distinguishes Gnostic Judaism from Christianity is the belief that humanity is ignorant of God. As Preparata observes (2011: 38) of Gnostics, like Bataille, who believed knowledge, gnosis, results in nonknowledge, that what you learn as knowledge is that you have no knowledge of God. Having no knowledge of God means you have no knowledge at all. Without God there is no truth. All you know is that you do not know. Because they deny the Messianic nature of Jesus, they believe that we still live in a fallen condition, far removed from God. God, by the Gnostic account, has withdrawn from this world and left it for humanity to find its own way back to God. This return is a task left to humanity to engineer on their own. He has tasked the Jews, as His chosen people, to enable His return. The belief that God has abandoned this world means that any claim of truth or goodness, a necessary condition for existent things, is currently necessarily false and everything that is, is merely the product of white, male, Christian power and is, therefore, evil. As Sherwin (1997: 114) characterizes this understanding, according to Eastern European Judaism, “The world is a disguise worn by God. Our task [Jews] is to unmask God, to find the divine beneath the disguise.” The mask is not neutral, it not just any disguise, but an evil mask that has been constructed by the idolaters to keep Man from the true God. This means that the only way to unmask God is to destroy the mask, destroy the evil veil, the World, and that destruction can only be achieved by overcoming white male power. As Jung wrote of this task of unveiling, No doubt this also sounds very simple. In reality, however, the acceptance of the shadowside of human nature verges on the impossible. Consider for a moment what it means to grant the right of existence to what is unreasonable, senseless and evil! Yet it is just this that the modern man insists upon. He wants to live with every side of himself – to know what he is. That is why he casts history aside. He wants to break with tradition so that he can experiment with his life and determine what value and meaning things have in themselves, apart from traditional presuppositions. Modern youth give us astonishing examples of this attitude. To show how far this tendency may go, I will instance a question addressed to me by a German society. I was asked if incest is to be reprobated, and what facts can be adduced against it! (Jung 1955: 238-239)

99

They do not give Christianity any credit for allowing Jews to not only survive but to thrive amongst them. Everything good that happens to Jews is the result of the intervention of their God while anything bad that happens to them is the result mainly of Christians. Christians cannot win. They either allow them to live peacefully and prosperously amongst them allowing them to do all kinds of diabolical deeds or they marginalize them and attract their wrath for Christian cruelty thereby justifying all kinds of diabolical deeds. There will be several accounts of how this conundrum manifests itself in the history of Jewish/Christian relations.

126 Jung is suggesting that this task is actually quite a difficult thing to achieve but that the young are most particularly vulnerable. It is simply impossible to rationally choose to embrace what is evil, once seen as evil, but we can be manipulated over time into accepting what is evil as good if the patient is caught young enough and those hoping to achieve this transition are both determined and well-funded. The aim is to ensure that our subconscious comes to dominate the world. As the civilized world is nothing but a deception and all truth is just an expression of power the only place to which Gnostic Jews can turn, in the absence of their God, is to the spirit of Nature. They conceive of the spirit of Nature as the feminine aspect of the God Most High, the Shechinah. The Shechinah is conceptualized, as many ancient Nature Goddesses were once conceptualised, in terms of “Mother Earth”. She is thought to be experienced as contradictions, good and evil, destructive and creative, peace and war, love and hate, the disease and the cure but these apparent contradiction point to the limitations of the human experience which she, as a God, transcends. From a certain perspective, what the Shechinah symbolizes can be seen as either good or evil, destructive or creative etc., but that is only from any one perspective. From the vantage point of the universal, which no human can grasp, she is all good. The Shechinah is thought to be the feminine aspect of the Devine, the consort or wife of the Godhead and “mother” or “spirit” of the Jewish tribe as a whole. Although these ideas have been historically marginalized, usually characterized as heretical within what has become known as the “Orthodox” Jewish tradition, in recent years, especially since World War II, these ideas have captured a large percentage of global Jewry to such a degree that today many Jews have now come to understand the Sabbath as a joyous celebration of the Shechinah. To mark the event, many Jews have reignited an ancient Jewish mystical tradition of ritualistic sex, that was historically done in groups and continues to be done this way by some, that are performed at the commencement of the Sabbath on Friday nights. This ritualized sexual activity, as with so much of contemporary Judaism, is largely inherited through Hasidism which oversaw a “process of the eroticization of Jewish mysticism”. (Idel 2008: 117) The Ba’al Shem Tov, the spiritual founder of Hasidism, interpreted the verse in Job 19:26 “From my flesh, I shall see God” to mean “From the greatest physical pleasure [i.e., the pleasure of the sexual organ], one causes pleasure Above [i.e., to God]. This pleasure comes about when man and woman unite, and this brings about unification above. Through the physical, we perceive the spiritual.” (Ba’al Shem Tov as seen in Sherwin 1997: 113)100 Sexuality helps bring the Shechinah into the world, it is a

100

This is the kind of strange interpretation required for Gnostic Jews to derive their agenda from the Tanakh. The line that the Ba’al Shem Tov is drawing inspiration from is obviously simply saying that the redeemer will one day appear on the earth and that “yet from my flesh I will see God: I myself will see him, with my own eyes”. This has nothing to do with sexuality, this has nothing to do with every day acts helping to redeem God, but it is simply saying that one day Job will see God with his own body, from his flesh. These strange, fabricated scriptural

127 theurgical act, because it is a release of humanities basest drives. As the Godhead has withdrawn and cannot be accessed, all that is left is for Gnostic Jews to release the Shechinah into the world from her underground dwelling, the immanent aspect of God, by destroying the world and manifesting what they believe is a lost matriarchy. The world is destroyed by “decivilizing” or by undermining those aspects historically thought good, or civilized through nurturing the base, the brutish. They do this because this is the only way the world can be. They believe that there is, “. . .no sense in sobbing, crying, cursing, and protesting against the screaming pain and iniquity of the deeds of men—no justification, for this was the (sovereign) way of life. Nothing could alter it, and thus, instead of demurring stubbornly and idiotically— like the obtuse maidens of the Marquis de Sade—one ought to give in to the flow, to the natural cycle of generation and mayhem.” (Preparata 2011: 38) By their account the world is only by being returned to how it must “naturally” be. This task is the burden of Jews as chosen. As Slezkine observed, “The Christian world began with the Jews, and it could not end without them.” (Slezkine 2004: 48) These destructive act are called tikkun or “healing”. As Christianity prizes order, experiences of the good, and morality then to release the Shechinah from her prison demands the reversal of all Western Christian values. Everything that constituted the world as real and enduring must be cast as evil while everything that undermines historically dominant Western values which were once thought evil must now be shown to be good. Males, especially white males, were once seen as good but are now thought to be evil, strong gender roles were once seen as good but are now evil, the nuclear family was once seen as good but is now evil, heterosexuality once seen as good but is now viewed as evil, property was once seen as good but is now viewed as evil. . . In short, every struggle of the “counterculture”, every struggle in the “culture wars”, is a front of Gnostic Jewry to reverse the values of Western Christian society. So that there can be no confusion, this movement was responsible for the Russian Revolution, both world wars, stopping the Vietnam War, the assassinations of the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther King, September 11 and the neverending wars in the Middle East. They are also responsible for the cultural revolution of the 60s, what some have called the era of “decivilizing”, which must now be understood, no matter how much we love the music, to be nothing but a stage in the destruction of Western Christian values.

What Gnosticism Means for The West

interpretations that have haunted Judaism since the Talmud has nothing to do with hermeneutics. Hermeneutics must be true. This is a violence against the intent of the text to make it say what some human wants it to say. Nobody should take such readings seriously. Read the text for yourself, most of it is rather transparent.

128 As Friedrich Nietzsche argued towards the end of the 19th century, the Christian God is dead. But what does it mean to say that ‘God is dead’? As was noted earlier in this introduction, to destroy a people, to realize ethnocide, Gnostic Judaism must destroy a people’s shared experience of the divine, their shared experience of the good. You must destroy a people’s experience of God as it is this experience that binds a people together in granting meaning and purpose as a people. The death of God, basically, is the end of being able to judge what is “the good, the beautiful and the true” or, equivalently, as Nietzsche termed it, to move beyond “good” and “evil”. Gnostic Jews hope that we will move beyond that experience of good and evil in order to value, what is by their account, “life”. Without a God it is not “. . .possible to determine what is right and what is wrong . . . to be effectively a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter. . . for a moral code to be effective, the code must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source.” (Hitchens 2010: 103-104) If God is dead, then all moral codes lose their authority, they appear as things that are fabricated and sustained only as an expression of human power. As expressions of human power, moral codes are no longer binding as formative of a people, and everything becomes contested, everything becomes political. Gnostic Jews believe that God is not a part of the world, God chose to withdraw. This withdrawal allowed for a world, at all, but it only allows for a world that is evil. It is a world that must ultimately be overcome if the Goddess Shechinah is to be reunited with Her consort. The death of God has resulted in humanity being thrown into a condition of meaninglessness, a meaningless gnostic scholars like Michel Foucault praised because the death of God permitted “an experience in which nothing may again announce the exteriority of Being, and consequently . . . an experience that is interior and sovereign.” (Foucault as cited in Preparata 2011: 88) The death of God is not only the end of Being, the end of external reality but, as Foucault rightly observes, the end of interiority that is manifested as its opposite and the sovereignty, so prized by Christianity, that relied upon this experience. It is for this very reason that Jung described this condition of meaninglessness as a result of the death of God as “soul sickness”. Under such conditions, our “spirit yearns for an answer that will ally the turmoil of doubt and uncertainty”. (Jung 1955: 211) What is good and evil and why have we been encouraged to move beyond it? The first thing to observe is that good and evil is different in kind from good and bad. We would not say, for example, that somebody’s death is “evil”, it is bad, it is sad, but usually somebody’s death is not considered evil. It is “bad” that you were bitten by a spider but again it would be wrong to claim that a spider bite is “evil”. People who murder the innocent, cause devastating wars, carry out acts of terrorism, assassinate innocent people, sexually abuse children, these are the people who might most easily be described as

129 evil.101 It is significant that only humans can judge or, indeed, be judged as evil. Aristotle observed, “And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just/and unjust, and the like.” (Politics, 1253a8-1253a18) The reason why only humans have an experience of good and evil is because only humans live in the presence of God. Augustine argued that not only could humans be evil but that only humans could be responsible for evil. In answer to the question of evil that so troubles gnostic Jews, Augustine argued that God is not responsible for evil. As that insightful Lutheran philosopher Hans Blumenberg observed when commentating on “progress”, “According to the exemplary conception developed by Augustine, the physical defects of the created world are simply the just penalties for the evil that proceeded from human freedom.” (Emphasis added Blumenberg 1983: 53) Human “freedom”, that they are able to be good, is, in Christianity, the source of all evil. To the question of why if God is all good and all powerful is there evil in the world, Augustine answers that it is because evil is the necessary consequence of human freedom. God is responsible for creation, everything in creation is good, Being is good, but He as pure goodness cannot be responsible for evil. Evil is the product of Man’s knowledge of goodness. As God is not responsible for evil then Christians cannot abdicate personal responsibility for the evils that they do. This argument manifests an understanding of human freedom in terms of mankind Himself being responsible for His deeds. Interestingly, Augustine argued that evil is a privation of the good, a falling away from the good, “evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil”.” Progress, from an Augustinian point of view, is to make the world less evil. To progress gives the individual life purpose. Without the idea of moral progress then life becomes purposeless. The world itself disappears. All that remains is a kind of “eternal recurrence of the same”. As Stanner wrote of traditional Aboriginal Australian beliefs, . . .they see life as a one-possibility thing with a once-and-for-all character. It is thus perfectly consistent that the myths should depict men as they do – always in a “human, all-too-human” fashion, good and bad, cowardly and brave, open and deceitful, filial and unfilial. As though to say, “this is how men are, this is reality”. It is also consistent that in actual life they should lack what we recognise as moral zeal or earnestness. And it is just as consistent that they should show a disinterest in “development” as we understand it, and thus be thoroughly at cross-purposes with much that we want them to do. (Stanner 1972: 57) Western myths generally are usually about making or, at least, trying to make the world better. A hero is heroic in overcoming their personal character flaws, overcoming their inner demons, and in so doing achieving their quest and making the world better. Kill the monster, protect the vulnerable, fight for

101

These are all acts carried out by Gnostic Jews.

130 justice. Without the Western ideal of progress, which was understood for millennia in terms of removing evil from the world, then there is no sense that people can not self-actualise but self-improve. It is as a result of this sense of improving the world towards a universal good why the West moved away from a circular understanding of time, still found in Eastern traditions, in favour of a linear, progressive understanding of time. The reason Aboriginal people think of human nature as fixed and unalterable, as Nietzsche also believed, is because they do not have the experience of good and evil that might enable people to become better. This was not because they had no sense of a distinction of some sort between the mundane and the sacred but according to “’pagan’ civilizations this “higher world” was symbolically structured according to principles very similar to those of the mundane or lower one [realm]”. (Eisenstadt 1982: 296) This is where the gnostic dictum “as above so below” first resonated. In these societies they “always recognised the moral frailty of man; the failure of people to live up to the prevalent social and moral ideals” but this failure was posited as being the human condition which was unalterable and what the way the world had always been and always will be. (Eisenstadt 1982: 296) Humanity, unlike the world, was immutable. By contrast in Christian societies, “the perception of a sharp disjunction between the mundane and transmundane worlds developed. There was a stress on the existence of a higher transcendental moral or metaphysical order which is beyond any given this-. . .” (Eisenstadt 1982: 296) The challenge of how to bridge this gap was addressed, in the Christian tradition, with the advent of Jesus who opened the way to know this transcendental realm and thereby open an ideal towards which Mankind must strive in everything that they do. As was said by an Indigenous American, observing this difference, “We don’t understand the whites; they are always wanting something – always restless – always looking for something. What is it? We don’t know. We can’t understand them. They have such sharp noses, such thin, cruel lips, such lines in their faces. We think they are all crazy.” (as seen in Jung 1955: 213) What “whites” are endlessly seeking, what they are trying to tirelessly achieve, what this indigenous man does not know because he does not have Jesus in his life, as any reflective Westerner will be quick to reply, is to be better. To make things better. To build, to improve, to create, to change for the good. To bring order to this chaotic world. The task is to bring heaven into this world thereby living in Jesus. The idea of striving to be a better person, striving to be more moral, striving to increase respect for our fellow Man, are all premised on something like the Augustinian idea of progress being the removal of evil from this world. Gnostic Jews, of course, have gone the opposite way. By their account humans are naturally highly sexual, humans are naturally greedy, humans are naturally materialistic and any attempt to alter that natural condition, any attempt to alter man’s natural condition and make the world better, is understood as evil. As already observed, the reason they believe this is because they do not accept that

131 humanity experiences ‘the Good, the beautiful or the true” at all but that all claims, and this is very important, all claims of goodness, beauty and truth are only an expression of worldly power. In many societies around the world, including Christian ones, a person who murders a child is thought to be evil. What is unique to Christian societies is that, especially in Protestant societies, the person is not thought to be “intrinsically” evil, such a person does not commit evil because of the circumstances in which they grew up, as though the sinner’s evilness was fixed as an aspect of who they are, but that person can be rehabilitated can, through Jesus, be redeemed. People are truly and radically free. At any moment they can choose to do good. Any person can be encouraged to become good. This is an imperative of Western Christendom. Historically this process of improvement would have necessarily involved some kind of religious education, repeating relevant sections of the Bible or by undertaking some other kind of religious ritual with the aim of reuniting a lost soul with God. In the 20 th century, psychologists replaced Priests as those who we go to when life is not going well and are now the ones tasked by our society to enable self-improvement. As a Protestant minister rightly observed, “Nowadays people go to the psychotherapists rather than to the clergyman.” (as seen in Jung 1955: 228) According to the Augustinian account of Christianity, one can improve themselves by becoming more moral through reasonable self-reflection. This self-reflection is not aimed at discovering ones “natural self” but is aimed at seeing one’s “evil” and reorienting that evil back to God. That is because Man has knowledge of God. As Barth wrote, . . . there does exist a knowledge of God and His connection with the world and men, apart from any special and supernatural revelation. . . It is knowledge of which man, since as man he still stands in an original relation to God, indisputably possesses, and it is therefore a knowledge which he only requires to discover, as something which he himself possesses. . . (Barth 1938: 4) This knowledge is not retrieved through reason alone, whatever this would even mean, but reason informed by the primordial experience of God. Although such thinking was universalised in the West through Christianity there were pre-Christian thinkers in the West who held such a view. Seneca, for one example, argued that “. . . no mind is good without God”. That an experience of God was required if humanity was to know the good was extremely important because it is this that distinguishes Western Christianity from all Gnostic movements. (Blumenberg 1983: 53) According to the Christian tradition, What drives people to war with themselves is the intuition or knowledge that they consist of two persons in opposition to one another. The conflict may be between the sensual and the spiritual man, or between the ego and the shadow. It is what Faust means when he says: “Two souls, alas, dwell in my breast apart”. (Jung 1944: 236-237)

132 What was required, according to the Christian tradition, to which Jung himself belonged, was to nurture the rational side, in order to overcome the shadows, the evil. The desire to bring order to chaos. This is certainly not simply to embrace our juvenile, underdeveloped selves, but to adjust to an experience of the good which is God as revealed by Jesus Christ. By contrast, the Gnostic tradition hopes to liberate the darkness, disorder, irrationality, the shadows, as Freud himself argued, and this liberation of the darkness within would then return humanity to their unalterable “natural” condition. Gnostic Jews argue for people to be greedy, be materialistic, be highly sexual as that is humanities natural unalterable condition. Like the indigenous American, they know no different. For this reason, from a Christian perspective, Gnosticism is evil and visa versa. Christianity is evil from a Gnostic perspective because it tries to alter the natural human condition as an expression of merely human power. Not only is this imposition impossible but it is also evil. Late antiquity, when Augustine of Hippo wrote, there was a Gnostic revival. Augustine’s work should be read as the “first overcoming” of Gnosticism that, as with all historical over-comings of Gnosticism, sowed the seeds for Gnosticisms later return. (Lazier 2003: 620) According to Augustine, and the later Christian tradition, to create something, say through gene manipulation, that goes against nature or does a violence to nature, such as having an abortion, is considered evil. Because God is responsible for nature, it is essentially good therefore, to go against nature, to perform a violence against nature, is to be evil. This was also true of the Protestant tradition. Martin Luther believed that humanity had his dominion over the earth withdrawn with the Fall. Without divine guidance, all control exerted by humanity after the fall was just “technological mastery”, control of nature in order to satisfy human needs and therefore a kind of violence or, what the ancient Greeks called, bias. Humanity were rightly “earthkeepers”, not earth dominators, but the drive to exploit nature, make Her bend to his will, was a violence perpetrated by Man. That Christianity draw a distinction between living in harmony with nature and distorting God’s gift explains why the Christian Church historically supported science and alchemy but opposed magic and technology. Science and alchemy sought to understand nature and then help nature come forward as God intended, magic and technology, by contrast, assailed nature and forced Her to come forward according to the demands of human need. Science could be rightly used to speed up natural processes, but magic and technology was thought to do a violence to nature. To turn nature into something that it was not. It is for this reason that Gnostic Judaism embraced not only technology, which it did, but also magic. As already observed of Weber’s criticism of mystical Judaism, magical rituals are not constrained by morality because they are designed to satisfy human needs and are not intended to surrender to God. To practice technology is to become like a God in trying to shape the world to cater to

133 human needs like a magician.102 This also points to an important distinction between science and technology and Christianity and Gnostic Judaism. Science, as already observed, seeks truth about nature, it is therefore a movement towards God, whereas technology might use science, but it does so only to distort nature, to assault “Her”, to make Her come forward according to human desires in a way not dissimilar to the magician. Technology, like magic, is a movement away from God. It is only with the death of God, when humanity is no longer be able to discriminate between good and evil that technological society becomes a possibility at all. This means that the moral sentiment that has informed human action is no longer meaningful, and technology takes control of humanity. This conclusion, of course, ties back into Weber’s criticism of Judaism in the sense that Judaism orders God to do the bidding of Man. Undertaking orgiastic rituals to compel God into the world is to do a violence if God is already conceived of as Being in the world. A world exists for humanity, we can know the good and therefore can experience evil, only because of our encounter with the transcendent. As has been observed of Bataille’s account of religions, “Originally, humans were animals — living as immanent to nature, still lacking the dimension of transcendence. They became properly human, as distinct from the rest of animal life, by transcending that immanence, thereby constituting the human world.” (Direk 2015: 184) It is only by an encounter with transcendence, God, the Father, that humanity exists ecstatically in Being in a World. This is what the story of Genesis tries to communicate. Foucault claims that a world without God would be, “A world, finally, that would be the same as ours, except that, precisely, it is the same.” (Foucault 1998: 127) But this is not correct, this is where the error arises because without God, without an experience of transcendence, then we would not live in the same world as we would not have a world at all. We would be returned to the animal existence of “worldlessness”. Technology rises to prominence only with the death of God because reality, as such, no longer presents as a constraint. Without God there is no reality and without reality all that remains is to serve humanity. Under such conditions, humanity becomes reduced to the condition of an animal. This is what the Gnostic Eric Fromm meant when he differentiated the Christian religion from “humanistic religions”, humanistic religions seek to satisfy human needs and therefore, all of nature becomes understood as technology. We have quickly surrendered a world concerned with beauty, thoroughly informed by morality, and dedicated to truth, to the exclusive dominance of the technological. This single-minded pursuit has left Western civilization, if it may still be called that, devoid of substantial meaning. The main thing that grows in a technological society besides production is depression. Today we

102

Not, of course, an entertainer

134 are directed by, “. . .one-eyed prophets who see only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what they will undo. We might call such people Technophiles. They gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future.” (Postman 1993: 5) To be clear what is meant here by ‘technology’ is not any particular piece of technology, neither the atomic bomb nor the computer has a particularly privileged position as technology in determining our lives, this is not a materialist account along the lines of gnostic Marxism where changing technologies determine social relationships but, in many regards, the opposite claim. As the greatest philosopher of the last 200 years, the German Martin Heidegger observed, technology is best understood as a way of thinking or a way of appropriating and being appropriated by a World. Technology is not an item in the world but is a way of thinking that allows a World to come forward how it does. Technology is understood by Heidegger as that which takes us up as the agencies we are and, thereby, allows the world to come forward in a particular, and when properly understood, peculiar and destructive, way. Under the sway of technology, we now encounter things, think things, as measurable costs and benefits. How we work, how we interact with each other, what we say, what we learn, are all determined, or at least today rightfully determined, by a calculus of what works and what does not. Such a thinking has no regard for what is morally good and bad or what is morally right or wrong. As Hinde observes, “Morality and pragmatism have become indistinguishable in guiding the behaviour of many. Moral systems face special challenges today from the growth of technology.” (emphasis added Hinde 2011: 2) When technology becomes pervasive then God is driven from the world. Heidegger is giving an alternate account of the Marxist/Kojevean account of constituting objectivity in terms that they argued that things are constituted as what they are through human action, making matter active as materialists, Heidegger is returning the Western priority of thought, reason or logos. Thinking can either be constitutive of a World, in being directed towards God, or destructive of a World, in appropriating everything in terms of technology. In contrast to a society informed by technology, the ancient Greek world prioritized sophia. Sophia too, like technology, is a way of thinking. Sophia is most often translated into English as “wisdom”. Wisdom today, in so far as it is spoken about at all, has the sense of making “good choices”, of applying past experiences to novel situations and thereby making good decisions. Such an understanding of wisdom is more akin to the ancient Greek idea of phronesis or “practical wisdom” in that it captures the sense of good judgement. According to Aristotle, good judgement was thought to be evidence of a virtuous character. The most important difference, according to Aristotle, between phronesis and sophia is that phronesis requires that one be raised well, and it is only concerned with particulars derived from experience, what to do in this particular situation, while sophia is realised through logos, reason or

135 revealing conversation, and can be taught to anyone. One can acquire sophia no matter how they are raised. Unlike phronesis, sophia is not concerned with particulars, like a particular situation, but, like science, its subject matter is universals. It does not matter if you were raised a slave or an aristocrat, everyone can be brought to sophia. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes it quite clear that sophia, is the highest and most prized kind of knowledge. In that volume, he presents sophia as a combination of knowledge (episteme) and intellect (nous). Episteme is a fairly familiar Greek word even today amongst the educated that is derived from the Greek verb epistamai which means “knowing”. Episteme was translated into Latin as scientia from which we get the English word “science” in the sense of it being a kind of knowledge that is certain and universal. That the modern word science is derived from episteme does not mean that episteme is knowledge methodologically secured, as we might understand “scientific knowledge” today, but knowledge with the same status as we might think of as scientific knowledge. Sophia is truth. Just as when somebody claims that knowledge is scientific, in terms of it being objective and universal, knowledge that is independent of the perspective of the knower, so did the ancients think of sophia. If it is scientifically known that water boils under earth like conditions at 100° C then everywhere in the universe where these conditions are met water boils at 100° C, so it was with sophia. Sophia secured knowledge that was objective and universal through logos or reason. Contemporary notions of wisdom, just like phronesis, do not entail objective, universal knowledge but seems to indicate a display of making good decisions under particular conditions. Indeed, the contemporary sense of wisdom seems to necessarily entail the ability to adjust to the particular situation as a feature of being wise. Sophia does not easily fit under this understanding of “wisdom” but is best understood as nous, which in the Phaedrus (247c) Plato described as “the pilot of the soul”, that is made explicit through logos or reason. Nous was used by a number of ancient Greek thinkers as being equivalent to the divine mind, the thoughts of God or, simply, The Good. Anaxagoras, who was born around 500 BC, is credited with being the first person to have deployed the term nous in a pseudo-philosophical and not mythological context. Anaxagoras thought of nous as the thing that ordered all things in the cosmos. Anaxagoras claimed that “All things were in chaos; then came nous and introduced order.” Nous is the creative, ordering force, that is responsible for all things to be what they are. As Marmondoro (2017: 129) wrote, the “cosmic intelligence, nous, develops the world according to its conception of order, from what is primitively given in it.” It is claimed that nous in Anaxagoras’ thinking is the source of movement in the universe. Some Greeks thought of the cosmos as a swirling mass, a vortex, within which things, as such, become combined in particular ways and are thereby separated as discrete things distinct from the whole. Nous is thought to function, in Anaxagoras’ schema, as the source of this swirling movement. Importantly, nous is

136 understood by Anaxagoras as something separate from everything, nous was not thought to be the things, and, in its separateness, the purest of things. All things partake in a portion of everything, while nous is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing, but is alone, itself by itself . . . the things mixed with it would hinder it, so that it would have power over nothing in the same way that it has now being alone by itself. For it is the thinnest of all things and the purest, and it has all knowledge about everything and the greatest strength; and nous has power over all things, both greater and smaller, that have soul [psyche]. Nous seems to be an all-pervasive, ever-present force in the cosmos that remains distinct from things but is necessary for things to be at all. Importantly, Anaxagoras writes that “all things partake in a portion of everything” except for nous. Nous, therefore, it would seem, is not to be thought of as a thing because of its separateness and total purity but is responsible for everything. There certainly are resonances between Anaxagoras’ account of nous and the creation myth told in Genesis 1, the creative God, there named El (Lord). Indeed, there are a few reasons why Anaxagoras’ account of nous might be an account of the same being as that which creates the cosmos or what is called the “Spirit of God” in Genesis. In Genesis the “earth” begins as “formless and empty darkness” which is, by definition, a chaotic condition. Then it says that “darkness was over the surface of the deep”. There are also references to water, a vortex, over which the “Spirit of God” hovers. Nous and the spirit of God bring order to this chaos but are not reducible to what has been ordered. God here is not nature but is the condition for what humans come to know as natural. Perhaps the most important thinker in this tradition, quite possibly the person who founded the Western intellectual tradition as such, is Parmenides. Parmenides’ innovation was to clearly differentiate between two distinct paths, two different ways of thinking. One, the “Philosophy of Opinion”, which traces things back to the origin of “Light and Darkness”, represented by a Goddess who is seated upon a throne, a Queen, who is “steering the course of all”. This Goddess, who Parmenides associates with “Justice”, “Necessity” and the “Key-bearer”, is the mother of Eros, erotic love, which we know today was Aphrodite103, the goddess of love, lust, beauty, physical pleasure, high emotion, and procreation. Aphrodite was thought to be, according to Parmenides, the first amongst the Gods. Despite her authority, despite her majesty, the path offered by the Goddess is not the correct path for humanity to take. According to Parmenides, we must “restrain our thoughts from this way of inquiry”, but instead go down

103

Importantly, Aphrodite was the equivalent to Venus in the Roman pantheon. Venus was also known as Lucifer, the light-bringer.

137 the path of Knowledge, the path of Truth. By praising this path, Parmenides thereby shapes not only the entire philosophical tradition but the entire Western tradition. As Graves observes of Socrates, “Socrates, in turning his back on poetic myths, was really turning his back on the Moon-goddess who inspired them and who demanded that man should pay woman spiritual and sexual homage: what is called Platonic love, the philosopher’s escape from the power of the Goddess . . ., was really Socratic love.” (Graves 1971: 11) Graves is observing that Parmenides/Socratic way of thinking, that founds the Western tradition, is one that rejects the poetic myths that sustain the goddess Aphrodite/Lucifer by instead advancing a rational kind of thinking, a thinking particularly associated with masculinity, that turns their back on the seductions and magical sexual cult practices of the Goddess. According to Parmenides, he argues that we should follow the path of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Here is the most important difference between the Western tradition and every other tradition in the world. The West, from the time of Parmenides, now truly the West, was confident that humanity could acquire knowledge of the world, truth was available to the human condition. It is because of this belief that Greek artists began portraying human figures, full of dynamic life, because humanity now had a very special status, they were the ones who were set the task of truth. The Western tradition agreed to follow Parmenides’ advice and worship the God of Knowledge, the God of Truth, the God that responds to the call of Good and Evil. This may well be a break with the pre-Parmenides tradition, expressed by a thinker like Anaxagoras, which represented a time when . . . mortals that know nothing wander to and fro, facing both ways at once; for utter helplessness directs the wandering thought in their breasts: deaf at once and blind, they are swept along in stupefied bewilderment, undiscriminating tribes who think that ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ are the same and not the same, and that everything returns upon itself. This account of the pre-Parmenidean condition appears to be the condition embraced by Gnostic Jews. As with indigenous people, it is not so much that they think that such a situation is simply the “best of all possible worlds” but that it is the only world that can be realistically manifested. Any attempt to improve the world, to make mankind better, is just an assault or violence to the human condition, from their perspective, that at best will result in depravity for humanity and, most likely, will simply succumb to power which wraps itself up as truth and goodness. The best that can be achieved by the human condition is “knowing nothing”, “wandering to and fro”, being “deaf and blind”, “undiscriminating tribes” who cannot distinguish between “’to be’ or ‘not to be’”. This really is THE question. Not simply should we live or die, but the question is can we be in terms of aspiring towards what is good, or must we simply surrender to our baser selves and not “be” at all, not be masters of our own existence but simply enslaved by our baser drives? Can we live in God’s grace or is that road forever closed to us as mortals? It is when Parmenides penned his thoughts that the West, as the West, established a particular hierarchical ordering,

138 Good preferred to Evil, Order over Chaos, Reason over Emotions. That is the defining feature of Western civilization. That we have turned out backs on this hierarchy at the behest of Eastern thinkers like Adorno, Lyotard and Derrida is mysterious indeed. Parmenides main target here seems to be the notion of “nothing” as causal. He argues that “not-being” simply is not, such a thing cannot be thought or named, it cannot oversee generation or destruction, movement or change, such proposals become merely empty words. By Parmenides account, there is but Being. By contrast, in the Gnostic Jewish tradition, nothing is indeed primordial and that from which everything emerges. That is why their God is Nothing, the Void. Matter, earth, in the gnostic tradition is a God or an aspect of God that is active. Parmenides preceded Anaxagoras and may be interpreted as switching Parmenides account of Being with his own account of nous. Just like Anaxagoras’ account of nous, Parmenides claims that Being is uncreated and imperishable whole, it is immovable and, therefore, as Anaxagoras suggests as a result through opposites, it is responsible for the generation of change. Being/nous is unchanging therefore, in being unchanging, brings change into being. It is for this reason that it might be said that both Anaxagoras and Parmenides argue that “there is no creation ex nihilo, no emergence of substances or qualities, and no qualitative alteration of the opposites over time.” (Marmodoro 2017: 27) Following Anaxagoras, it was understood that it was through nous that the Real could be secured, mediated by the imagination, and truth, divine nous, could indeed be secured. Nous, therefore, is the primordial intuited implicit knowledge that allows the experience of things in an originary way. It might be said that nous is equivalent to “truth”, “unclosedness”, or “unconcealedness”, in the Greek sense of aletheia.104 To draw on Heidegger’s metaphor, God might be thought of as a clearing in the forest where everything in that clearing, nature, is granted a limit so that things can come forward as what they are in the clear light of day. It was in this sense that God was understood as “the light”. This primordial experience is intuitively known and known with the utmost certainty. This knowledge is understood in the Christian tradition as the Father. As nous though, it may be certain, but it is not yet explicit knowledge. What is known when you see a particular rock is “rockiness”, but it is “matter”, the particularity of its colour arrangement, shape and weight, that grants individuation. The individual “rock” is experienced but cannot be known. “Brown”, “jagged”, “heavy”, “rock”, what can be potentially known, are all “forms” that

104

The literal meaning of ἀ–λήθεια (aletheia) begins with the prefix ἀ which which expresses negation or absence as in a-typical meaning not typical. Lethe is one of the five rivers of the underworld of Hades. Anyone who drank from Lethe would experience forgetfulness. This river flowed around the cave of Hypnos. Hypnos was the personification of sleep so there is the association of sleep and forgetfulness along with the underworld where no light shone. So what is being expressed in a-lethe-ia is literally the negation of forgetting or remembering which is translated into English as “the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident”

139 are nous but “matter”, earth, in the Western tradition, withdraws in the face of knowledge. In the PreParmenides tradition, such as that of Anaxagoras (whose name interestingly means “Anax” – King or Lord, and “Agora” – central public space in the polis, so Anaxagoras might be read as Lord of the Public Sphere) it is in this moment that philosophy is truly born but it is Parmenides that gives it a full voice. It is this very knowledge, nous, which through the imagination sees the world sensuously, that is then secured as explicit knowledge via reason that is sophia. Parmenides argued that nous is secured through seeing but it becomes explicitly known through the intellect. This account of reality, what would come to be known as ontology, is a revolution in thinking that founds the Western tradition in its uniqueness. The ancient Chinese, Indians, Jews, Egyptians, as far as we know today, did not have this revelation. It might be said that it is only after Parmenides that the word becomes a God as it says at the beginning of the Gospel of John. Parmenides concluded that the subject of thought, Being (which seems to be a renaming of nous) must be immutable, eternal, one and homogenous. (Pięka 2015: 26) For this reason, many people, including Martin Heidegger, identify Parmenides as the originator of the metaphysical tradition that makes philosophy possible. According to the Pre-Parmenideans, Being is implicitly known by everyone, as confirmed every time a person experiences a mountain or a tree or a desk. After the metaphysical turn, initiated by Parmenides but carried through by Socrates and Plato, the primordial experience becomes thought inadequate to the form. Nous, although continuing to be initially secured intuitively, becomes definitional and that conceptual definition is made explicit through logos. When nous is made explicit, when a person explicitly knows what they already intuitively know, then they can be said to have sophia – explicit knowledge of what Plato equally thought of as “The Good”. So nous is the original implicit knowing encountered with the world. That tree, that man, that house, are all possible because of nous but one acquires sophia when one can say through logos what a “tree”, a “man”, a “house” actually is. Socrates walks around Athens showing that most people do not have this knowledge. They of course “know” what a tree or a shoe or an army is if asked to point to one, they have nous as all humans do, but they do not have sophia, the do not know what a tree is explicitly. To help clarify what is meant here by nous, all animals, according to the ancient Greeks, have sense perception. But no animal has nous. Animals have sense perception that is not intelligible. It is for this reason that they can navigate through a space, but they never truly speak. Humans uniquely have sense perception that is intelligible. They are species intelligibilis. This primordial perception is mediated by the imagination and perceived as nous or, to clearly differentiate this from particular experience, divine nous. Dianoia was the ability to experience nous and being able to interpret beings in light of this experience. (Brogan 2006: 172) The divine nous was brought to the light, made explicit, through logos.

140 When this occurred, and a person had acquired explicit knowledge of nous, and everyone was capable of this, then they had acquired sophia. What we think of as scientific knowledge is also universal and unchanging like nous but to secure scientific knowledge you must first begin with the subject of scientific knowledge already secured as explicit knowledge before scientific research can be undertaken at all. To do biology one must already know what life, bios, is or how else can you study it? Sophia cannot be secured using scientific methods because the knowledge that is being acquired by sophia is the very condition for acquiring scientific knowledge. It is this knowledge, sophia, that is pursued by philosophers and it is for this reason why philosophy was thought primordial. Philosophy can never become a science because philosophy is, by this account, the very condition for the scientific enterprise. The philosopher’s task is to make the shared intelligible world, mediated by the imagination as nous, explicit. Sophia is explicit intellectual knowledge. As suggested by Aristotle, such knowledge, like phronesis, has application in the world although it is not secured for the purpose of utility. As Brogan notes, “Phronesis is the revealing of human being whereas sophia is the kind of thinking and disclosing that arises out of the possibility of a kinship between thinking and being, a kinship that is open to human being as a possibility but does not arise out of human being itself.” (Brogan 2006: 171) But where does this disclosing arise, nous, which is secured beyond the limits of human logos, “reaching a divine saying of the truth itself”? (Brogan 2006: 171) Those who pursued this knowledge were lovers of sophia, Sophia-philes or philo-sophers. In Plato’s dialogue, the Symposium, Plato has Socrates claim that Diotima of Mantinea, a prophetess and philosopher, who as a woman could not attend a symposium, a gathering of men to drink and talk, and is yet given a voice, is said to have argued that between certain knowledge and absolute ignorance there is a kind of loving curiosity and this loving curiosity, this concerned seeking after, is the correct mindset of the philosopher. As Martin Heidegger105 wrote emphasising the distinction between ignorance, which might be characterised as “common sense”, and curiosity proper to thoughtful inquiry, Common sense has its own necessity; it asserts its rights with the weapons peculiarly suitable to it, namely, appeal to the “obviousness” of its claims and considerations. However, philosophy can never refute common sense, for the latter is deaf to the language

105

Unlike many who carry the label, even is a career title, Heidegger truly is a philosopher. Heidegger truly hopes to make explicit what we know implicitly. As he wrote in his essay The Essence of Truth, “But in calling for the actual “truth” we must already know what truth as such means. Or do we know this only by “feeling” and “in a general way”? But is not such vague “knowing” and our indifference regarding it more desolate than sheer ignorance or the essence of truth?” Heidegger want to make what is implicit, nous, explicit through reason and, thereby, realize sophia.

141 of philosophy. Nor may it even wish to do so, since common sense is blind to what philosophy sets before its essential vision. (Heidegger 1949/1993: 117) Common sense cannot be “addressed’, in the fullest sense of this word, by philosophy because it has a different standard of verification, common sense appeals to what is obvious, it does not appeal to reason or to argument but simply that it is so obvious that it cannot be denied. That there is a tree in my back yard is not the concern of philosophy as it is just “common sense”. Philosophy, by contrast, relies on rational argument aspiring to reach common agreement and is not informed by common sense. Common sense cannot even encounter the domain, as Plato’ allegory of the cave observes, of the philosopher. Socrates claims that Diotima argued that the philosopher, like love itself and unlike the common man, can be thought to occupy a space somewhere between a god, who by definition possesses explicit intellectual knowledge, and therefore has no need to pursue it, and the ignorant person who, perhaps mistaking themselves for a god, like Gnostic Jews, believe that they already possess sophia. Socrates’ many forays into town to inquire into people’s knowledge proved that most people were indeed ignorant of sophia. They certainly had a common sense view of the world and claimed to be experts in their area of inquiry but Socrates showed that they lacked sophia not, as some argue today, because such knowledge was impossible but to show the need to pursue such knowledge. Socrates project, repeated over and over again, emphasises the distinction between knowledge secured through sensory perception and intellectual knowledge – the shadows cast by the fire and the true forms metaphorically presented in Plato’s allegory as being lit by the Sun or The Good. This might be understood as the difference between doxa (opinion/common sense) and orthodoxia (correct opinion/truth), where only orthodoxia is secured through the acceptable practices of philosophy. The philosopher, like Socrates, knows that they do not have explicit knowledge of the forms and therefore they rightly pursue sophia. By Diotima’s account, and she is not said to state this explicitly, but it is suggested in the way that she presents her argument, philosophers are like divine spirits, occupying a space between God and Man in the same way that the divine spirits, Mercury, Hermes and Thoth, carried god’s knowledge between God and Man. Philosophers are like these demi-gods, mediators between what endures and what is transient. The idea of certain people, Kings, leaders or messiah’s, being mediators between Man and God, or even lower God’s themselves, can be found in several ancient traditions around the Mediterranean and throughout the Middle East but was perhaps most famously expressed in Ancient Egypt (Morris 2010). Like Plato, the great Islamic scholar, Farabi, thought that nations and cities could realise complete happiness if they were ruled by philosophers because philosophers were just like prophets, in that they also mediated between God and Man. (Drury 1985: 319) At the dawn of the modern era, it was claimed by Sabbatai Tzevi, who claimed to be the true Messiah, that as a God-like figure on earth, he mediated between God and Man.

142 As Dan wrote, “. . . the Sabbatian movement of the 17th and 18th centuries, which believed that its messiah, Sabbatai Tzevi, was an intermediary between the people of Israel and the Godhead, an idea which was presented especially in the work of Nathan of Gaza, the prophet of Sabbatai Tzevi.”106 (Dan 1991: 178) This idea of the philosopher being an intermediary between God and Man like a prophet or a true messiah is consistent with Plato’s Socratic dialogues. As Diotima says, most people believe that they are like Gods in already possessing knowledge, thereby making them in fact ignorant because all they really possess is common sense. Diotima is arguing for a hierarchy that reflects the cosmic order, the gods have true knowledge, divine nous, while the common person has no knowledge beyond what is passed to them through the generations, doxa. The philosopher, the lover of sophia, occupies a middle space in not having absolute perfect explicit knowledge but, in knowing that they lack such perfect knowledge, they pursue it using logos and can acquire “true opinions” that are agreed to by a community. Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenised Jew, argued, in a way consistent with Plato, that the story of Jacob’s Ladder shows that human souls and angels are God’s logoi, pulling men up in great distress but then they voluntarily descend with compassion. Here logos has an autonomy of humanity. Logos is not something that humanity has, something under their control, something that they can use, logos is not a technology. Logos is understood as directing humans, like an external force. Logos is something that demands obedience, humbleness, and discipline if it is to guide human action properly. It is for this reason that logos is not simply an expression of power, people cannot make reason bend to their will as a way of expanding their power, such an approach is nothing but a kind of deception, but people must follow reason’s paths. We may wish the world to be however we might like but reason gives us to truth which is how things are. Logos lets us know the truth. As von Balthasar writes, The biblical way to God has been opened up by God himself – God’s Word is the way. And so, for the person willing to follow it in patience, it can lead to the divine destination, to the vision of God the Creator and Redeemer. By contrast, the Gnostic’s self-devised ascent is bout to end, like the flight of Icarus, in a crash both tragic and grotesque. The surge beyond faith into the abyss of God ends in a blinded fall into inhumanity. The Godhead that seemed to hold the promise of plenitude (pleroma), reveals itself to be anonymity, a silent void, the empty abyss of man himself, the projection of his won deficiency ontot eh wall of the absolute. (von Balthasar 1981)

106

This belief is one the many ideas that link Sabbateanism with Hasidism. Hasidism believes that their “court” leaders, the Tzaddik, are intermediaries between the worshipper and God. Generally, this idea has been quite alien to the Jewish tradition. As Dan notes, “The system of values, which represent “perfect Judaism”, does not include the figure of the divinely inspired intermediary between Man and God. The creators of this image of the Hasidic movement regarded the concept and the role of the Zaddik as found in the authentic Hasidic theory and practice as an idolatrous one, impossible to accept within a Jewish religious system.” (1991: 179)

143 In the Christian tradition, Jesus, the word made flesh, lets us know the Father, the word, while, at least according to von Balthasar, gnosticism is simply a descent in the “abyss of man himself”, a descent into primal instincts. In Christianity, as Irenaeus wrote, “The Word ‘establishes’, that is, produces bodies and bestows permanence on what has come into existence . . . The Word is, therefore, rightly called the Son. . .” The Christian account of logos was perhaps first expressed in Plato’s allegory of the cave. In this account, the philosopher is physically forced, by the power of logos, up to the mouth of the cave, he does not ascend eagerly because, like all of us, he has become accustomed to his everyday beliefs, he has become accustomed to tradition, but he is physically forced to ascend. The philosopher, unlike the aesthete, then chooses to return to the prisoners locked in their cave of doxa out of a newly acquired compassion for their plight. He is prepared to suffer poverty, he is prepared to suffer ridicule, he is prepared to live life as an outsider, indeed, he is prepared to die because he has seen truth/God. The philosopher, as a lover of sophia, a lover of God/knowledge, suffers all of this and more because he cares for those amongst whom he lives, and this concern is itself the result his newly acquired knowledge. This is not dissimilar to the disciples of Jesus who, after the resurrection, having been filled by the spirit, acquired the truth, sophia, thereby also acquiring compassion and bravery that they certainly lacked prior to this revelation. Despite the dangers that they face, they choose to walk amongst the people telling them the truth. They suffer terribly but they almost must do what they are obligated to do as humans, if they are human, finding any other path false. All the disciples, in telling the truth, suffer terrible deaths. They are burnt and crucified but they never denounce the truth. The philosopher is dragged up by logos to the divine nous, the creative ordering force of Being, but then returns, as someone touched by God, to educate his fellow Man. This is where the idea of “participating in” the mind of God, nous, finds it original expression. By this account, the earth is a formless void, chaos, passive and neutral. It is certainly not divine in any way in the Western tradition as it has no activity. Opposed to this is the divine nous, conceptualised as the mind of a creator God, that brings original order to the darkened void. This intellectually ordered domain is important because it mediates between the unity of earth and what is present as World. Without the true experience of God, which is the Highest Good, there simply cannot be the sacred borders, no peras as the Greeks called such limits, (Tankha 2006: 18) that constrain things in order for them to be judged as the things that they are. These sacred borders, peras, were once thought to be the true domain of the solar deity Apollo,

144 [Pythagoras’ name] itself declares him to have been a servant or prophet of the Pythian [Apollo].107 [His] whole philosophy is based on the exaltation of peras and shows above all things a passionate devotion to form and law. The universe is a kosmos, and philosophy is a necessity because only by understanding the order of the macrocosm can man hope to imitate it and implant a similar order in the microcosm, becoming kosmios or orderly in his soul. (Guthrie 1954) It is the divine light of nous shining into the clearing in the forest that allows things to come forward potentially as what they are and is implicitly known with absolute certainty. Just because this domain is not explicitly known does not mean that it is chaos. This is not disorder but nor is it yet explicit knowledge. It is pure potential, what Aristotle called dunamis which was translated into Latin as potentia from which the English word “potential” is derived. By not only understanding but coming to know the divine order, in Plato ultimate informed by The Good, then each individual can themselves live an orderly life and, in an intermediate way, help bring order to the society in which he lives. The passage observes that Pythagoras’ name itself shows him to be a servant of Apollo, Pythian, and that his entire thinking can be understood to be about “form and law” or the peras, the divine borders and nomos, which might be understood as “norms”, that ultimately grant shape, form or meaning, to the cosmos as such that, he seems to believe, is accessed as sophia by those who prize such knowledge, philosophers. Indeed, “in antiquity, the nature of the Logos was represented in many ways, but its most central emblem was the Sun, symbolizing the source of Reality, the source of Light and Life.” (Fideler 1993: 2) Opposed to the chthonic Python, Apollo was a solar deity because he was seen as the origin, source, onset, of reality in manifesting the primordial peras. It was recognized in ancient Greece the heiros demarcated spaces and things in terms of their sacredness. As Burkert (1985) simply observes, “hieros draws boundaries”. Explicitly knowing these boundaries, knowing what things are, is explicit intellectual knowledge or sophia. The potential point of contact between Man and God, where God and Man meet, is logos which makes present the Divine intellect. To acquire this explicit knowledge is the true pursuit of the philosopher. When Socrates was dying, his main concern was not with his death but that his death would also be the death of logos, the death of dialogue oriented by truth. As Nagy (2015: 146-147) wrote, For Plato and for Plato’s Socrates, the word logos refers to the living ‘word’ of dialogue in the context of philosophical argumentation. When Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo (89b) tells his

107

Pythius is one of the names of Apollo and to follow him is to be a Pythian. Delphi was once guarded by a serpent-like monster called “Python” which Apollo killed. After killing Python, Apollo claimed Delphi as his place and founded an oracle of truth to speak his gifts. The priestesses at this temple were called “Pythia”. For the ancient Greeks, the python was a dragon like figure and lived in the center of the earth which was believed to be at Delphi. This oracle historically existed for the cult of Gaia, Mother Earth. The chthonic Python and the solar Apollo became entrenched enemies until Apollo managed to slew the Python and occupy the temple making it a dedication to himself. This myth, it is believed, originated in the early 6th century BC when the morality of the classical period was taking over the Nature cults of the Archaic period.

145 followers who are mourning his impending death that they should worry not about his death but about the death of the logos—if this logos cannot be resurrected or ‘brought back to life’ (ana-biōsasthai)—he is speaking of the dialogic argumentation supporting the idea that the psūkhē or ‘soul’ is immortal. In this context, the logos itself is the ‘argument’. Socrates is not concerned with his life but with logos, that logos is resurrected and with the resurrection of Jesus this is the resurrection of logos. Knowing these boundaries through logos, participating in the mind of God, how they are manifest and known, means that an individual’s own ‘soul’ becomes ordered in a way harmonious with God. At least according to that later interpreter of Plato, Plotinus. According to Plotinus it is the soul, the psyche, that unites with an experience of “The Good”, which allows a true world. Or, to put it differently, the Father, the divine nous, and the Son, logos, manifests the World. Explicit intellectual knowledge, sophia, is important because with it one can say if something is good or evil. That is, one obviously needs explicit knowledge of the good if they know that something is showing deficit and is, therefore, evil. This is important because you may experience an action through a legal lens or tradition, but both of these can lead you astray as a moral being, whereas explicit intellectual knowledge, knowledge of The Good, as the true, can, by definition, never be wrong. It is for this reason that Augustine, drawing upon the Neoplatonists, argued that nous, the Platonic Forms and the Good were all equivalent. As Wilder observed, “. . . Nous . . . [is] in affinity with το αγαθόν, [Agathon] one being the superior apprehending, the other the comprehending – one noetic and the other phrenic.” Wilder is claiming that Nous and Agathon (the Good) are synonymous though different, nous is the superior in being primordial perception while the good is understanding, nous is pure intellect while the good is thought. The good, the forms, nous were all interchangeable with and equivalent terms for the Christian Highest God. The incredible thing to appreciate, what just must be understood in today’s world if there is to be any hope of the West finding it own way forward as the West, is that Jesus is logos. This idea is ancient indeed. Ignatius observed that Jesus was logos in the 2nd century AD when he argued that Jesus breaks the ineffable silence of God thereby making God known to Man. (Musurillo 1961: 103) According to Kreeft, “Logos means the Word of God, the Revelation of God, the Speech of God, the Wisdom of God, the Mind of God, the Truth of God, the Reason of God, the Philosophy of God.” (Kreeft 2007: 9) Jesus is all this. Jesus is the personified force that drags us out of our traditional comforts to knowledge of the divine nous. Christianity teaches that you can only truly know the Father, nous, through the Son, who might be thought to symbolically represent logos or reason/word. As Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus is the way to the truth. This truth is also life or the correct, most life affirming, way to be. This might be contrasted to the Gnostic tradition where, as

146 Unamuno wrote, when considering those who prize “the Void” that under such conditions, “life cannot submit itself to reason, because the end of life is living and not understanding.” (Unamuno as seen in Preparata 2011: 37) One cannot submit to logos, to reason, because to not live in knowledge of God is to live purely for life, to live fulfilling merely earthly requirements like sex and greed. Goodness and truth are The World, living within Jesus is to live within a world of meaning. Such accounts are not unprecedented in the Jewish tradition, the erudite Philo of Alexandria, although remaining a Jew in prioritizing “matter”, said that “the creator [Demiurge] who created our entire universe is rightly called the Father of all Created Things, while we call Knowledge [Episteme, identical in Philo with Sophia] Mother . . . she received the divine seed and bore with Labor the one and beloved son . . . the ripe fruit that is the world.” (De ebrietate §30) Here Philo is identifying the “son”, the result of the combining of the creator and knowledge, as being the World. The Father in Heaven creates primordial being, the Mother is knowledge which are brought together and bear the son, the World within which we live.108 To associate Jesus with word and world is to claim that to know the Good, nous, you must secure it through the use of reason. This association should not be surprising as in John 1: 1 - 14 it famously says, “In the beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was God . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.” This was, of course in reference to the coming of Jesus. It is God as the archai, or “origins” or “that which is responsible for. . .”, that Schiller was claiming Christian society was losing. A loss Socrates feared more than death. Schiller had a vision of what he thought of as a “beautiful soul” which was when human emotions had been brought under the light of reason and were therefore in harmony, duty and inclination. The aim of life was to live in intimacy with God and therefore have an ordered psyche, or soul shaped or impregnated by God, reason. Such a person, in being in communion with God, cannot suffer “soul sickness” or have a soul detached from God and completely under the sway of irrational emotions or base passions such as greed and lust. The complete death of God, therefore, is not only the death of ends, the good, but the forgetfulness of means, reason. It is this loss of both the ends and the means that is the true death of God which would also mark the end of the West as the West. When God is dead, and our souls are sick, then reality becomes nothing more than a “social construction” that is a reflection of human power. Such a condition would be to surrender

108

The Gnostic Jewish tradition seems to give a very different account to Philo. They claim that the father has withdrawn from the cosmos. It is only the Mother who can be made manifest in terms of being the spirit of Nature. As the spirit of Nature, she is opposed to all things that are, the World as such. Here the Shechinah is conceived, strangely, as both the mother and the lover of the Jewish people. It is through this strange account that a strong current of humanism runs through Gnostic Jewry. What we must appreciate, and the Jewish people, is that what is Judaism, as with Christianity, is highly contested and, as yet, unresolved.

147 to everything that is evil, to give into all of humanity’s basest drives. The death of God is soul sickness that finds expression in humanism and the contemporary crisis of Western civilization. The opposite of peras, divine borders, is chaos or disorder, “precepts without concepts”, a world of meaningless sensuousness and, therefore, unintelligible. Under such a condition the world is imagined as a continua upon which humanity imposes meaning as a reflection of interests, as an expression of power. The Greeks believed that the earth itself was a shapeless void, a meaningless continuum. This was the condition of the cosmos prior to being ordered by the mind of God. Without God there is no order. It is for this reason that many people denigrate the idea of an enduring reality and portray such claims as the greatest evil. Today retaining a commitment to an enduring realty is denigrated because it is, rightly, historically associated with the Christian God. Blumenberg wrote of Jonas’ opposition to an enduring reality which worked to “blend, confuse, disempower, bewitch and bind man, made him forget his self and the autonomy of his origins”. This is the core argument of Gnostic Jews that has come to dominate the entire academy since World War II. To claim that there is an enduring reality independent of humanity is to “blend” in the sense of distinguishing what should be acknowledged as differences, “confuse” in the sense of misguides and leads astray, “disempower” in the sense that the homogenising effects of the enduring robs the plurality of ways of “individual” being, “bewitches” in the sense that this is nothing more than idol worship, a kind of magic power that robs people of themselves, “make Man forget himself and his autonomy” is to impose a meaning onto people that robs them of their authentic selves and thereby makes them forget who they truly are and the independence of the plurality of ways to be. This last point is why so many of the movements that Gnostic Jews have supported are portrayed as “liberation” movements, in that they claim they are liberating women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, from white, male, Christian dominance.109 The Gnostic Jews Sigmund Freud also demonized what he called the ”reality principle” which he opposed to the life affirming “pleasure principle” which he sees, as the Gnostic Jew Marcuse observed (Marcuse 1974: 13), a movement from a human situation that was dominated by feminine drives of instinct to one which was informed by the masculine drive of reason.

109

It is this last point that is most problematic. What is supposed to be being asserted as “freedom”. So what is the authentic women? Women were “happy” and affirmed for centuries a more Christian view of themselves and fought for over 100 years against the Gnostic vision of womanhood before succumbing to their efforts in the 1990s. But is the Gnostic vision authentic while the Christian vision robs them of their authenticity? Women are happy, in the short term, as highly sexualized beings, advertising themselves one dimensionally in sexual terms but are women more than this, does Christianity actually value the full woman more-so than the Gnostic vision? This discussion can only just be undertaken because until the publication of this volume, women did not know that they were being manipulated into becoming something that they others wanted them to be, with this knowledge everything changes.

148 From:

To:

Immediate Satisfaction

Delayed Satisfaction

Pleasure

Restraint of pleasure

Joy (play)

Toil (work)

Receptiveness

Productiveness

Absence of repression

Security

This chart, of course, is such a misrepresentation of what is really happening that it can substantively be ignored but it does reveal the voice of a religious zealot and his theological beliefs. To be Christian is not the “restraint of pleasure” but the pursuit of a “higher pleasure”, a pleasure unknown to animals. Christianity is not a movement from “joy” to “toil”, obviously a biblical reference to being exiled from the Garden of Eden, but one from being enslaved by base drives and finding transient pleasure in satisfying these drives to one motivated by an experience of God that gives complete and enduring fulfillment. A fuller account will be given later in this volume, but the distortions of this theological movement become transparent once it is revealed. It is for this reason that they have carried through their program secretly, without telling anyone, because once made explicit it can easily be cut to threads, so they choose not to expose their ideas to critical scrutiny but aspire for blind, unreflective acceptance. The ancient Greeks, as did other cultures, often presented thinking in terms of a journey from darkness (chaos) to light (order). As Pięka (2015: 27) wrote, “The motif of light as the object of cognition, represented in the form of the Sun, is also present in Plato and it will be closely related to noetic, intuitive cognition. The quality of light is that it allows eyes to see that which cannot be seen in darkness.” All solar deities are in fact representations, symbols, for the intellect. It is for this reason that the Western tradition has always used solar symbolism, at least until the Enlightenment, while Semitic traditions, Islam for example, use lunar symbols. The West has always understood itself as being guided by the intellect while other traditions suggest that humanity is rightly an earthly creature that must surrender to natural drives. From a Western perspective, it is to return to the primordial “earth”, symbolised in the Jewish tradition as the Garden of Eden, that is achieved with the “death of God”. As that convert to a kind of Gnosticism, Friedrich Nietzsche, observes, “There, that mountain! There, that cloud! What in them is ‘real’? Merely eliminate from them the phantasm of any human addition, you sober ones! If only you could!” Nietzsche appears to claim that when God is dead, when the “phantasms of human addition” are removed, then there is nothing left. The “nothing” here is not pure being, the divine nous, as some Western theorists have characterised the primordial encounter with Being, but nothing in terms of the void, nothing as in

149 terms of absence, nothing in terms of disorder or chaos. “Reality”, now presented conditionally, becomes conceived as nothing more than the fantastic creations of the human mind that is imposed on the world as a semblance of order. Remove these phantasms, according to thinkers like Nietzsche, and you would encounter true “reality”, pure chaos and disorder. Nietzsche concedes that the human condition is not one where we can simply strip away “knowing”, at least in its most primordial way, and have pure “experience”. When Man looks at a “mountain” they see a “mountain” and not pure “sense perceptions”. Humans simply cannot look away from beings in the abstract and see the mountain as the goddess Earth. That is why “Earth” is symbolized as darkness, it can never be brought into the light, it can never be truly “seen”, no matter how hard as we as mortals may try. We are doomed, as the story of eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil suggests, to live amongst things. The very claim that mountains and clouds are only what they are because of an apparent imposition of the human mind is all the evidence that is required to confirm that by the time of Nietzsche, at least for those who had already succumbed to the Gnostic account, God was already truly dead. In 1873, Nietzsche met the French Jewish “moralist” (better described as Nietzsche described himself “immoralist”) Paul Rée. In what has come to be known as Nietzsche’s “middle period”, Nietzsche turned his attention to the same topic of interest that had attracted Rée’s attention in his most book, The Origin of Moral Feelings (1877). In this book, Rée was concerned with explaining apparent moral behaviour, against the Graeco-Western tradition, without recourse to God. Rée thought that what we call “immorality” are those actions which cause harm, “drunkenness, habitual gambling, and excessive pleasure-seeking”. According to Paul Rée, Man is a complete egoist, so much so that the members of a tribe of apes are not so hostile to one another as members of a human tribe. For the members of the same tribe of apes are certainly also rivals, but only until their drives for nourishment and mating are satisfied. A human being, in contrast, has not only the drives of hunger and sexuality, which are at least satisfied from time to time, but other insatiable drives as well. He does not only want to eat and drink as well as possible, to live as comfortably as possible, to mate with women as beautiful as possible, and in general to possess goods that are pleasant by themselves: he aspires just as much, and indeed much more, to the possession of goods that, without being pleasant by themselves, produce enjoyment only because one imagines oneself to possess more or to count for more than others. (Rée 2003: 95) It is interesting how Gnostics universalise their own desires, their own experiences, as that being experienced by everyone. It is like the psychopath claiming that everyone is really a psychopath if only they were honest with themselves and yet, as most of us know, that is simply not true. It was this rather vile, even depraved, view of the human condition, one where humanity is placed in a position more brutish and uncontrolled than animals, one which is very familiar to anyone who has completed tertiary education in recent years where this account of the human condition has become orthodoxy, that influenced

150 Nietzsche and encouraged him to herald the death of God. While under the influence of Rée, beginning with the publication of Human, All-too-Human, Nietzsche rejected any kind of “idealistic metaphysics” which had been a feature of his earlier work as presented in The Birth of Tragedy.110 (Donnellan 1982: 595-596) Indeed, Nietzsche’s debt to Rée is not only substantive but stylistic as Rée also employed the same aphoristic style as Nietzsche did in most of his later works which some claim was derived from the French moralist tradition but, interestingly, is also used in gnostic Hermetic texts. The point is that it was as a result of Gnostic influences that Nietzsche seems to have come to the realization, a realization that he thought the world had not yet come to terms with, the truth that God is dead. Unlike Rée, Nietzsche could write at length about what this death might mean because, unlike Rèe, he could explicitly and clearly voice his conclusions because he was not a Jew. The most significant consequence of the death of God that people had not accepted was that if you take the intimacy with God away from experience then things, as such, no longer exist. (Schurmann 2003: 5) So, when Jewish scholar Emile Durkheim argued that there was no transcendent realm underpinning social norms, or what he called the “collective conscience” but merely social norms, cultural deposits, simply reflecting the values of the existing social relations at any one time, he was actually implicitly observing the death of God. Further, which is the true motivation for detaching Man from God, without an experience of the divine, suggesting as Durkheim does that it is merely an expression of power, then a people, as such, can no longer exist. Without God, objective reality, truth, ceases to be persuasive so humanity cannot share in the experience of mountains and clouds, because mountains and clouds, as the erasure is trying to indicate, have become something altogether different. When the “constructed” nature of “reality” is claimed then, like Neo out of The Matrix, the true chaotic condition that is reality, the domain of the Queen of Death, is exposed for all to confront. We are thrown, by the death of God, into a pre-conceptual condition of chaos. Washed about on a stormy sea. We are kicked from the secure comforting boat of Jesus’ fishing boat to be cast adrift, drowning, into the turbulent sea of chaos. But an attentive reader might be quick to observe, but the mountains, as mountains, are there, I can see them, so how can God be dead? The answer that may be given is that these mountains are no longer the mountains that were once the gift of God, a blessing of His grace, something in which we should all rejoice receiving as an act of unconditional love whenever we are enlivened by their experience as a result of His presence, but they are now nothing more than a “human construct”, as Rée appears to conclude, and so many others besides such a Durkheim and Marx have agreed, just an expression of human power. As was observed in the introduction, according to Heidegger,

110

Which he later denounced as juvenile and unconvincing.

151 humanism results in what he thinks of as the fallen condition of humanity believing that they have control over Being itself. Man literally replaces God. Under these conditions, everything comes forward as a human creation that can, therefore, be created differently. By contrast, the Christian tradition claims a unique role for Jesus Christ as logos allowing an experience of reality in terms of granting knowledge of the world. This experience is not just a Christian phenomenon but, as already discussed, it goes back centuries before Jesus was born to the very origins of Western civilization itself in the writings of Parmenides. An experience of ‘the good’, implicitly knowing the good without being able to justify the judgement, was a central concern of the ancient philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. So, what has been lost with the death of God, the loss of an experience of the good and the return of the chaos of a ‘soulless’ worldview, is something that was deeply ingrained into the Western tradition. Indeed, an experience of the good might be said to be the Western tradition, so its extinction might rightly be identified as the end of Western civilization as such. A New Era The Jewish English historian Bernard Wasserstein (2009: vii) rightly observed that we live “. . . in an era during which God has disappeared as a living presence . . .”111. This “death of God”, the loss of an experience of what is good, what is beautiful and what is true, the loss of divine nous, although expressed most famously in the work of the immoralist Nietzsche, really intensified in the Western world only after the Second World War. Indeed, I would go so far as to agree with those who advance the argument that with the end of the Second World War, a new era or epoch began that some have simply called the ‘postChristian era’. As that most significant of Christian Western thinkers, C. S. Lewis, observed in the middle of the 20th century, But roughly speaking we may say that whereas all history was for our ancestors divided into two periods, the pre-Christian and the Christian . . . for us it falls into three – the preChristian, the Christian and . . . the post-Christian. This surely must make a momentous difference . . . Christians and Pagans had much more in common with each other than either has with a post-Christian. The gap between those who worship different gods is not so wide as that between those who worship and those who do not. (Lewis (1969)1980: 5)

111

Note that he does not make the more general claim that God has disappeared, that for people today God no longer exists but the more specific claim, consistent with Gnosticism, that “God has disappeared as a living presence”. God is there in Her own sphere, in the underworld, but is not yet in this world, is not yet a living presence in our lives.

152 The apparently defeated Lewis is perfectly correct to observe the many continuities from the pre-Christian pagan world to the Christian world, which has been emphasized so far, and the unbridgeable gap from the Christian world to our own post-Christian condition. But has there been progress in naming our post-Christian epoch beyond naming it in terms of what it is not, post-modern, post-Christian, post-truth? (Berdyaev 1935/2009: 7) Some (see Picard, revel et.al. 2016) have proposed that our contemporary condition should be called ‘Jewish modernity’ in recognition of the incredible and undeniable influence that people who identify as Jews have had in shaping our contemporary condition. Yuri Slezkine (2006), again in a book clearly revealing the influence of Jews on our contemporary age, thought that the 20th century should be known as ‘The Jewish Century’ to acknowledge how Jews have successfully shaped the way our world is understood. Whitfield called his study of Jews in the United States, ‘American Space Jewish Time’, (Whitfield (1988)2015) to mark an era where the locality remains “America”, understood as such, but the action-constituted meaning of that space, the temporal as such, should now be understood as Jewish. These are very serious claims made by Jewish authors to the fact that Jews now possess such a great deal of power and are shaping the world. Such claims should, most certainly, be taken seriously. These are not idle boasts or exaggerations made out of ignorant self-aggrandisement but informed commentaries on our contemporary condition and the emergence of a new era that has been shaped by people who identify as Jews. These people are telling us, in absolutely unequivocal terms, about the influence that Jews in manifesting the world we live in today. This is a world where God is dead and all intellectual knowledge has, as a direct result of this death, lost legitimacy. Of course, these people cannot clearly identify what it means when there is Gnostic cultural dominance, when we live in a “Jewish Age”, but they are admitting that such dominance exists. This book is aimed at remedying that silence. This new era can be said to begin with the dropping of the atomic bomb at Trinity because the atomic bomb is perhaps the earliest expression of the kind of technological society in which we live in today. Heidegger, the greatest philosopher of the 20 th century, definitely emphasised the mentality that informs the creation of the atomic bomb, one that sees everything in terms of how it can be utilized to serve human needs no matter how destructive, as a pivotal and epochal defining moment in human history. In his 1959 book, At the Time Wall, Ernst Junger argued that the new era we live in should be called the Anthropocene. The defining feature of the Anthropocene is that it is humanity who determines the shape of the world. As Junger wrote, The extent of human activity was however up to this point such that its geological examination appeared as a trick. That is changing. If bare patches of land appear in an

153 immeasurable forest region like that of the Amazon, on which stand some huts, it is meaningless for the larger balance. One individual kind of insect can intervene more deeply. If this mark however expands itself in such a manner that makes the forest disappear, then the axe, tools, determined the image of the area. Although here Junger is explicitly referring to the environmental impact, Junger is making a larger claim than merely the intensity and extent of human impact on the environment when naming our era the Anthropocene. Ultimately, he is trying to draw attention to how in today’s world what humanity values has become the only measure of value. If humanity does not “value” the forest, but requires a cleared space or “timber”, then this is how the space should be. This is how it will become what it is, something of value to humanity. As Gnostic Jew Eric Gutkind wrote, advocating for human valuing, “Man, values and things must be reintegrated, and man must reshape his environment in a spirit totally different from that of the past and present. He must do it himself: no one can relieve him of his task.” (Gutkind 1946: 6) Gutkind is asking that humanity needs to recognise themselves as the only valuer. God no longer has a role to play. It is because God is dead that Man must reshape the world in accordance with his values, his values not as a moral being, but his values as a utility maximising being. This way of thinking is harmonious with Eric Fromm’s claim that Judaism is a “humanist” religion in placing human valuing at the centre of meaning and creation. Gnostic Jews historically believed that the world should come forward according to human needs, as the only measure of value, and these authors, in the 1940s-1950s were unconcerned with environmentalism.112 From their perspective, everything loses its intrinsic value, as intuitively accessed and known implicitly, and becomes valued only in terms of human utility. This mindset is what marks the technological age, when everything comes to be seen in terms of utility and no longer as autonomously meaningful. Heidegger was extremely critical of such thinking and although acknowledged that it was a dominant way of thinking at the time, it was also extremely dangerous. Under such conditions, the world becomes meaningless, including humans themselves, except as a resource or what Heidegger called “standing reserve”. The loss of human value is verified with existing abortion laws and the tendency to introduce euthanasia laws. It is that the World and human beings become worthless and this is why Eric Voegelin suggested that our current age “would be better entitled the Gnostic Age” (Voegelin as seen in Blumenberg 1985: 126) or what DeConick (2016: 7) has called the “the Gnostic New Age”. Such titles acknowledge the centrality of gnostic thinking in shaping our contemporary encounter

112

This, of course, was also Marx’s hope, that all values will no longer be exchange values, or market values, marked with a price, but things and people will be rightly seen in terms of their “use value”. There is no place in such a system for the sacred, the beautiful and the true. The opiate must be destroyed. Everything is reduced to a mere “value” and, as Heidegger observes, nobody is very concerned with “values”. What people care about, according to Heidegger, is truth.

154 with the world, a time when we understand reality and Man in thoroughly gnostic terms. To return to Junger’s suggestion, the Anthropocene, it draws attention to the reality that we have moved from a ‘Christ time’, (before Christ/anno Domini) where what was sacred to Christians determined reality, where God still spoke to us as we were prepared to listen, to the Anthropocene when God had, as the “prophet” of gnosticism (See Wilberg 2017), Martin Buber observed, fallen silent. As Postman wrote, for most of Western civilization, “. . .theology took as a first and last principle that all knowledge and goodness came from God, and that therefore all human enterprise must be directed towards the service of God. Theology, not technology, provided people with authorization for what to do or think.” (Postman 1993: 25-26) This is not just a post-Christian era, but a post-God era, a post-sacred era. A time when human valuing determines the nature of existence, again including human existence, exhaustively in terms of utility. This era is rightly identified in Junger’s terms as the Anthropocene. It will be shown in these volumes that the Anthropocene is the result of a political program where the aim of Gnostic Jewry is simply to increase their control over society so as to eventually achieve global dominion. If everybody thinks of themselves as instruments, think of themselves exhaustively as producers, most especially women, domesticate themselves without knowledge of virtues, then they can be more easily integrated into the economic system and manipulated to serve their master’s purposes. None other than C. S. Lewis observed that if there ever comes a generation that can determine how future generation think then that will realise a time when power is concentrated into the hands of those who control what people think. People do now, with the death of God, have the capacity to shape how we think and not only is power concentrated in the hands of a very few but, if nothing is done, they will be the last rulers we will ever have. Geologists announced that the earth entered the Anthropocene on July 16th, 1945, with the detonation of the first atomic bomb. Although other dates could be suggested, no better date could ultimately be found. That bomb, that dropped on [the] Trinity113, marked the start of a new epoch. As Jewish scientist who oversaw the project, J. Robert Oppenheimer famously wrote of this event, We knew the world would not be the same, A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

113

To make this reference unambiguous, the Christian God is The Trinity. The dropping of the bomb, technology, on the trinity marks the end of era of Christ and the start of the Anthropocene. It is amazing how an atomic bomb was allowed to be dropped on a cite name “Trinity”. The whole exercise was overseen by Gnostic Jew Julius Robert Oppenheimer.

155 Although this passage is often quoted as being in some way substantial, few really seem to understand what Oppenheimer meant. The Bhagavad-Gita mainly consists of a dialogue between a warrior prince called Arjuna and his charioteer Lord Krishna, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Lord Krishna is trying to persuade Arjuna to fight even though many who oppose him in the upcoming battle were once his friends. Krishna is arguing that Arjuna must fight because he has a holy duty, an unbreakable obligation to his god, to fight. What ultimately convinces Arjuna to engage in battle is when Krishna claims that Arjuna will not be personally responsible for the many deaths that result from the conflict, he will not be responsible for the death of his friends, as it will be Vishnu himself who ultimately decides who will live and who will die. By this account, it is not man who is responsible for deaths in a Holy War but the gods themselves. It is at this very stage in the exchange between Vishnu and Krishna that Vishnu changes form into Shiva, the sometime androgynous god of death and destruction, the Hindu version of Shechinah, who says, “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Oppenheimer is saying the lines of the God Shiva, the Shechinah, when he saw the mushroom cloud of the nuclear bomb that he was instrumental in realizing to make it clear that he had a holy duty to create the bomb, for his God(dess), but because it was a holy duty, he was not personally responsible for the many deaths that would result. Oppenheimer was making it clear that he was serving the god of death and destruction, like the Semitic goddess the Shechinah, and it was this God who would take responsibility for the deaths that would follow. Nietzsche argued that this was actually the true task of gods that come to earth, not just a God like the Shechinah but also properly Jesus, not to absolve humanity their responsibility by taking their punishment but to carry the guilt of Man, to bear responsibility themselves for humanity’s sins. As Nietzsche wrote, “the [ancient] gods served to justify man to a certain degree . . . they did not at that time take the punishment on themselves, but rather, as is nobler, the guilt.” Nietzsche is saying that the noblest act of a God is not, like Jesus, to take responsibility for Mankind’s sins, as it says in 2 Cor 5:21, “The one who knew no sin was made sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”, but to bear responsibility. A noble God, Nietzsche suggests, should carry the guilt of Man, to live with the burden of Man’s guilt, not to take their punishment on their behalf. Vishnu is noble, by Nietzsche’s account, by taking responsibility for Oppenheimer’s actions. The Shechinah will bear the guilt for those who die and not Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer acknowledges that the is not responsible for what he has done because he was merely fulfilling his religious duty to serve the Shechinah. Once this obligation was fulfilled, he created the atomic bomb, it would now be used as his God saw fit. Only those God chose to die would now die. The goddess of death and destruction, the God/Goddess of war, should be more than satisfied with its destructive potential. The glee the Gnostic God would have felt, the joy in Lucifer’s heart as the mushroom cloud rose

156 over the desert on that day must have been immense. He must have laughed allowed at his new power. Jesus would have silently wept. He would have known that man had forgotten His message and were now ready to do evil. What is horrifying about Oppenheimer’s claim is what unimaginable evils could be committed by such a person who abdicated personal responsibility for his actions? One who left God all the guilt and took none on himself. What a terrible act of denial. It is a denial that is impossible for a Christian who is, as they know good and evil, rightfully individually responsible for everything that flows from their actions. For a Christian, there is nowhere to hide. It was the detonation of the atomic bomb which did indeed herald the New Era, the Anthropocene, but not just in geological terms but in theo-political terms. Gnostic Jews believe that they are entitled to the world because they believe, according to their interpretation of the Bible, that God promised it to them as the intermediaries between God and Man. Zion was never a country or region but was always, as it continues to be today, the entire world. China, who is currently working closely with the Gnostic Jews to realize Eastern dominance of the world, should be mindful that they are but a convenient tool to be done away with when the right time comes. As it says in the apocalyptic story told by Daniel as interpreted by Cohn, All that ever belonged to the great pagan empires will pass to the Jews whom Daniel has in mind. All, and more: for whereas each of those empires exercised its dominion only until it was replaced by another empire, no such fate is in store for the dominion exercised by these Jews: “Their kingly power is an everlasting power” – or, in the even more explicit words of chapter 2, “their kingdom shall never pass to another people; it shall shatter and make an end of all these kingdoms, while it shall itself endure forever.” (Cohn 2001: 173) The defining feature of the Anthropocene is the end of a binding truth. Humanity lacks the standing, the authority, the grandeur as the foundation of truth despite what the Gnostic Jews may claim, and so when we move to the Anthropocene what is lost first, and last, is truth. As Jung observed, “everything becomes relative and therefore doubtful.” (Jung 1955: 211) As the sage of Gnostic Judaism, Martin Buber, observed as recounted by Marvin Fox, Professor Buber seems to feel that the problem is especially acute in our own time, because now more than ever, “False absolutes rule over the soul, which is no longer able to put them to flight through the image of the true.” In other ages of human history men were also subject to the danger of confusing the one true voice with crude imitations. Yet they had, according to Buber, some more-or-less valid image of the Absolute to which they could appeal, and which could serve as a control. In our day we have lost this capacity to form even crudely valid images of the Absolute; “the image-making power of the human heart has been in decline so that the spiritual pupil can no longer catch a glimpse of the appearance of the Absolute.” (Fox 1991: 166)

157 Buber is claiming that humanity, in his time, no longer had the power to fabricate a God that will allow claims of truth, a clear vision of the Absolute, to stand so we have moved into a post-truth condition. We live in a time when humanity now appears as the measure of all things, the Anthropocene. The atomic bomb metaphorically ripped apart the Christian experience of God, sent the trinity into oblivion, and, therefore, ripped apart the fabric of reality itself. Socrates fear had at last been realised, logos was dead. That explosion launched a technological age where humanity appeared to be the measure of all things and truth was no longer persuasive. As Stenmark et al., wrote, Over the last decade or so, objectivity and truth have fallen on hard times in late-modern societies. Instead, we have entered a kind of post-truth condition where sceptical, relativistic and truth-indifferent attitudes increasingly dominate intellectual, public and social life, a condition where “nothing is true, and everything is possible”. (Stenmark, Fuller and Zackariasson 2018: 1) In truth, as Jung observed, “Whenever relativism is taken as a fundamental and final principle it has a destructive effect.” (1955: 215) Again, contrast this to Christian commitments, as a positive religion, to an enduring reality and objective truth. It is surprising how quickly the notion of “post-truth” or, its equivalent, “post-modernity” has been embraced by the intellectual elite and how casually we have walked away from the sacred borders, the peras, of ‘truth’ as though they never had a claim over our lives, “. . .things are in such a state of decay that people do not even care about truth anymore”. (Zackariasson 2018) It is as though truth was not something that was once cherish as the most valued thing of all. People, not that long ago, as Heidegger observed, would readily die for truth. As Jones observes, Prior to the 1960s there was a sense of universal truth. In fact, it was this very sense of moral imperative that inspired thousands to willingly sacrifice their lives in the defeat of Nazi Germany. . . Without a common moral principle to guide it, society has only seen more crime, despair, and conflict. (Jones 2019) Now we act as though the entire concept, the entire enterprise, that claims of truth informed, was an embarrassing mistake and no longer of consequence. As Nietzsche observed decades before this catastrophic event, God is dead simply because we killed Him. Humanity made the bomb that marked the death of God but no bomb, even one as devastating as an atomic bomb can kill God. Today we are evermore remote, not only from God, not only from meaning and purpose that were God’s gifts, but we are increasingly remote from each other and therefore eroding the living, vibrant communities that were constituted through our shared experience of the ‘good, the beautiful and the true’. Today we live in a Weberian disenchanted world like no other. It is therefore a shadow world populated by ghosts. Most importantly, it is space that is devoid of substantial meaning. The world of meaning, granted through the

158 grace of God, a gift for which nothing is asked in return, has been replaced by an utterly ‘mechanistic soulless worldview’. Our measures of ‘better’ is not informed by gods or even by culture but by technocrats, and I really do mean technocrats in the fullest meaning of this word. These technocrats tell us what to feel, what to think, what to believe, what to strive for, who to be, even what happened in the past. We live in a technocratic age, and because technology serves man it is best known as the Anthropocene. What has been presented in the previous sections has been the crisis of Western civilization, to attribute that crisis to a theo-political movement that can be called Gnostic Judaism, the historical development of Gnostic Judaism, the basic theology of Gnostic Judaism, and then the most important consequence of Gnostic Judaism, the erosion of Western ontology, the post-truth condition that might be called the Anthropocene. Beyond revealing a secret religious movement that opposes all positive religions including Orthodox Judaism, what is discovered is the foundational beliefs of Western civilization. Western civilization is not rightly understood as being a liberal tradition, committed to democracy, openness and diversity but is best understood as being founded upon a unique, onto-theology that claims that reality consists of a foundation “reality/truth”, as a domain of pure potential, that is accessed through reason/dialogue which is not an expression of power because it seeks consent. Although these commitments can be found expressed throughout the Western Christian tradition, it was first voiced by pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and then clarified by philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Because this theo-ontology is the foundation of Western civilization, it is this which is the primary target of Gnostic Jewry. Gnostic Jews have managed to successfully convince a large section of the population that this onto-theology, rather than being a way to secure truth, is nothing but an expression of white, male, Christian power. It is “authoritarian” and any consensus secured through discourse, according to Gnostics like Lyotard, is itself “authoritarian”. (Preparata 2011: 117) Gnostic Jews have argued since the Second World War that it is this onto-theology, as an expression of white, male, Christian power, that is authoritarian at its core and therefore it is this onto-theology that must be dismantled if people are to live freely in the world. What these very same thinkers, people like Freud, Gross, Einstein, Trotsky, Gutkind, Fromm, Durkheim, Adorno, Derrida, Horkheimer, Lyotard, Friedman, Friedan, Marcuse, and Klein, to list just a few of the better-known exponents of these ideas, is that they are advancing their own theo-political agenda that worships a Goddess and is opposed to everything that the West has ever proposed. As Marcuse wrote of Freud but is true of all these thinkers and many more besides, “The concept of man that emerges from Freudian theory is the most irrefutable indictment of Western civilization . . .” (Marcuse 1974: 12) We are actually yet to discover if Freud’s real ideas are indeed as irrefutable as Marcuse is

159 proposing as they have never been clearly stated for refutation without the screen of deception. These people, in the most basic terms, believe that the Western onto-theology is just an expression of male power, “patriarchy” or “whiteness”, and that these ideas have imposed a particular account of realty upon the vast majority of society and then justified this imposition through the fabrication of a false God. . . Jesus. The strategy to overcome this oppressive system, according to Gnostic Judaism, is to realize the opposite of Western civilization. If the West worships a male God then they will worship a female God, if the West proposes a patriarchy then they advocate a matriarchy, if the West values reason then they will value emotions, if the West values chastity then they will advocate for promiscuity, if the West marginalizes the voice of children then they will amplify the voice of children, if the West believes in the primacy of the nuclear family then they will do everything in our power to destroy the institution of the nuclear family . . . It is this thorough going reversal of all existing values, redemption through sin, that is the crisis of Western civilization. What I hope is achieved with the publication of this volume above all else is that we can start to have a constructive, reasonable conversation, logos, about if our current direction is the best road to take. Gnostic Jews above all have done everything that they can to shut down opposition, to stop the necessary discussion, the destroy academia itself so that no intelligentsia can emerge that might question their understanding of reality that is being imposed on the world. This is exactly why, whenever these people have gained power, the Ukraine in the mid-17th century, the Soviet Union in the first half of the 20th century, contemporary United States, they have overseen a period of terrible surveillance, control, and violence, so only their voice is heard. The rule of Gnostic Jews necessarily results in oppression because it is necessarily an elitist, closed body of knowledge as such it is never introduced through persuasion but can only be achieved through violence. Gnostic Jewish domination always results in catastrophe for those over whom they have asserted control. With the publication of this volume, the hope is not that violence will be perpetrated against Gnostic Jews but that a discussion can commence that will be informed about what is being lost, why it is being lost and what is hoped to be achieved and why. If people choose to continue with the direction that we have been following for the last 70 years, then so-be-it, but if it is to be true to the Western tradition then that project should be made explicit, open to critical scrutiny and if those ideas are found wanting then we can perhaps choose another direction, one that is true, perhaps, to the prince of peace. Antisemitism or Anti-oppressor Before bringing this introduction to a conclusion, there is a need to consider the accusation, one which will most certainly be made if this book is ever released to the public, that this entire argument is just “antisemitism”. Accusations that “Jews” are trying to take over the world have been brought against

160 the Jewish people broadly since at least the 3rd century BC in the work of people like Manetho and Lysimachus. The oldest existing mention of Jews was an ancient Egyptian text which expressed the hope that the Jews would soon be annihilated. As Isaac Leeser, a Jewish community leader, wrote in an essay titled “The Jews and their Religion” in 1844, The Jews, and their predecessors the Israelites, have been always regarded with suspicion, and not rarely with aversion, by those who hold opinions different from them . . . One would suppose that the Judeophobia must be owing to some monstrous doctrines which the Jewish religion contains, which would render its professors dangerous to the state as unsafe citizens or rebellious subjects, by teaching them to imbrue their hands in blood, or to plunder the unwary of their possessions. Perhaps calumny has asserted these things; perhaps ignorance may have imagined that this could be so. But how stands the case? Despite Jews generally being marginalized at times by those amongst whom they have lived, it should already be clear by what has been written so far that “Jews” are not even the concern of this publication. The subject matter of this document is with the theology and political activity of a heretical religious sect that emerged, quite recently, from within the broader Jewish community. This distinction, of course, between what might be termed Orthodox Jews and Gnostic Jews, is of the utmost importance and one many Jews themselves have asked Gentiles to recognise for decades. It is claimed later in this volume that, although Gnostic Jews do indeed self-identify as “Jews” they actually do everything that they can to destroy rabbinic Judaism. As vocal Orthodox Jewish critic of this movement, Mavin Antelman, observes from an orthodox perspective, “Judaism has no branches. There is one Torah and one God . . .” (Antelman 2018) Indeed, I would go so far as to say that this book is almost as much a defence of Orthodox Judaism as it is a defence of Western civilization against the shared opponent of Gnosticism. This volume’s purpose is to reveal the activities of a theo-political movement whose exposure would benefit Orthodox Jews at least as much as Christians. Despite this important distinction, some may still claim that this text is, simply by observing the disproportionate power held by anyone identifying as “Jewish”, that this alone justifies the accusation of anti-Semitism. As the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism states, antisemitism today includes “. . .stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world conspiracy of Jews controlling the media, economy or other societal institutions”. As is so often the case for those who do indeed rule, it is informative to explore what you are not allowed to discuss because here, more often than not, lies the truth. For centuries in Europe there were laws in relation to lèse-majesté or “to do wrong to majesty”. Laws regarding lèse-majesté were intended to curtail criticisms of royalty. You were not allowed to claim that

161 the royalty had too much power or that they held too much wealth. Were such criticisms a crime because they were false or because such criticisms were, in fact, true? Why, one may ask, if there is no truth to accusations or criticisms is there a need to create laws to make such criticisms or accusations illegal? After all, as has been made clear, I could claim “White people” have too much power, that they are privileged from birth just because of the colour of their skin and demand that they renounce their power to “people of colour” and such arguments would not even be judged on their merit but simply accepted. There simply are no laws against making such claims. Indeed, quite the opposite. If you want an academic career in the West today in the arts or social sciences, then it is certainly beneficial to make such claims. A response to this kind of argument, at least in the case of “Jews”, might be to say that accusations against Jews are unique because such claims have led to such terrible consequences in the past, as Bloomfield suggests, “The term Jew has been used as a term of abuse, a curse and an accusation for centuries. It expresses the anti-Semite’s virulent and unreasoning hatred and contempt and has so often been the preliminary of attacks, pogroms, persecutions and death.” (Bloomfield 1996: 26) That is, accusations against Jews have led to violence in the past. But here we move to an interesting and unique point in considering accusations against Jews, what should be considered as evidence to support such claims? As Bloomfield observes, there have been claims that Jews have suffered uniquely in history, especially at the hands of Christians, but is there empirical evidence to support such claims? This question cannot be addressed here but is considered later in this volume. Now it is adequate to observe that a quick affirmation to this question, Jews have indeed uniquely suffered unjustified persecution, cannot be easily given. What can be said with confidence is that accusations of malice have long been levelled against Jews, uniquely, for thousands of years. Even before the birth of Jesus, Jews were accused by the Greeks of being misanthropes. That these accusations have continuously been levelled against Jews, time and again, is never thought to be evidence that such accusation might carry some merit but, as with Bloomfield, the opposite. It is claimed that because Jews have continuously been accused of malice against those amongst whom they live that this is evidence that such claims are ridiculous. It seems the argument is that the longer the historical accusations have been brought against Jews for being misanthropic, the more reasonable it is to label such accusation as “anti-Semitism”. As is often the case, evidence that might be used to substantiate claims of misanthropic activity are instead used to delegitimize such accusations. To understand the function of the accusation of antisemitism, it is interesting to first consider contemporary attitudes towards religion in general. The truth is that an author could develop a reasonably sophisticated criticism of Christianity, on moral or even theological grounds, express those views freely in the public sphere, write a book about it, get it published, and it would not only not attract any sanction

162 but, as such claims are so common, it would attract very little attention. Christians, even those embedded within its formal institutions, seem either to be no longer able, or at least so disenchanted, that they are no longer willing to even deny such accusations. Indeed, a female paster, from within institutionalized Christianity, asked in a recently published book, “We also ask if there are central parts of our tradition that are not moral or holy. How do we respond to a tradition that has justified slavery, the hatred of nonChristians, the slaughter of Jews, and the denial of women’s full humanity.114 (Miles 1999: 11) Here is a Christian paster questioning if her highly questionable list of things “justified” by Christianity are not immoral? Reading this I wonder who could be a member of this woman’s congregation? Pastor Miles, though, is not alone in expressing such sentiments. A Jewish American Hollywood director, Marshall Brickman, suggested recently, while defending his dark satirical comedy Sister Mary Explains It All, that

114

Once again very dubious claims passed as though they are undeniable facts not requiring substantiation. Although full engagement with these issues would require at least an extended essay if not a full volume, some quick responses to these claims can be proposed. To the accusation of supporting slavery, every religious tradition has participated in slavery. As Sleeper observes (1994) Arab Muslims invented the sub-Saharan slave trade, European Christians institutionalized it in terms of a trans-Atlantic slave trade, indigenous Africans initially captured and supplied slaves from other tribes while funding for the slave trade was supplied by Sephardic Jews who owned Brazilian sugar plantations that operated using slaves. Why do Christians get picked out of this ensemble for special attention? Indeed, according to Harold Brackman (1977), Jews ran the global slave trade, justified by what is written in the Talmud as the curse on the descendants of Ham, for hundreds of years, from the 8th to the 12th centuries AD. There is certainly nothing in the Christian Testament that might be used to affirm slavery. Christian societies were the first to make slavery illegal. Indeed, as Green (2008) observes, one of the main moral justifications for expanding the British Empire was to abolish slavery. Some religious traditions continue to support slavery and it is believed to be practiced in the Muslim Middle East even today. Christianity has proven itself to be the least tolerant religion of slavery. To the accusation that Christianity taught hatred of non-believers, this again is a common feature of all religions. If properly understood, and a Pastor should know the differences, opposition to another religious tradition is, in some respects, only right. As is revealed in religious texts, religious beliefs are not arbitrary and, as should already be evident, certainly not irrelevant. Not all religions are the same or equal. It really does matter what religion you practice. The problem is that Christianity has forgotten that this is the case. Despite it being the case that all religions should promote their own beliefs, Christianity was less brutal than most faiths towards those of other faiths because of the central role of the intellect. As part of its core teachings, Christianity at least tried to convert through persuasion using the best argument, consistent with their theology, and therefore did not generally convert by the sword like Islam. I am not sure that Christianity as an institution has ever supported the “slaughter of Jews”, as part of Christianity’s relatively tolerant attitude towards those who practice other religions. Many non-Christians, most noticeably Jews, found sanctuary in Christian Europe and some Jewish communities absolutely thrived. Jews could have lived anywhere in the world but predominantly chose to live in Christian countries. Finally, Christianity gives women higher standing than any other religions that I am familiar with. It at least recognizes women as equals before God and, therefore, having equal morally responsible. Orthodox Judaism and Islam, by contrast, both believe that women are the moral responsibility of men, transferred from father to husband, because women simply cannot be moral. In these Semitic religions, women worship in a separate space to men acknowledging their different status. Again, by the distorted vision by which people see the world today, Christianity took a different strategy in seeing woman as morally equal and for this reason women have always worshipped besides men as morally equal. Relative to any other religious tradition, Christians should be proud of their past and not so quick to embrace shallow, largely incorrect, criticisms such as these.

163 unapologetically attacks the Catholic Church, was acceptable because, “. . . any institution that backed the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Roman position on the Holocaust deserves to be the butt of a couple of jokes.” (as seen in Jenkins 2003: 2) Again, Christianity is portrayed as having an extremely immoral past and this history of immorality permits contemporary attacks, whether they be in movies, books or, indeed, works of history. For just one example, when considering the supposed immorality of “Christian theology” and how this functioned alongside “whiteness” to nurture the Atlantic slave trade, the “historian” Kristopher Norris claimed, “. . . what led European Christianity to such depths of depravity? As the names of the slave ships sailing on that “wave of symbolism” suggest, the white supremacy that animated the institution of slavery was rooted in Christian theology and promoted by Christian churches.” (Norris 2020) The practice of slavery, according to Norris, was rooted in Christian theology which also informs “white supremacy”. Surprisingly, Norris does not substantial these brazen claims beyond observing the Christian names of the ships being used in the slave trade. Despite the total absence of evidence, Norris’ book attracted no particular critical attention questioning if his conclusions were, indeed, true. Contrast this silence to another book on slavery, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which claimed that Jews were actually deeply involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and were significant owners of slaves in the United States prior to the American Civil War. Just like Norris’s accusations against Christianity, this volume claims that there are links between Jewish theological beliefs, as presented in Torah, and slavery. Unlike Norris’ book, this book gives both quantitative and qualitative evidence to support the claims made, such as specifically detailing the actual involvement of Jews in the American slave trade and giving textual evidence from the Torah to support linking slavery to Judaism. Unlike Norris’ book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews was placed under intense critical scrutiny. Every quote used in the book was thoroughly checked. Every statistical claim analysed to find fault if not in substance, then in intent, so as to at least recast the “evidence” so that it did not appear to be so damning of Jews. The point is not that the claims in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews is either true or false but that the level of critical scrutiny, the outrage, that met the publication of this volume was so much greater than when there are unsubstantiated criticism of Christianity. As Prof. Tony Martin discovered after revealing that Jews were more involved in the global slave trade then had previously been thought discovered. He observed, Here am I, a professor in a very small college, teaching a class of maybe 30 students, but they attached such great importance to this, that within a very short space of time the major Jewish organizations became involved, and it became a national event. For example, one Sunday morning on the ABC network television program “This Week With David Brinkley,” there was a whole segment dealing with this question -- about my telling my students that Jews were involved in the slave trade. (Martin 2002)

164 To be clear, this was not a response to published material but a response to lecture content. In contrast to claims made by people like Tony Martin who, as he observed, made his claims to a very small group of students at a very minor institution but, despite this, attracted National attention, the published claims made by Norris were simply accepted as statements of facts and attracted no criticism. How a claim is treated depends a lot on who is making the claim. A Jewish author can, as Steven Gimble does, identify links between Einstein’ theory of relativity, which he suggests, “is Jewish science after all” (Gimble 2013) and not attract any critical attention. A Jewish author can claim that Jewish ideas shaped the American psyche of the late 20th century, as Andrew Heinze does, and, again, such claim are met only with academic awards. As Heinze wrote, “Jewish interpreters of the psyche . . . hoped to move public values in a direction that would produce the kind of society they wanted to inhabit.” (Heinze 2004: 5) A Jewish author can claim that Jewish thinking has been extremely influential in shaping the world, as Yuri Slezkine does, and nothing critical is even raised. A Jewish author can identify resonances between the work of Freudian psychology and Judaism, as Joshua Liebman does, and it is heralded as insightful. An author can celebrate the fact that Jews not only founded Hollywood but ran Hollywood ensuring that there were positive portrayals of Jews on American screens, as Neal Gabler does, and the volume is praised. If a non-Jew criticises the fact that Einstein and Freud’s ideas were shaped by Judaism, that Jews were too influential in shaping the post-World War II intellectual landscape, that Jews intrigued to shape the way the world thinks or that Jews run Hollywood to reflect their own values and, if such claims even become public, one is instantly accused of anti-Semitism. The point is that it is not what is said but who says it. If a Jew proudly identified how Jews expressed their entrepreneurial spirt through the slave trade, then the volume would be praised. If, of course, one is critical of Jews involvement in the slave trade, even though the substantive claim is the exact same, then it is an expression of anti-Semitism. This means in practice that if you are a Jew then you can publish material and get praised for producing that material when a gentile would not only probably not get published but if he did he would be sharply, brutally criticised. This is just one example amongst many that could be given where theology, not merit, determines success. It is also true that Christianity has been historically more tolerant of non-believers than Islam or Judaism.115 No better example of this tolerance can be found than with the general treatment of Jews in Europe. In Muslim countries, by contrast, until Western imperialism in the 19th century, Jews “. . . were by law and by tradition ranked far below the Muslims; they had to wear distinctive clothing; they could not

115

As evidenced by the fact that Jews chose to live in Christian Europe instead of anywhere else in the world and that it took a great deal of effort, from non-Christian sources, to manipulate European Jews to leave the comfort and security of their European homes and move to Palestine.

165 ride horses or carry swords; they had no standing in the courts when testifying against Muslims; and they were subject to additional taxes.” (Frankel 1997: 32) When it is appreciated that throughout history, although rarely mentioned, Christians, especially Christian monarchs, have formally and in practice opposed harm to Jews and have been extremely active in ensuring Jews are not only safe but, at the request of rabbinic leaders, helped ensure that Jews conformed to their traditions. That is why Jews chose to live in Europe and not Africa, the Middle East or Asia. As Russian-American Jew Harry Waton, certainly no friend of the West, wrote in 1938116, “Nowhere else on the face of the earth did the Jews preserve themselves, Judaism, and their culture, as well as, in the Christian countries, and among the Christians”. (Waton 1938” 5) Although Waton specifically states, “preserve themselves” in order to credit Jews with their own success and not merit Christians, in truth a lot of the credit should go to Christianity. Indeed, the narrative that Christianity was particularly oppressive against Judaism is, again, of recent minting. In truth, the oft made claims that Christianity uniquely endorsed slavery, is intrinsically anti-Semitic or suppresses women, are all unfounded. For another example, the Catholic Church is continuously portrayed as having been somehow sympathetic with Nazi anti-Semitism despite many Catholic Priests being sent, some dying, to the concentration camps for defending and protecting Jews. Pope Pius XI unequivocally denounced anti-Semitism in 1938, the high-water mark of Nazism, by stating that “it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism”. It is simply impossible to be an anti-Semite and a Christian, especially a Catholic Christian. The truth is that Nazism was nearly as anti-Christian, which it thought was effeminate and destructive to the Teutonic masculine ideal, as it was “antisemitic”. Psudeofascist thinkers such as Julius Evola argued that Christianity undermined the active warrior mentality of pre-Christian Pagan West that was the primary cause for the West’s decline. Furlong (2011: 42) argued that, according to Evola, “The role of Christianity in undermining this [warrior ethic] and replacing it with an illusory contemplative ethic had been crucial in the decline of the tradition in the West. . . This was because he thought the kingly warrior ethic more appropriate for the West.” That Christianity, like Judaism, was thought to be so crucial in undermining the masculine, military ideal of the West meant that fascist governments around the world in the years prior to the war were strongly opposed to Christianity. As Berdyaev rightly observed, “. . .the fact that German anti-Semitism evolved into anti-Christianity must be considered highly significant. . .” (Berdyaev 1954: 2) Berdyaev is observing the historical fact that Nazi anti-Semitism did indeed morph into anti-Christian sentiments as evidence that Christianity was incompatible with anti-Semitism. Nazis idealized a pre-Christian West which they thought combined

116

At the peak of Nazism in Germany, Waton’s country of origin.

166 militarism and the sacred in masculine action. For this reason, they generally preferred the currently popular neo-Paganism as more authentic to their vision of a Western ideal. (Preparata 2005: 133) As none other than German Jew Leo Strauss, who again personally expressed a great deal of animosity towards Christianity, observed, “The Nazis’ system was based on the notion of the Aryan. I mean, it was no longer a Christian Germany, it was to be an Aryan Germany.”117 The Nazis turned their backs on Christianity, after all the “anti-Christ” Nietzsche was the “philosopher of the Nazis”, yet, despite this, people continuously claim today that Christians supported or participated in Nazi anti-Semitism. As Catholicism explicitly opposed anti-Semitism and the Nazis loathed Christianity why does Brickman so unequivocally and unconditionally claim, as though stating an undeniable historical fact, that Christianity was responsible for the mistreatment of Jews by the Nazis during World War II? Of course, there have been many examples of strident attacks on Christianity. In 1989, one hundred and thirty homosexual protesters from the group “ACT UP”, founded and funded by American Jewish “Gay Rights” activist Larry Kramer, demonstrated during mass at New York’s St Patrick’s Cathedral. As part of the protest, a group of activists forced their way into the Church during mass yelling at the Cardinal hosting the service that he was a “bigot” and “murderer”. Among the slogans chanted by the protesters, during one of Catholicism’s most sacred ceremonies, was, “You say, don’t fuck; we say, fuck you!” Not very imaginative, after all it does not even rhyme, but extremely vulgar and vulgarity in the face of what some found sacred was obviously their intent. Like naughty boys lacking the maturity of selfconstraint and decency to respect other’s beliefs, they simply wanted to be vulgar. Most confronting to believers, one protester grabbed a communion wafer, threw it to the ground and stamped his foot on it. (Jenkins 2003: 3) Although it was not recorded who actually performed this sacrilegious act, this kind of behaviour has historically been known as a “desecration of the Host”. Desecration of the Host involves obtaining communion wafers, thought to be the transubstantiate body of Christ, and stabbing, burning, or stomping on it as a way of re-enacting the crucifixion of Christ. Were these “protesters” called out as “Christian haters” or even criticised for being intolerant of those who expressed an opposing view? Not at all. Today this event is praised as one of the defining moments in the “Gay Rights movement” when

117

As will be explored later in this volume, this claim is NOT TRUE. Germany remained a Christian country and most people continued to support tolerant Christian principles. The Nazis never received more than 22% of the popular vote and that was falling at the time that they seized power. Despite the contradictory way that some like to present Germany in the mid to late 1930, as both consisting of Christian anti-Semites and as a people who had forsaken Christianity to embrace “Aryanism”, the truth is that the German majority remained Christian and were not passionate anti-Semites. What is true is that the Nazis had turned away from Christianity to Aryanism and this is significant.

167 brave protesters fought against oppression. It has not been remembered by history as an expression of hatred and intolerance, a victory for barbarity, but of liberation. History has actually marked this “protest”, ironically, as a victory for “tolerance” over “bigotry”.118 In contrast to the various forms of Christianity and their beliefs, one simply cannot criticise Judaism. One can observe that particular Jews have too much power or wealth, or that particular Jews are behaving in a morally abhorrent way, many documentaries explore the crimes, violence and theft by Jews, but one is most definitely not allowed to extrapolate from these particular observations, no matter how many Jews are involved, that such acts are being carried out by “Jews” as “Jews”. It is this association, above all, that accusations of anti-Semitism hope to silence. That individual behaviour might be part of an organized movement acting as Jews, but this is simply not allowed to be voiced. One can readily say, for example, that Hollywood promotes violence and encourages a sexually liberated lifestyle, as D’Souza observes, in Hollywood, Children are usually wiser than their parents and teachers, who are often portrayed as fools and bunglers. Homosexuals are typically presented as good-looking and charming, and unappealing features of the gay lifestyle are either ignored or presented in an amusing light. As countless movie plots confirm, the white businessman in the suit is usually the villain. Prostitutes are always portrayed more favorably and decently than anyone who criticizes them. Small towns are the preferred venue for evil and scary occurrences, and country pastors are usually portrayed as vicious, hypocritical, sexually repressed, and corrupt. Notwithstanding the occasional appearance of the stereotypical Elmer Gantry, nobody goes to church. Religion is simply not a feature of the lives of movie and television characters. Lots of film and T.V. characters have pre-marital sex, but very rarely does anyone contract a sexually transmitted disease. “Prudes” are always the subject of jokes and ridicule. One of the central themes of American movies and television is the glamorization of adultery. Adultery is almost always portrayed sympathetically, so that if a woman cheats on her husband, the husband is generally shown to be vicious, unscrupulous, abusive, impotent, or in some way deserving of the fate that befalls him. (D’Souza 2007) You are allowed to observe this of Hollywood, but you are not allowed to associate this behaviour with “Jews” as then it would become anti-Semitic. What the army of Jewish advocacy groups diligently police, and Christianity has a very small voice in comparison, is any attempt to move from observing certain behaviours, even if done by Jews, with Judaism. It is with this step, by definition, that one becomes an anti-Semite and to be accused of being an antisemite is, as Dr Stephanie Carp observed in a recent article, “the harshest judgment you can make . . . about someone”. One can observe that there are numerous

118

After all, it was not the Christians storming a place where gay people gathered and telling them not to practice their beliefs.

168 European scholars who are passionately opposed to Western, Christian, civilization, but you are not allowed to associate these very same scholars, even if they self-identify in these terms, as being “Jews” because it is at this very point that one becomes an anti-Semite. The real definition of anti-Semitism is to be critical of Jews in any way including that they have a particular agenda or that they wield too much power. This is surprisingly close to the generally accepted definition of “antisemitism” which is, “a hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews . . . Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.” Of course, these arguments are having a significant impact on society at large. Recent research showed that people are much more sensitive to criticism of Judaism then criticism of any other religious traditions including their own. (Karpowitz et al. 2016) By contrast, generalized accusations are brought against “Christianity” in the mainstream media, on YouTube, and at universities, every single day. There is no demand when crude, simplistic or even erroneous claims are made against Christianity that such claims are motivated out of racial hatred. Even in the 1970s and 80s, Christianity was still generally respected, and one could criticise particular Christians, for not living up to the Christian ideal, but Christianity itself remained above criticism. Westerners thought that Christianity was a positive force in the world that had generally made a positive contribution to Mankind. How things have changed. Christianity today is all things evil. It does not need to be stated that this is for us all to have accepted the Gnostic Jewish narrative. No wonder nobody wants to be a Christian anymore. Christiantiy is portrayed as some kind of paedophilic cult aiming to corrupt the youth. As Jenkins observes, In 2002, the furore over child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy provoked a public outpouring of anti-Church and anti-Catholic vituperation on a scale not witnessed in this country since the 1920s. Reasonable and justified critiques of misconduct by particular Church authorities segued effortlessly into grotesque attacks on the Catholic Church as an institution, together with sweeping denunciations of Catholic faith and practice. (Jenkins 2003: 2) More recently Christianity is portrayed as a white supremist movement that was sympathetic with Nazism or that Christianity encouraged slavery. These claims are just untrue. Today you can criticise Christianity in a way that you simply cannot criticise any other religious tradition. Christianity has literally become the genesis of all evil. The truth is that today what should rightly be called anti-Judaism, which should be acceptable, is now wrongly identified as anti-Semitism. The move from anti-Judaism to anti-Semitism does not need to be justified or substantiated because, just like the world is round, the claim that Christianity is antisemitic is now just accepted as true. This does not even begin to touch upon the fact that almost all material published by Jews on religious matters and much, much more, psychoanalysis, economics, sociology,

169 political theory etc., are all either implicitly or explicitly critical of Christianity but nothing at all is ever said about Judaism being anti-Christian no matter racist against white people. Ester Freud, for example, a descendent of the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, recently wrote a book highly critical of Christian attitudes to unwed mothers in the 1960s called, I Couldn’t Love You More. The book explores the way single mothers were treated by the Catholic Church in Ireland. The title itself, of course, is to draw attention to the Christian idea of “love” and how that claim of “love” has justified what we would think of as cruelties today. This is a transparent and explicit attack against Christianity by a Jewish author and yet nobody would dare suggest that her writing is motivated by her hatred of Christianity. She is thought to be just an historian documenting the cruelty of Catholic Ireland. Nor would anyone dare suggest that her advocacy for the kind of permissive society that we increasingly live-in today reflects her theology. One might respond and say that what Ester Freud published is acceptable because it is true, but this would be to affirm my point. You cannot publish critical true claim against Jews without being labelled an “antiSemite”. After all, there are plenty of cruelties perpetrated in Jewish societies against women who had children out of wedlock in the same decade, in the 1960s, and yet she does not write of those. Indeed, reading material produced by Jews, as Jewish authors like Shlomo Sands also observes, shows them to be blind when it comes to critical self-reflection but are only too eager to highlight mistakes or cruelties in Christianity’s past. Indeed, it is usually the case that when legitimate criticisms of Jews are made then it is quickly characterized as racism. As Rashid Khalidi (2016) recently stated in relation to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, “Whatever the Palestinians have done, is portrayed in terms of mindless violence against Jews out of some kind of primaeval anti-Semitism. No sense of how this started where the animus comes from, it’s completely inexplicable in the way it is generally presented . . .” Jewish violence is presented in terms of being a reasonable response to Palestinian violence while Palestinian violence portrayed as simply irrational barbarism. The same is true of Cossack’s treatment of Jews in the 16th century, or the Russian’s treatment of Jews in the 19th century or the German treatment of Jews in the 20th century. Jews are the innocent victims who did absolutely nothing to bring the wrath of others down upon them. Any anger towards Jews is explained in terms of mindless, racist bloodlust. The allimportant context, the reasons, for these actions against Jews are quickly forgotten to history. The truth is that any opposition to Judaism, no matter what form or for what reason, is quickly labelled as antiSemitism. In the 1980s, Paul McCloskey argued that the “Israel Lobby” was, . . . an obstacle for Mideast peace . . . If the U.S. is to work effectively toward peace in the Mideast, the power of the lobby must be recognized and countered in open and fair debate. I had hoped that the American Jewish community had matured to the point where

170 its lobbying efforts could be described and debated without raising the red flag of antiSemitism. (McCloskey as seen in Findley 1985: 53) These measured words were met with a barrage of invective. In the San Francisco Examiner, Paul Greenberg claimed that McCloskey’s rather measured words actively revealed him to be a notorious antisemite in the mould of outspoken “antisemite” Gerald Smith. Douglas Bloomfield, of the notorious American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), wrongly accused McCloskey of having “an intense sense of hostility” towards Jews. It is not even anger towards Jews that attracts the accusation of “antiSemitism” but, as the definition says, any kind of criticism. This contextualizing of everything critical of Judaism and Jews as anti-Semitism becomes particularly troubling when researching legitimate concerns about people who identify as Jews because legitimate research gets quickly cast as anti-Semitism. That every criticism of Jews, as Jews, is labelled as anti-Semitism, stops any kind of legitimate research because all material that might be used to inform legitimate research that is critical of Jews has already been labelled as anti-Semitism. To cite this material quickly attracts the criticism that the research has drawn on recognised anti-Semitic material. There is a dangerous circularity that stops legitimate research. There simply is no way out. As you cannot reference anti-Semitic research then anything critical of Jews, as Jews, cannot then be sourced no matter how legitimate that prior research. And this has been happening with increasing effectiveness for over a hundred years. The obvious question is why is nobody allowed to criticise Jews? I can be critical of Australia and people, including Australians, often express such criticisms. I can be critical of China, despite their best efforts to replicate Jewish exceptionalism by labelling all criticisms of China as “racism”, and many authors continue to be critical. I can criticise America, Russia, Catholics, Muslims . . . but nobody is allowed to criticise Jews. Even Christians are not allowed to criticise Judaism despite it being true that Jews are clearly, systematically and formally, antagonistic against Christianity.119

119

Early in the process of researching material for this project, I experienced Jewish hatred of Christianity firsthand. I joined into an exchange with an American Jewish organization which claimed to inform people about the truth of Judaism. The person I was teamed with was a published, highly respected, Jewish academic. Despite his standing, this author expressed nothing but a deep hatred of Christ and Christianity. His hatred ran so deep that he refused to write Christ’ name, even in an email, but would instead replace His name with an X (which cast Xmas in a whole new light). His strong animosity towards Christianity absolutely surprised and shocked me. I’d not heard such attitudes expressed on religious matters at any other time in my life. I’ve literally spoken to hundreds of Christians, Catholic Priests, senior Protestant Pastors and I can honestly say that I have never experienced anything like the level of hatred towards Judaism that this Jewish academic expressed towards Christianity. He honestly loathed Christ and Christianity with a passion. This hatred infused everything that he wrote. By contrast, Jewish authors, like Martin Buber, are often positively referenced in Christian sermons and this use is perfectly acceptable today. I cannot speak of the past, but today, Christian’s believe that Jesus was a Jew, that it was the Romans who killed Christ, and, increasingly, it is argued that the entire Christian tradition is nothing but a terrible misunderstanding of its Jewish origins. In fact, Jews are often invited to speak to the congregations to help correct these misunderstandings. Despite this, somehow, it is Christianity today that is understood as intolerant.

171 The difference between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism is that it is acceptable to be anti-Judaic, as it is to oppose Christianity, but, rightly, nobody is allowed to be anti-Semitic. By moving from one claim to the next, from anti-Jewish to anti-Semitism, people like Maccoby besmirches all of Christianity with the outrageous claim of racism without needing to substantiate the accusation. One important difference between Christianity and Judaism is that there is not a barrage of well-funded, well-resourced institutions, like the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) or CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) trawling through everything that is written, said or published accusing anybody who transgresses extremely restrictive borders with anti-Semitism. Although criticism of Christianity is now accepted in just about any context, criticism of Christianity becomes more strident if there is suspicion that it has gained political influence. There has been a long struggle to ensure the strict separation between Church and state. The basic separation between the practical concerns of state and the moral concern of Christianity is consistent with Christianity theology. This distinction goes back to at least Augustine and is suggested in Biblical passages, but a secular society, one where Christianity has no role in public life, is different from the formal separation of responsibility and is thoroughly inconsistent with Christianity. A Christian society should have a Christian inspired government which it had, perhaps surprisingly today, up until quite recently. As was written of England in the late 1960s, For over a thousand years there has been an intimate relationship between the Christian Church in England and the English nation, so much so that much of the history of one necessarily involves the history of the other . . . Christianity was the basis of national unity . . . Membership in one presupposed membership in the other. (J. E. W. Jr 1967: 305) To be truly English meant that you were part of the Church of England and to be a member of the Church of England was the only way to be truly English. It has been observed by many that the most influential force that has insisted on the secularization of the state in the United States, and that has been exported throughout the West, has been the Jewish community. As Gregg Ivers wrote in his extended 1995 study into Jewish influences on the secularizing of the American state, To Build a Wall: American Jews and the Separation of Church and State, “Jewish civil rights organizations have had an historic role in the post-war development of American church-state law and policy.” Although there has been, again unlike Judaism or Islam, some recognition of a certain distance between what we would think of in terms of Church and State (take Jesus’ argument to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s), the demand to ensure there is an impenetrable barrier between Church and state has become a central tenant of recent forms of liberalism. That ensuring and maintaining the separation between Church and state and the further eradication of

172 any Christian display in the public sphere has been a key policy aspiration of several Jewish advocacy organization. Lisa Moses Leff, a Jewish scholar, has argued that the argument for Jewish rights helped inform the establishment of French state secularism that has now become a defining feature of France’s national identity. (Leff 2006) In the United States, demands to realise a secular society was led by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the American Jewish Congress (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). (Ivers 1995: 5) More recently George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Miriam G. and Ira D. Wallach Foundation and the Bauman Family Foundation, all Jewish owned and funded organizations, have been extremely active ensuring Christianity plays not role in American public life. They have fought to ensure, as D’Souza observes, American public schools may not have organized prayers, not even at graduation ceremonies or sporting events. Courts have ordered the removal of monuments with religious themes, such as the Ten Commandments, from public facilities. Some courts have even declared the Pledge of Allegiance, with its reference to “one nation under God”, unconstitutional. The secular ethic favoured by the left has permeated the culture: “Merry Christmas” is now “Happy Holidays”, Christmas holidays are now winter break, and “friendship” trees have replaced Christmas trees. . . every year the ACLU and its allies seek to eradicate the remaining vestiges of religious influence from America’s public institutions. Each Christmas we witness the surreal spectacle of liberal organizations filing lawsuits to dismantle Nativity displays, compel department stores to remove statues of Jesus from their stores, and stop public-school children from singing Christmas carols like “Silent Night”. (D’Souza 2007) A childhood without The Little Drummer Boy or Silent Night is a childhood that is just a little bit sadder, a little bit emptier, than one that is familiar with these lovely carols. It is interesting that Israel is an enthusiastic theocracy, where religious symbols grace every public building, is emblazoned on their national flag and where religious texts are commonly used for educational purposes, and yet in places like the United States, Jews are the most vocal opponents of not only Church involvement in political decision making but ensuring Christianity has no public presence whatsoever. This insistence that Church and state remain discrete has meant that one may oppose the political agenda of “Christian fundamentalism” or, indeed, as was recently done, write a book explicitly critical of the supposed excessive political influence of a particular group of Christians simply because people identifying as Christians had developed relationships with people in political power. For one recent example, an American Jewish author, Jeff Sharlet, used deception to “infiltrate” a Christian political group operating in Washington DC. Sharlet wrote a “tell-all” book called The Family where he supposedly reveals the dark “truth” about the secret, well-funded, supposedly powerful, theo-political Christian organization trying to spread Christian values through the halls of power in the United States and around the world. Beyond there being some shock

173 expressed about what Sharlet had revealed, how dare Christians promote their agenda in a traditionally Christian country, and the accusations even if found to be true did not add up to much at all beyond a group explicitly and openly trying to spread Christian values through political associations. Indeed, Sharlet’s book was quickly turned into a much watched and well-reviewed Netflix series that included extended “re-enactments”, all based exclusively on one person’s account without any corroborating evidence, that was then viewed by millions. There was no suggestion, despite Sharlet being Jewish and admitting to using deception to infiltrate the organization and that everything was based on his account alone, that he was being “anti-Christian”, “Anglo-phobic”120 or motivated as a result of his own religious beliefs to undermine Christian influence. Indeed, anti-Christian sentiment is often claimed to be the result of the evil behaviour of Christians themselves which is one of the most fundamental taboos regarding claims against Judaism. There is never a suggestion that people like Sharlet could have ulterior motives beyond advancing the public good as an investigative journalist. Others might write against “militant” or “fundamentalist” forms of Catholicism, such as the anti-Gay activism being advanced by some Catholics today in Poland, or Islam, such as ISIS, and this is perfectly acceptable because these commentaries are attacking the politics of these religious groups not the religion itself. Such content is not even contentious in any way today and these kinds of projects would readily attract research funding from governments around the world and that research would then be published in reputable academic journals and taught as respectable content in our universities without concern. These types of claims are not even contentious. The reason why people are permitted to oppose particular religious groups or particular religious expressions is because they are religions that have been seen to transgress the barrier between Church and state. They are groups of people who adhere to a set of beliefs and practices and, as such, those beliefs and practices can be legitimately criticised if they are perceived to be influencing political decisions making. One can legitimately say, “Islamists misinterpret the Koran and are using a distorted interpretation of their religion to justify strategies for gaining political power that are cruel and unjustifiable”. This claim could be legitimately made simply because it is true. You could then go on to specify what acts of violence or terror they were undertaking to achieve their political goals in the name of religion to legitimize your claim. This is all legitimate research that is undertaken, taught, funded, and published, in academia around the world but particularly in western universities every day.

120

This word, of course, does not even exist although it should. What is the Black Lives Matter movement except Anglophobia?

174 What is being claimed by the term “anti-Semitic”? The term “Semite” emerged in the mid-19th century to identify people who spoke a “Semitic” language. This language family was spoken by Phoenicians, Arabs, Hebrews, Ethiopians and Carthaginians. But almost from the first moment that it was coined, the word “Semite” was used not in the context of linguistics but, as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) observes, “The term has, however, since its inception referred to Jews alone.” That is, harmonious with the times, the term Semite came to be applied to a supposed ‘racial’ group. Although today Jews reject the use of the word “Semite” in a racial context, claiming that it expresses a false racial theory that “was spread through use by anti-Jewish political movements and the general public”, the truth is that many Jews embraced and promoted the term Semite throughout the late 19th century and into the 20th century. It can be seen used regularly by Jewish authors in a racial context until at least the Second World War. As Maccoby observes, it was used, “when theological explanations had come to seem out of date . . .” as a “racial reference” to be applied only to Jews and not to “other Semites”.121 (Maccoby 2009: 13) For just one example, Ignác Goldziher, in his extremely influential 1876 tome Mythology Among the Hebrews, despite being a philologist, continuously uses the term Semite to identify a distinct people with a shared history and cultural beliefs. Much of the literature at the time, that was being written by Jews, uses the term Semite to refer to Jews as a racially charged term. It was primarily used by a group of Jews who were usually European and no longer practiced the Orthodox form of their religion. As they did not obviously practice what many understood to be “Judaism” they could not, technically, be considered at that time to be ‘Jews’. This cohort were no longer considered to be ‘Jews’ as a religious practice, because at that time Judaism was thought to be exhaustively a kind of religious practice, but they continued to share an identity as Jews. If an Anglican Englishman no longer practiced Anglicanism, he remained an Englishman but Jews at that time, when Judaism was thought to be a religion, who no longer practiced in an Orthodox manner, were not easily identified as anything but in terms of the country in which they happened to live, and this did not seem a good fit. So, a Jewish Englishman who no longer practiced Judaism was thought to have become an Englishman. The problem with this conclusion is that it was not how Jews themselves felt. As Albert Einstein can be seen to be arguing even well into the 20th century to justify identifying as a Jew despite no longer practicing its Orthodox form. He rejected the claim that, “A Jew is a person professing the Jewish faith” by arguing,

121

Note that the term “other Semites” cannot rightly be said without it being deployed in a racial context. Maccoby should have said something like, “other speakers of the Semitic language”. A minor point but it does show just how readily the term continues to be deployed in a racial setting.

175 The superficial character of this answer is easily recognised by means of a simple parallel. Let us ask the question: What is a snail? An answer similar in kind to the one given above might be: A snail is an animal inhabiting a snail shell. This answer is not altogether incorrect; nor, to be sure, is it exhaustive, for the snail shell happens to be but one of the material products of the snail. Similarly, the Jewish faith is but one of the characteristic products of the Jewish community. It is, furthermore, known that a snail can shed its shell without thereby ceasing to be a snail. The Jew who abandons his faith (in the formal sense of the word) is in a similar position. He remains a Jew. (Einstein 1950: 24) Einstein is trying to argue that a Jew remains a Jew even if he no longer practices Orthodox Judaism. The important point is that this argument still had to be made in the years following World War II. Many Jews from the late 19th century rejected Orthodox Judaism but continued to associate with Jews, feel at home amongst Jews and continued some Jewish cultural practices despite no longer being orthodox. They were actively selecting what it meant to be Jewish. A former “Jew” may not practice an Orthodox form of Judaism, but he remained a “Jew” in some sense that the word Jew just did not carry in the late 19th century. To resolve this problem, how did a “Jew” who no longer practiced Orthodox Judaism continue to express their solidarity with people who felt the same, the word “Semite” was used. It is for this reason that the term Semite was so quickly employed in a racial context. “Semite” became the racial term for Jews without any religious connotation like “Englishman” or “Frenchman”. The word Semite was not primarily developed for simple “racist” reasons by those who hated Jews as is so often claimed but as a term embraced by Jews to address an identity “gap”. The term “Semite” was enthusiastically embraced, by the turn of the 20th century, by many Zionist Jews who shared an identity and political program, to realise a Jewish state in Palestine, but who, as Zionists, no longer practiced the Orthodox form of their religion. Although it is often claimed that Wilhelm Marr was the first person to use the term “anti-Semite”, as it says in the Encyclopedia Britannica, “The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time”, the German Jew Moses Hess actually used the term ten years before Marr to identify people who disliked “Jews”. As with many terms of abuse, such as Protestant, anti-Semite was adopted positively by some people who, such as Marr, opposed Zionism. These people were no longer critical of Judaism as a religion but opposed a particular religio-cultural political program and so accepted the racially charged term Semite as they did not oppose Judaism as such but a political agenda being promoted by people who identified as “Semites”. To be opposed to or to question these non-religious, often highly assimilated ‘Semites’, in their nationalist aspirations for a Jewish state, as Moses Hess aspired to realise in the 1860s, was labelled ‘anti-Semitism’. That is why anti-Semitism became so strongly associated with racial vilification, it was not initially intended to identify an historical religious disagreements but was used from the start as a way of identifying a “race”. In its originally setting, when terms like Jew-hater and anti-Jewish

176 still existed to describe the religious contest, the term anti-Semite was indeed a uniquely racially charged term. The idea was that people who opposed the Zionist project, did so not on substantial grounds, for example that the number of Jews living in Israel at the time was very small or to claim possession of a piece of land that had previously been inhabited by others and had since been populated by others for centuries is nonsense, but exclusively on racial grounds. It was being claimed that opponents to the realization of a state for Jews, which, it should be remembered was not an aspiration for many Orthodox or assimilated Jews across Europe at the time and was a very small movement within the wider Jewish community, did not really disagree with the undeniable claims of Jews but argued against the establishment of a Jewish state just because they simply hated Jews or, as these non-Orthodox “Jews” had come to identify, Semites. They were anti-Semites. This strategy proved very successful at delegitimizing what might be thought in retrospect, as history has unfolded, legitimate concerns. Following the First World War, as attitudes towards Jews began to become more unfavourable than they had been prior to the War, especially in Germany, because of the increased political agitation of Gnostic Jews especially in communist struggles, the term Semite was quickly and enthusiastically adopted and deployed by all Jews who wanted to characterise any criticism made against them as being insubstantial and motivated exclusively by racial hatred. These years saw the emergence of many Jewish representative bodies in Germany whose existence was to ensure that there was an organized response to oppose the growing hatred of a particular expression of Judaism. It was in the inter-war years that the concept of “anti-Semitism” entered many legal codes for the first time but most especially in the former Soviet Union where Jews were massively overrepresented in leadership positions. By using the term “antiSemitism”, it was being said, that any criticism of Jews, of any kind or motivation, was necessarily without substance and was, therefore, just an expression of racial hatred. As criticism of Jews rose to a fever pitch in pre-World War II Nazi Germany, many Jews began to strongly identify as “Semites” as the Germans amongst whom they lived forcefully identified as “Aryan”. After World War II, in the aftermath of the popularization of the “Holocaust” narrative, any criticism of Jews, Judaism or Israel, became labelled as “anti-Semitism” and was characterise as a dangerous prelude to fascism.122 This had the sobering effect of associating any criticism of Jews with Nazism and having the potential to result in a Holocaust. If we just reflect on this for a minute to allow the implication of this new term to “sink-in”. Any criticism of Jews,

122

The oldest mention of a “holocaust” involving 6 million Jews was raised in an article in The American Hebrew on the 31st of October 1919 provocatively titled “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!”. That article feared that 6 million Eastern European Jews were about to starve to death as a result of World War I if they did not get financial support from America. The idea of 6 million Jews dying in a holocaust is used numerous times between the first and second world wars.

177 Judaism or Israel was now characterized as anti-Semitism. Over the decades following the war, the Holocaust narrative was intensified, promoted in Hollywood movies, and forcefully introduced as a necessary component of school curricula from a very young age. To be an anti-Semite, to be a Nazi, became the worst thing a person could be. It became such a stigmatizing form of identification that even American presidents would hastily take steps in response to even the threat of being labelled an antiSemite. In many ways, the term as it exists today is an anachronism in the sense of really belonging to the years between 1880 to 1945 when the idea of being a Jew continued to be associated with a religious practice and was not a racial term. The reason why Jewish representative bodies today have uniformly rejected the positive identification of “Semite”, while continuing to embrace the term “anti-Semite”, is simply because it no longer serves any purpose. Non-Orthodox Jews readily self-identify as Jews, as a racial identification, and nobody even questions the claim. Today, Einstein would not have to justify identifying as a Jew even though he was not practicing the Orthodox religion because, despite the very idea of “races” falling into disrepute in certain contexts, “Jew” is now used every day as a racial marker. The irony to this situation is that today to claim that being Australian is a “race” or American or English, would all be extremely questionable claims whereas to be a Jew, to use this in a racial context, is simply an established, uncontentious statement of fact. The irony is that prior to World War II, the opposite was the case, Australians, Americans, and English unquestionably constituted “races” while being a Jew was thought primarily to be a religious term. It is because of this new way of conceptualizing “Jewishness” that, as Maccoby claims, any expression of “Jew hatred” is now understood as “racial hatred” in disguise. (Maccoby 2009: 13) This might be contrasted to Christianity where one can readily and enthusiastically criticise Catholicism as hypocritical or Protestantism for being overly judgemental and would certainly not be accused of being a racist even though Anglicanism or Lutheranism have strong racial associations. Today, it is simply impossible to substantively criticise Jews, Judaism or, increasingly, even Israel, without being labelled an “anti-Semite”. As the earlier cited definition of antisemitism makes perfectly clear, any “animosity” or, as the ADL website claims, any “belief or behaviour hostile toward Jews”, even hostile “beliefs”, is, by this account, a kind of racism. Use of the term anti-Semitism has become so politicized that it has obviously being used to suppress any criticism of Jews, Judaism or Israel.123 As Joseph Sobran wrote in the New York City Tribune, after being viciously attacked by American Jews for

123

Interestingly, Gnostic Jews claim loyalty to three core commitments, the Torah, the Jewish people and Israel. In stopping criticism of Jews, Judaism and Israel they are preserving the sanctity of these core commitments. Jew are the Jewish people; Judaism is Torah and Israel. Again, as will be made clear in what follows, we are being taught a religious lesson about what is above criticism, what is sacred, that we are not worthy, as “unclean”, to comment upon no matter criticize. As long as we remain silent, we are good goy, but we are not good people.

178 questioning actions of American Jews, “I will think twice before again addressing the topics that have brought on the pain. Let the taboos prevail. But please, let us not pretend we have the sort of freedom of discussion [which my critics] are always saying they want.” Sobran was observing how American Jews always demand the “right” to strongly criticise the established order but draw the line when such “freedoms” are directed against them. The more traditional term for being opposed to Judaism as a religious belief was “Jew hater”. This term is much more accurate for capturing the sentiment that might be being expressed by many, including many Christians, when criticising Judaism. Jew-hater, a perfectly legitimate position in the same way that Muslims and Jews openly express hatred of Christianity, but it is a term that is no longer ever used. To hate the religion of Judaism and the practices and beliefs that religion encourages, that anyone should be allowed to believe and argue in a public forum, is now characterised as being nothing more than “anti-Semitism” or racial hatred. To oppose Jewish actions in the former Palestine, antisemitism. To claim that Jews have too much power in the United States and that this power is used to further Jewish interests, antisemitism. To claim that Jews control Hollywood and use that control to drive a theo-political agenda, antisemitism. Even to observe dangerously noxious political activities from a heretical sect of people who questionably identify as Jews, antisemitism. The broad use of this term to delegitimize any criticism against people who identify as Jews is not, of course, accidental. It is not some kind of unintentional overreach. It is part of a deliberate strategy to silence accusation that some people who identify as Jews may be participating in nefarious schemes against the Christian West. Indeed, after the Israeli military intentionally attacked the USS Liberty off the coast of Egypt in 1967, which resulted in 37 dead US marines and 171 wounded, with the intention of sinking her with all her crew on board because they may have intercepted secret Israeli information, Jewish lobbyists in the United States quickly threatened the weak and cowardly President Lyndon B. Johnson that they would publicly accuse him of “antisemitism” if he took any action against Israel. Chief of Naval Operations at the time, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, outraged by the extent of activities aimed at minimising the nature and intent of the attack concluded that, “Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty’s radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most seriously wounded” and yet nothing was done. This threat to accuse Johnston of anti-Semitism covered telling the United States public the truth about what happened. Even in the 1960s, to be accused of being an anti-Semite was political death. What really happened to the Liberty did not enter the public domain for decades. In truth, the Israeli’s124

124

In truth, one should not use the term “Israeli” here because the term is not used in Israel. In Israel you are identified as a “Jew” or as a “Muslim” or “Christian” never as an “Israeli”. In truth, it was Jews who attacked the

179 hoped to kill everyone on board that vessel to maintain a secret and were only stopped from killing everyone on board by the ingenuity of a communications officer who managed to get a message out using unconventional means. The minute the message was sent and received, the attack was instantly called off and medical services were supplied by the Israeli military who initially pretended that it had all been some kind of terrible mistake. The truth was that once the message had been sent then Israel knew that they could not sink the vessel without the world knowing who was behind the sinking. Such an event makes one wonder how many things Israel may have done behind the scenes, when planes have disappeared from the sky without a trace or jet aircraft have been shot out of sky under suspicious circumstances, that have remained a mystery. Imagine if that communications officer on board the Liberty had not gotten his message out, would Syrian, Egyptian, or the Soviet Union been blamed for the disappearance of the vessel? The ship was there, it should be remembered, to aid Israel by spying on her enemies and yet it was attacked none the less. As a result of Jewish threats, and it would be just inaccurate to say “Israeli threats” as the political threats to the President Johnston were made by Jewish Americans, Johnston went to incredible lengths, and great expense, to hide the extent of the attack and the intentions of Israel in committing this unprovoked military attack on a largely defenceless surveillance vessel. An attack that included the war crime of machine-gunning lifeboats. As in the case of the USS Liberty, this strategy of labelling any criticism of Jews or Israel, no matter how deserved, as “antisemitism” to keep criticism quiet has proven to be extremely successful at suppressing legitimate criticism. As Pat Buchanan wrote, That the United States would sit still for anything was brought home to the Israelis, long ago, on the third day of the Six-Day War, when Lyndon Johnson ordered a coverup of an Israeli rocket-and-machine gun attack on the U.S. intelligence ship Liberty off the Sinai, an attack costing the lives of 37 brave American soldiers. That this military attack, intended to kill hundreds of America’s bravest and sink one of her vessels, was not properly investigated or reported and nobody was found responsible is just one of many time Israel has literally gotten away with murder. What it did prove to the Israelis and the wider American Jewish community was that anything could be achieved using the threat of accusing someone of “anti-Semitism”. As an example of just how extreme the “antisemitism” industry has grown in the West, a director of a prestigious arts event in Germany innocently invited Cameroonian philosopher Dr Achille Mbembe as a guest speaker. Dr Mbembe is a highly respected African scholar who has been described as “one of

USS Liberty. It was Jews who shot up lifeboats sent to help the seriously wounded. It was Jews who deliberately tried to sink an American vessel who was in the area trying to help the Israelis.

180 the most important thinkers on the African continent”. Mbembe has been recognised around the world for his “outstanding research achievements”. Straight after the invitation to Mbembe had been made public, Dr Mbembe was accused of being an anti-Semite because, in one of his many essays, he compared South Africa’s system of apartheid to the Holocaust. (Mashiach 2020) Dr Mbembe claimed in his essay The Society of Enmity (2016) that, “the apartheid system in South Africa and the destruction of Jews in Europe – the latter, though, in an extreme fashion and within a quite different setting – constituted two emblematic manifestations of this fantasy of separation”. This sentence might seem innocent enough. He is simply saying that the apartheid system and the Holocaust functioned on the same premise, by separating “black Africans”, in the case of South Africa, and “Jews”, in the Holocaust, from the rest of the population. This meant there was no “possibility of a single body”. By assigning “black South Africans” and “Jews” as distinct and discrete identities, Mbembe was arguing, those people who dominated society could justify their cruel and barbaric behaviour. As can be seen from the quote, Dr Mbembe even clarifies that the Holocaust was “in an extreme fashion” thereby not directly equating the situation in South Africa with the Holocaust. This qualification of the comparison was not enough, Dr Mbembe was guilty of comparing the Holocaust with another historical event and this is one of the things, one of many, that is not allowed. To compare the Holocaust with another historical event, thereby suggesting that others have suffered as badly as the Jews, is called “Holocaust relativization”. (Rothberg 2020) That the Holocaust cannot be compared to any other event in history has been voiced by many prominent Jews including Martin Buber in 1953 when he chastised the Germans “who killed millions of my people in a systematically prepared and executed procedure whose organized cruelty cannot be compared with any previous historical event.” The Holocaust was unique and beyond comparison. As the President’s Commission on the Holocaust said, as convened under President Jimmy Carter in 1978, the Holocaust was “a crime unique in the annals of human history, different not only in the quantity of violence – the sheer numbers killed – but in its manner and purpose as a mass criminal enterprise organized by the state against defenceless civilian populations.” The claim is that Jews suffered more than anyone in history and this unique suffering must be recognised and factored into contemporary political decision making and future treatment of Jews. As was recently claimed, “We have a duty to remember the victims of the Nazis, especially those murdered in the Final Solution.” Jews cannot be criticised because this is the first step towards genocide. Dr Mbembe broke the rule of “Holocaust exceptionalism” and, for this minute infringement, one line out of the thousands that the respected scholar had published, he was labelled an antisemite, one of the most

181 charged accusations that can be made, and therefore no longer allowed to speak in public. Mbembe was to be silenced.125 As is usually the case in this kind of situation, the media seemed particularly enthusiastic in pursuing Dr Mbembe on this matter. Articles in daily publications quickly followed the accusation questioning how an invitation to the arts event could have been made to this “anti-Semite”. All this interest in the media regarding Dr Mbembe’s invitation attracted the attention of Germany’s antisemitism commissioner, Dr Felix Klein. Despite Klein apparently being ignorant of the details of the case, he seems to have assumed that the accusations being made by the Jewish community were accurate, and that Dr Mbembe was indeed an anti-Semite. As a result, he insisted that Dr Carl withdraw Mbembe’s invitation to the arts event. Klein went so far as to threaten to withhold promised government financial support for the event if Dr Mbembe’s invitation was not revoked. Dr Carl continued to refuse to withdraw Mbembe’s invitation, personally believing that the accusations lacked substance and were vindictive in the extreme. As a result of this refusal, it was claimed by sections of the media that Dr Carl herself was a “modern antiSemite”. (Maschiach 2020) A “modern anti-Semite”, in contrast to a traditional antisemite, supports antiIsraeli measures, such as the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement or is publicly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians or Arab Israelis, without being explicitly critical of “Jews”. It has been argued since the 1980s (See Brownfeld 1987) that political attacks against Israel are just a disguised form of antisemitism which tries to hold Israel up to higher standards than that expected of other countries.126 As part of these claims, Josef Schuster, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, demanded Dr Carl be dismissed because she was obviously an anti-Semite. Dr Carl responded to Schuster’s charge, I was absolutely shocked. Does he know me? Does he know who I am? Because I invited to an art festival a speaker, an intellectual, whom he doesn’t like or even, I guess, doesn’t

125

I suspect that the real reason Mbembe was silenced is because he is actually being critical of the strategy being increasingly used in the United States and other Western countries against “whites”. After all, is it not the case that “whites” today are being singled out, separated as “other” and that this “othering” process is being used to justify acts of discrimination? Scholarship or career opportunities should not be distributed according to the colour of a person’s skin but because of their individual circumstances. This is not to deny systematic disadvantage but is to reject the argument that this should be understood in terms of “race”. It is Mbembe’s argument, I suspect, that is really being silenced, an act of censorship, not moral outrage at his supposed insensitivity which is only being used as an excuse. Of course, censorship is much worse than overzealous policing of history, yet this is exactly what is happening here. 126 Demanding all Israelis are treated equally under the law, insisting that Arab Israelis are not driven out of their homes to make way for Jews, ensuring that there are no exclusively Jewish suburbs where Arabs are not allowed to live, criticizing extra-Judicial killings, ensuring that Jews are held equally responsible for violent crimes no matter the racial profile of the victim, you know, those extraordinarily “high standards”.

182 know? How can you say that so fast about a person without any research and without any conversations? (Carl as seen in Maschiach 2020) “Luckily”, if that is the right way of characterizing it, the Corona virus struck the world, and the entire festival was cancelled thus defusing the situation before everything really came to a head. Despite this reprieve, Dr Carl’s career has been greatly harmed. Her role as the festival’s artistic directed ended and she has publicly expressed concern, as she should be if history is to be a guide, that nobody will ever employ her again because she has been labelled an anti-Semite and people might actually believe that she is indeed an antisemite. Dr Carl claims, Colleagues are scared to be seen with me, to be close to me. Some people have said that if I were on a podium, they wouldn’t want to be there with me – not because they really think I’m anti-Semitic, but because they fear for their own careers. Even colleagues I know very well. (Carl as seen in Maschiach 2020) Appreciate what is being claimed here, because somebody was labelled an anti-Semite because they invited a particular speaker to an arts event people are scared to be seen with her. This is where we are, and it is absolutely real. This situation is far too close to pre-World War II Soviet Union. The entire affair must be heartbreaking for the innocent Dr Carl who has probably worked very hard to become an arts festival director and to see everything lost for standing up for her principles is demonic. This kind of situation, as might be expected, is certainly not unprecedented. Even academics who have questioned the official narrative around September 11 in the most casual manner on the strongest of evidence have had their careers destroyed. There are many areas today that nobody is allowed to inquire, the historical accuracy of the Holocaust narrative, Jewish practices in Hollywood, international finance and government, even inviting someone who has performed the slightest of breaches against the silence in relation to Jews. Some have even reported after being accused of being an anti-Semite that they were suddenly refused bank loans that they would normally have received or were no longer offered research grants that they would have previously easily been granted. Although such claims are dismissed as paranoid or inaccurate, my investigations, and personal experience, would support these types of claims and much, much more. 127

127

I said three sentences regarding the contents of this volume that revealed too much to a person I later found out was an Ethiopian Jew. In response he tried to kill me out of what he believed was a religious obligation. He came to my unit was a gun and asked me to “go for a ride”. I managed to escape and fled the city leaving all my possessions behind. Ever since I’ve been followed everywhere I go and much more. The shocking aspect of this story is not just that somebody was prepared to commit murder over the contents of a book but that they were prepared to commit murder based on a few sentences without any other evidence. What if I had exaggerated or lied or the “book” was of an extremely low quality that would never find a publisher? I would have been killed for

183 Although this whole episode might be dismissed as a case of oversensitivity toward Dr Mbembe article followed by an almost gleeful vindictiveness against Dr Carl from sections of the Jewish community and a far too compliant German government fearful of not looking proactive, the actual situation is much more sinister. This is just the latest expression of a 100-year project to make any criticism of Jews, Judaism and, more recently, Israel impossible. In Australia, one of the most respected politicians, former Premier of New South Wales who became Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Bob Carr, who wrote critically, with a great deal of restraint, on the power of what he respectfully, though inaccurately, identified as the “Israeli Lobby”. He claimed that as Minister for Foreign Affairs, “I found it very frustrating that we [the Australian government] couldn’t issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. . .” because of pressure brought to bear by the Israeli Lobby in Australia. Just to be clear, a former Foreign Minister is claiming that the Australian government could not bring even a basic “expression of concern” about an extremely serious matter because of the power of Jews in Australia. An incredible claim. But for his very tentative criticisms of what he clearly identifies as the “Israel Lobby”, despite unambiguously claiming that many Australian Jews, even those in his own party, were involved in restraining and controlling the Australian government, he was “disinvited” to the Brisbane Writer’s Festival and has been marginalized as a public speaker ever since. Since the publication of his book, he has disappeared from public view because he is now thought to be untouchable. Pressure similar to that brought against Carl was brought against the festival organizers but, as is true of most Australian’s today, unlike Carl, the organizers of the writer’s festival proved not to have the same moral fortitude and quickly agreed to disinvite Carr. The truth is, as Cook recently observed, Cultural associations, festivals, universities, Jewish research centres, political think-tanks, museums and libraries are being forced to scrutinise the past of those they wish to invite [to conferences and festivals] in case some minor transgression against Israel can be exploited by local Jewish organizations. That has created a toxic, politically paranoid atmosphere that inevitably kills trust and creativity. But the psychosis runs deeper still. Israel, and anything related to it, has become such a combustible subject – one that can ruin careers in an instant – that most political, academic and cultural figures . . . now choose to avoid it entirely. Israel, as its supporters intended, is rapidly becoming untouchable. (Cook 2020) Bob Carr is an extremely well-respected politician and senior statesman. He is the second longest serving N.S.W Premier in history and a former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This most highly respected Australian figure has been effectively banned from speaking publicly because now, after questioning the power of

absolutely no reason. To want to kill somebody over what was said so casually says everything about this movement really.

184 Jews in Australian, he is too “controversial”. The interesting fact is that nobody, Presidents, scientists, judges, business moguls, nobody is powerful enough to stand against Jews once you have been accused of antisemitism. Extremely powerful people have lost everything that they had, their careers, their wealth, their families, because of the most subtle and conditional of criticisms. Luckily, I have nothing to lose, except my life, so I am the perfect person to bring the truth to the world. The most important point is the one raised by Bob Carr, global Jewry will simply not allow any criticism, no matter how gentle, they will not accept any compromise, no matter how reasonable, and they will not even allow any comparisons, no matter how accurate. After all, as Preparata questions, why is the Holocaust granted a special status? “What about the millions of innocent others (including German civilians)? What perverse inclination could give form to a system of weight and tale applicable to the defenceless victims of violence? Are we not all worth the same? Isn’t justice one and the same for all?” (Preparata 2011: 124) The truth is that Jews are special, they are granted exception, they are treated with more respect. Jews are above criticism, above being challenged and beyond equal. The truth is that many Jews believe that they are on a mission from God, and they will see that mission through with a fanaticism Westerners just can not appreciate. These people might stand next to you in a lift, and they will look just like everyone else, sound like everyone else. They are our doctors, our teachers, our politicians, our lecturers, but they all carry a secret, a secret about which they are passionate, they have a single-minded determination to see their vision of the world realised and, as the chosen of God, are prepared to do anything, anything at all, to realize that vision. In Genesis 12: 3, it famously says, “And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curse you I will curse.” This has been read by Jews as saying that God will bless those who act favourably towards Jews while those who oppose Jews, no matter how irrationally destructive they behave, will be cursed. It would be perfectly fine if they left it to God to reward and punish, we could all accept that, but, of course, as God plays no part in this world, according to the Gnostic tradition, because He has “withdrawn”, Gnostic Jews see themselves as the agents of God’s justice. It becomes the task of Jews themselves to ensure that it is the case that those who support Jews in their project are “blessed” while those who oppose them are “cursed”. Gnostic Jews believe that this practice of reward and punishment is to be realised by themselves as with the entire theo-political project and not left to God. This claim might seem unbelievable, but one must appreciate that they are raised from birth to think like this and, Gnostic Jews, live without the moral restraint of guilt that informs the actions of Christians. Religious fanaticism without moral restraint is a dangerous mix indeed. The problem is that very different claims are being made when accusing someone of being “antiJewish” to someone being an “anti-Semite”. To be anti-Jewish is to oppose a set of beliefs and practices

185 of a religion, particularly if you differentiate between political and religious practices. So, as with any other religion, being critical of religious involvement in politics is more acceptable than criticism of the religious beliefs themselves. Criticism of Jews and Judaism should be acceptable if true problems are discovered whereas, to be an anti-Semite, is to unreasonably be opposed to Jews on racial grounds without reason. It is legitimate to oppose a set of ideas and practices, particularly if they are destructive, such actions should be encouraged, but racism, in all its forms, including being opposed to “whites”, is noxious. The real reason for strictly policing any criticism of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, is because they want us to eventually police ourselves. They want us to be more sensitive to criticisms of Judaism than to criticisms of our own religious beliefs. The starting point is with accusations of antisemitism which is understood today to be an “extreme accusation”, a “label that finishes you socially, economically and politically”, to be judged an anti-Semite “removes you from the realm of civil society” but this is only the start. This extreme punishment for not conforming to the expectations of the Jewish community is so that we will discipline ourselves, so that next time somebody is sought for an art event, for example, their entire history will be vetted for even the slightest possibility of “antisemitism”. The slightest possibility that the potential guest was critical of Jews, Judaism, or Israel, in any way. Anybody with any taint, no matter how slight, will no longer be invited because it can result in the end of your career. This diligence will then affect what people say through fear of possible transgression and the exclusion it will provoke. They know that they will no longer be invited to festivals or art events if they transgress in any way the line of antisemitism. The silence grows. This is the outcome that they hope to achieve, and they have been very successful. It is the same with publishing, books that may make false claims against Jews will not be challenged in the public sphere, they will not be shown to be false because they will simply not be published. We will simply know nothing about it. This has been happening since before World War II. As Cook observes in relation to Israel but it actually applies to Jews, Judaism, and Israel, Once, the “bad Jews” have been smeared into silence, as Palestinians and those who stand in solidarity with them largely have been already; when social media has de-platformed critics of Israel as Jew haters; when the media and political parties enforce this silence so absolutely they no longer need to smear anyone as an anti-Semite because these “antiSemites” have been disappeared; when the Jewish “community” speaks with one voice because its other voices have been eliminated; when the censorship is complete, you will not know it. There will be no record of what was lost. There will be simply an empty space, a blank slate, where discussions of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians once existed. What you will hear instead is only what Israel and its partisans want you to hear. Your ignorance will be blissfully complete. (Cook 2020) Of course, this silence has already been achieved in relation to the political activities of certain Jews and Judaism. As Dr. Bernd Scherer, director of the Haus der Kulturen der Welt (House of the World’s Cultures)

186 in Berlin recently said in relation to accusations of antisemitism, “The danger is developing that in the bureaucracy, in the government ministries and in the cultural institutions, there will be an atmosphere of suspicion, insecurity and self-censorship. This has to be stopped.” (Scherer as seen in Mashiach 2020) But this is exactly what Gnostic Jewry hopes to achieve. To claim that what is written in this volume is antisemitic would simply be an attempt to distract attention away from the substance of the argument being made by claiming that it is motivated by racism. Such a claim is an attempt to misdirect our attention away from the substance of the argument and the evidence being presented like a magician misdirecting the audience giving him the opportunity to do his trick. Nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that these texts are motivated by racism. Indeed, the exact opposite is at play. It is the Gnostic Jews who are the extreme racists and those who justify that racism on the grounds that it is the result of the wishes of God. The claims made in these documents are claimed to be true. Whether the arguments and evidence presented is persuasive is not for me to judge but I can say without any doubt that the claims are not driven by racism. This volume is not ant-Semitic. As has already been stated, these volumes are not even about “Judaism”, as such, but trying to differentiate a political movement that identifies as Jewish even though it was inspired by someone still called a heretic by Orthodox Jews today. Gnostic Judaism, as even some Orthodox Jews observe, is an enemy of Orthodox Judaism. (see Antelman 2002) When somebody writes that Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, people do not ask the author why they hate the Japanese so much. The simple reason for this is because it is true that Japan did attack Pearl Harbour. Further explanations for making this claim, such as being motivated by hatred or racial prejudice, are not required because what is being claimed is true. Gnostic Judaism, when properly understood, is no different from any other militant, fundamentalist, racist, theo-political movement, like the Taliban, that draws on religion as a justification for abhorrent acts. Indeed, as will be discussed, the very first victim of Gnostic Judaism, the very first people who were transformed into instruments to realise the project of political Hasidim, were those who practiced more orthodox forms of Judaism. As was recognised of Sabbatai Tzevi in the 17th century, it is this movement, not the truth presented in these pages, that is the greatest threat to Judaism as it threatens Orthodox Judaism with extinction. This can be confirmed when a list, identified by Lipset and Raab, of core contemporary features of being a Jew in the United States today can be seen as expressing the political ideology of Gnostic Judaism and not the beliefs and practices of orthodox Judaism. Lipset and Raab claim that Jews in the United States today, have waning observance of religious rites as expressed in the Talmud, are extraordinarily overrepresented in academia and in the professions, are committed to liberalism, and are strong supporters of Zionism. When properly understood, all of these features are

187 actually expressions of Gnostic Judaism but are not traditional expression of Orthodox Judaism. Rejection of the Talmud and its laws, shaping contemporary society through controlling academia, embracing the instrumental logic of liberalism and unconditional support of Israel, are all expressions of Gnostic Judaism. It is Gnostic Judaism that is increasingly winning the hearts and minds of young contemporary Jews, in the same way they are winning the hearts of minds of former Christians, thus creating a new Judaism that is opposed to Judaism as traditionally practiced. Of course, to oppose this destructive project is not racist, it is not anti-Semitic, but a legitimate political research project not motivated by hate but, by my God, the truth. Conclusion Why is the United States and the West more broadly in crisis today? Why have traditional moral concerns been demonized while what was once viewed as base is now seen as noble? Why have the governments of the United States become so degenerate? The basic reason is because the vision of progress, the vision of what it means to be a “good” society, has become more than simply corrupted, it has been reversed by a theo-political movement drawing inspiration from Jewish Gnostic beliefs as primarily voiced by 17th century “messiah” Sabbatian Tzevi. As Winston Churchill said when vaguely referring to the emergence of a political movement that was growing within European Jewry in the interwar years, It may well be that this same astounding race [Jews] may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of the Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical. (Churchill as seen in Gilbert 2008: 89) It is the diabolical we must oppose, not “Jews”. Whereas merely one generation ago, an ethnically homogenous nation was most prized, today “multi-culturalism” is thought to be an incontestable good. One generation ago, clearly defined gender norms that were reinforced by different moral expectation of the sexes informed not only individual actions but government policy whereas today gender norms are seen as at best constituting a “construct” if not some kind of socially condoned abuse intended to oppress sections of society. Indeed, moral expectation of any kind no longer seems to have a legitimate claim over our lives unless it is a moral claim to undermine existing moral claims. These changing gender norms are particularly true of women who are becoming increasingly masculinised by being encouraged or maybe forced into not only traditional male roles but to also participate in male violent sports. They want to

188 manifest the Shechinah on earth, they want to turn women into sexual predators who are active in fulfilling the Gnostic Jewish vision of the future (not the woman’s). A generation ago drug use was an extremely marginal problem whereas today it is an epidemic destroying the lives of people who once would not have been in danger of even being exposed to drugs. Today, just about everyone experiments at some stage of their lives with hard drugs and some unfortunate people are unable to stop. Worse still, Western governments are decriminalizing the production of drugs such as cannabis and opioids, as these drugs are used, along with amphetamines, as legitimate forms of “medication”. As Mr Peter Hitchens observes, The unholy and undivided trinity of “Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll” is not merely a slogan. This trio of self-indulgences is the tripod on which modern morality rests. All three exalt the self. All three involve sensual pleasure sought for its own sake, separated from any effort or responsibility. Drug taking is the purest form of self-indulgence. It is permitted and promoted by the new morality, because it is the perfect, sublime version of the pursuit of present pleasure. (Hitchens 2013) Their basic agenda is to make us look away from the intellectual appeal of the good and embrace the shallow pleasure principle as an expression of the basest of human drives. As feminist Germaine Greer argues, “The chief means of liberating women is . . . by the pleasure principle. The essence of pleasure is spontaneity. Spontaneity means rejecting the norm, the standard that one must live up to. Liberation will not happen unless individual women agree to be outcasts, eccentrics, perverts.” The sex, drugs, and the abandonment of civility that is expressed in rock and roll. It is an exact reversal from restraining sex to being driven by the pleasure principle and embrace the life of the “outcast, eccentric and perverted”. It was American Jewish disc jockey, Allan Freed, who first introduced large white audiences to what he termed “rock and roll” which was a black slang term for sex. Freed’s influence was that he appealed to white audiences who had, up until that time, listened to people like Perry Como and Frank Sinatra and were not particularly impressed by “black music”. After achieving initial success at promoting black music to white audiences, Jewish mobster Morris Levy paid Allan Freed a fortune to deejay at WINS in New York City. With Levy’s money and Freed’s appeal, Freed’s “rock’n’roll” radio program quickly rose to become the most popular radio program in New York thereby changing the face of music. Through his record label Roulette Records, Levy is credited for combining heroin and rock music that changed American culture. Morris Levy would pay Allan Freed money to play particularly sexually explicit music on his radio show. Freed was later found to be a central player in what became known as the “payola” scandal of 1959. Almost without any other assistance, Levy and Freed introduced a culture of drug, sex and rock’n’roll into America that would rampage through the 60s. Some help was supplied by the movie industry who made

189 rock’n’roll movies at the same time with rebels in the lead roles as teenage icons which is evidence of just how coordinated these efforts are at corrupting an entire society. What was being unlocked was more base and natural drives that society at that time was designed to suppress for the good of the individual and society at large. Levy’s ultimate aim was to ensure that black culture, as such, was dominant, black norms were embraced, at the expense of white culture. The danger of such reversals, as Paglia observes, “Society is our frail barrier against nature. When the prestige of state and religion is low, men are free, but they find freedom intolerable and seek new ways to enslave themselves, through drugs and depression.” (Paglia 2001: 3) As the movie Trainspotting reveals, in the absence of true meaning, in the meaninglessness of modern life, drugs are as good as anything else for filling the void. To live free of social constraints and norms is to seek out drugs and sex or suffer depression because our lives have become meaningless. The list of changes that have been undertaken to realise this new world could go on and on because it is systematic reversal. Everything that a generation ago was prized is now considered base while everything that was then base in now valorised. Our vision of good has been reversed, just like it was in communist countries in the first half of the 20th century, so that people now see a sick society as being a desired ideal, degeneracy as liberation. The annihilation of knowledge of good and evil is not a social revolution but has been instigated by a very small group of religiously motivated actors’ intent on not only destroying Western civilization but replacing it with their own fanatical beliefs. They believe everything that is civilized, the good, the beautiful and the true, is actually barbarity and all that the West traditionally has thought to be barbarity is true civility. These beliefs have certainly not always been held by the majority of Jews and until very recently these ideas were not accepted by many Jews at all. What has led many people who identify as Jews astray today is not that they accept the teachings of Sabbatai but that they simply want to advance the interests of a group with whom they identify. It is those who are ignorant of the unorthodox nature of much of what goes by the name of “Judaism” today, and how it draws upon a range of polytheistic type symbolism about which they are ignorant, that are perhaps the most dangerous because they are easily manipulated into doing, as will be revealed, the most evil things in the name of a God that they well may not properly understand.128 What we are facing today is a

128

Gnostic Jews actually do practice monotheism but, as with Assyrian polytheism and Hindu polytheism, it is really multiple aspects or powers of the one God hypostatized as different gods. As Simo Parpola (2000: 165) argues of the ancient Assyrian religion, “The religion of ancient Assyria is generally viewed as a classic example of a polytheistic religion with a pantheon, mythology and cult teeming with different gods. . . I shall make an effort to show that it is a mistake to regard Assyrian religion as exclusively, or even primarily, polytheistic. On the contrary, belief in the existence of a single omnipotent God dominated the Assyrian religion in its imperial elaboration, with all its polytheistic garb, must be regarded as essentially monotheistic.” The Assyrian religion may appear polytheistic but it right to see these “gods” as expression of different powers or attributes of the one god or the equation “God = all the gods”.

190 civilization contest, between East and West, individuality vs tribalism, morality vs immorality, chastity vs promiscuity, sobriety vs drunkenness, individual property vs collective ownership, and civility vs barbarity. If the West does not respond soon then there will be no hope because all experience of the good, the beautiful and the true will be gone from this world. We will inhabit Hell but will be ignorant of what we have lost. Be under no delusion, these people are prepared to do anything, murder, terrorism, biological warfare, environmental destruction, nuclear war, they are prepared to do anything to serve their God and change the world in way they believe it is their mission to realise. For just one example, the academic Ioan Culianu researched the influence of Gnosticism on the world, Culianu said, the Gnostics had “taken hold of the whole world, and we were not aware of it. It is a mixed feeling of anxiety and admiration, since I cannot refrain myself from thinking that these alien body-snatchers have done a remarkable job indeed.” (Culianu as seen in Lazier 2003: 619) Culianu was stabbed by an unknown assailant in the toilets at that hotbed of Jewish Gnosticism, Chicago University. He died of his injuries. Culianu’s murder was never solved, and no motivation could be found for this brutal crime. I truly believe that he, along with many others, have been killed because they have moved too close to the truth. Despite their verbosity, despite their preparedness to do anything, with love, compassion, understanding and determination, by acting virtuously, the West still has the opportunity to respond to this brutality and barbarity and save Western civilization. Of one thing I am most certain, as Mezei (2018: 12) observes, the West “can reclaim its cultural mission if and only if it understands, accepts, and develops its two thousand years of Christian heritage”. The West, as the West, cannot respond to this moment of crisis without embracing its own religious traditions which most recently found expression in Christianity.

191

Chapter One September 11, 2001: The Tower of Babel We went after Iraq, they did not knock down the World Trade Centre. It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Centre, we went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Centre. Because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out. But when I look at a guy like Lindsey Graham, you’ll end up being over in that war forever, you’ll start World War Three. Donald Trump while campaigning to become the President of the United States in Bluffton, South Carolina. Feb. 2016. “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” George Orwell (Attributed) “Truth ultimately is all we have.” Julian Assange

Introduction The claim that there is a group of religiously motivated “Jews” trying to take over the world is a “conspiracy theory” cliché. To even appear to suggest that this may be the case is initially met with derision which quickly turns to angry accusations of “antisemitism”. I completely understand this response. That is the way we have all been conditioned to respond to such claims by our education system, the mass media, and the entertainment industry.129 The more educated a person is, the more likely that they have been completely indoctrinated into dismissing, without consideration, any claim that “Jews” might be malevolent. I am only too familiar with this mindset because, before undertaking this research, I too, as an educated Westerner, would have responded in exactly the same way. Because people are so

129

The mandatory teaching of the holocaust began to be introduced into Western schools in the 1970s. The explicit purpose of this education, that is this is the justification made by those who advocate for this content being taught, is to show the supposed consequences of “antisemitism”. Increasingly, the content of many of these courses is actually being created in Israel to advance Israeli interests. White Protestants are undergoing an ethnocide, their ethnic identity is being destroyed, and nobody is allowed to even write about it. At the same time, it is mandatory across the West to run “holocaust information courses” to very young children. This prejudice is instilled in Westerners at a very young age so that claims against Jews will be dismissed without consideration. It certainly has proven to be a highly successful strategy.

192 predisposed to dismiss what people think of as “anti-Semitic” conspiracy theories, I will begin not with theology or a “grand historical narrative”, although both these will be given later in this volume, but with a concrete example of these theo-political agents in action. The purpose of this chapter is to quickly and persuasively answer the question as to why a reader should take the time to seriously consider the shocking claims being made in this volume. To be clear, in this volume there will be numerous concrete examples where people motivated by gnostic Judaism can be clearly identified as the manipulator of history. Gnostic Jews instigated the First and Second World Wars, assassinations of Presidents and numerous financial crises in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries including the Great Depression and the more recent Global Financial Crisis. It should always be remembered when reading the following pages, their central project is to redeem the world for their God through political activism aimed at destroying Western civilization. By the end of these volume, every reader will understand the last 150 years of history very differently to the way it has been taught to them. The place to begin this re-education is with an event many have identified as being the defining event of the 21st century, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Even 20 years after the terrorist attack on Washington and New York there continues to be many unanswered questions. The most obvious problem confronting the official account is how did these buildings, designed to withstand being struck by multiple Boeing 747s, collapse vertically, at a speed nearing free fall, into a pile of rubble no larger than the original building’s footprint after being struck by just one passenger jet aircraft? This type of collapse had never happened before and has not happened since. Perhaps the most troubling problem with the official account is why did Building 7 of the Twin Tower complex, untouched by plane debris and not drenched in aviation fuel, collapse in the same manner as Buildings 1 and 2 when officially the reason given for the larger buildings to collapse in the manner that they did was as a result of burning aviation fuel? Many people do not even know that three buildings, and not just two, collapsed on that memorable day. The official explanation for why Building 7 collapsed was because of extensive fires, caused by burning building materials and office supplies, paper, carpets etc., but, again, despite several significant high-rise building fires, some involving volatile accelerants, such a collapse is without precedence. Not only has the collapse of a high-rise building, like Building 7, from a low intensity fire caused by burning building materials never happened before but, for a building of this construction type to collapse vertically to the ground at roughly the speed of free-fall as a result of this type of fire is, as scientists have shown, not just unlikely or unprecedented but actually impossible. Although explaining how these buildings collapsed, especially building 7, is the most glaring problem with the official account, there are other questions that remain unanswered about the event on that day. For

193 example, how did completely inexperienced pilots, who had only previously flown propeller driven light aircraft, perform extremely complex manoeuvres in large jet aircraft that much more senior pilots with years of experience are on the public record as saying would be extremely difficult? Finally, the question that was raised by American Jewish U.S Marine and U.S Army War College Director, Dr Alan Sabrosky, who has personally investigated the causes of September 11, 2001, and found the official version questionable, “. . . why did the mainstream media pay more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they did at dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the U.S. Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath?” Why was the media so compliant? It is not just that important questions were not raised, as Sabrosky rightly observes, but that nobody is allowed to criticise the official account without facing severe reprimand. What is being hidden and, actually of more interest if this is true, who is doing the hiding? This chapter is going to not only suggest who was behind September 11, but also propose a reasonable theory as to how it was achieved. The truth is, as others have observed, that the official story ignores important evidence and fails to adequately explain events. The account given here is therefore better than the official account although much more research is required. The real question is, after all the evidence is presented; why has there never been an official investigation on the links between American Jews, Israel, and the events of September 11, 2001? Answering this question will actually occupy the remainder of this volume. The Hypothesis Griffin observes that, There are two main theories as to who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to the theory put forth by the Bush-Cheney administration (and it is merely a theory, because no proof has ever been provided), the attacks were planned and carried out solely by alQaeda terrorists under the authorization of Osama bin Laden. The alternative theory, espoused by members of what has come to the be known as “the 9/11 truth movement”, holds that the attacks were orchestrated by officials of the Bush-Cheney administration itself. (Griffin 2010: xi) This binary either/or choice as to who was behind September 11, terrorists or that it was an “inside job”, have been advanced by both those close to government and by those who claim to want to reveal the “truth” about September 11. The problem is, by reducing the options to that between either Osama Bin Laden or the Bush-Cheney administration, other possibilities are not even being considered. Either Muslim extremists did indeed carry out September 11, or the American government was secretly behind the attacks, no other options need be considered. Indeed, if, as Sabrosky has argued, they do not accept the official narrative then the, so called, 9/11 Truthers pursue the claimant aggressively to ensure that they

194 accept that it was the government. It appears to be the case that people are forced into one of the two acceptable choices for explaining September 11, Muslim terrorists or government. This chapter will advance an alternative theory. Although the alternative theory is rather obvious once it has been presented, and others have proposed the same theory, (See Hendrie 2010) unlike claims of Muslim terrorists or, perhaps more surprisingly, it being an inside job130, this theory is not allowed to be voiced in public. It is more acceptable and considerably less dangerous to claim that the U.S. government attacked their own people rather than to accuse those who are accused in this chapter. It will be argued that when all the publicly available evidence is scrutinized then it becomes rather obvious, it is not even that secret, that the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, was an orchestrated ‘false flag’ attack undertaken by people who identify as Jews. These people were most likely operating under the guidance and direction of people in the Israeli government. That this is the case has even been suggested by Israeli mainstream media. In The Jerusalem Post, it said, “This is a crazy country in a crazy world”, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told his senior adviser Erez Halfon on September 10, 2001. “There is no day when our schedule goes as planned,” Halfon, who is now deputy chairman of Nefesh B’Nefesh131, promised his boss that the next day would be different, and by 3 p.m. Israel time on September 11, he told Sharon with pride that everything was going according to plan. Less than an hour later, Sharon received a note from his chief of staff Uri Shani informing him that a plane had hit the first tower of the World Trade Centre in New York. (emphasis added Hoffman 2016) This is either an example of very awkward expression from a journalist whose job it is to write clearly or a rather transparent “boast” that Erez Halfon and Ariel Sharon were behind September 11. Why else did Halfon, by this account, have to reassure Sharon on the 10th of September 2001 that, unlike most days which do not go according to plan, “the next day would be different” and “proudly” assured Sharon that everything was “going according to plan” when, “less than an hour later” the first plane struck the first tower of the World Trade Centre? Although it would be reasonable to suppose that such a public display of responsibility would be overly brazen, as will be revealed, this kind of bravado is a common feature of Gnostic Jewry around the world. Perhaps they are prepared to be so obvious about their involvement in such undertakings because they are so confident that they are indeed above the law. After all, others have

130

Which you would think would attract the harshest sanction. Nefesh B’Nefesh is a program to help people to migrate from the United States and England to Israel. One of their organizations aims is to encourage people to settle in the contested Golan Heights and Jordan Valley regions which technical belong to Palestine. Both of these areas are officially “occupied” as result of Israeli military action during the war in 1967. 131

195 accused Israel of being responsible for the 2001 terrorist attacks, including senior military officials, and yet absolutely nothing has been done by police or the United States secret service to take any action in response to these accusations. Within days of the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, many people were already questioning the emerging “official story” that it was done by Islamic extremists and pointing the finger at “Israel”. In an interview with the United Press International’s editor at large, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan’s military intelligence service, stated unequivocally that it was, “Mossad (the Israeli secret intelligence agency) and its accomplices” who were behind Sept. 11, 2001. If there remained any questions about what Gul really thought, in 2008 he repeated the accusation in even less ambiguous terms by saying to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, “Well I have been on record and I said it is the Zionists and the Neocons. They have done it; it is an inside job and they wanted to go on to become world conquerors.” Not only have Muslims accused Israel of perpetrating Sept. 11, the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said, . . .all of the democratic circles of America and of Europe . . . now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to place the blame on Arabic countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Cossiga as quoted in Mir 2011: 241) In perfect agreement, Andreas Von Buelow, who served on the parliamentary commission which oversaw the German secret service, told the Agence France-Presse (AFP) that he believed the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, was behind the September 11 attacks. He believed that these attacks were carried out to “turn public opinion against the Arabs and boost military and security spending132 in the United States”.133 (Ahmed 2002: 366) Von Buelow believed that such sophisticated attacks, and despite their external appearance of simplicity it actually was an extremely sophisticate operation, simply could not have been successfully undertaken by those who were accused. There was no way that a rabble of unsupported amateurs without access to huge sums of money and advanced skills could have undertaken such an attack. This kind of operation could not have been undertaken, Von Buelow claims, without

132

As none other than Noam Chomsky observes, military spending is a way of getting the American public to spend billions on technological development which they would, under any other circumstance, refuse to give consent. One of the big spending items on the militaries list was the development and early promotion of the internet. More recently, AI soldiers who will do whatever is asked of them without question has attracted big spending. In short, the people of the United States are quite possibly funding the development of the means of their own destruction. 133 If this was one of the motives, then it was extremely successful. Muslims are held with the lowest level of respect out of any religious group in the United States.

196 extensive state support. Von Buelow argued that the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst – the German secret service) was now being steered by the CIA which, in turn, was ultimately controlled by Mossad. As this is the case, Von Buelow believed, rightly it turned out, that it was going to be impossible for a thorough and independent investigation into the role of Israel in the attacks on the Twin Towers to be undertaken in the United States as the body primarily responsible for such an investigation was compromised. This is like asking a murderer to investigate one of his own murders. People from military intelligence, European political leaders and the members of the secret services, all agree that Mossad was primarily responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Further, this attack simply could not have been a success without insider help from a range of institutions in the United States including the CIA. Many people with authority and knowledge of global events have accused “Mossad”, “the Zionists”, or “Israel”, of being the principal instigator of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. They have variously claimed that Israel was hoping to, “increase military spending”, “turn public opinion against Arabs”, “persuade Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan” with the ultimate aim of becoming “world conquerors”. Although these outcomes did, in part, justify the terrorist attack on the Twins, these are all just small victories in what is the real struggle of these people which is to realize redemption. It will be shown in the following chapters that this terrorist attack was made possible because of a theo-political movement that has entrenched itself, especially since the late 1960s and early 1970s, into key positions of power within the United States. It was only because of these deeply entrenched politically motivated actors hoping to destroy Western civilization that an attack like September 11 could be successfully carried out and then covered up. As will be revealed, this political movement functions as a ‘state within a state’ or what some call a ‘deep state’. They are the real “leaders” in the United States that control every aspect of American life to serve their agenda. These “deep state” actors do not only control the United States government and CIA but also have total control over the media, financial services, the entire education system and the military. Presenting evidence that people from the United States and Israel perpetrated September 11 certainly does not substantiate the larger claim that there is a Jewish sect, Jewish Gnostics, trying to take over the world, but it does successfully raise questions as to who these actors are and how are they are so easily escaping justice for this perpetrating this horrendous terrorist act even though many important and influential people know who the real terrorists are. The Real Reason for the Attack The very date, September 11, 2001, communicates so much to so many. It speaks of an unforgettable event. It speaks of terrorism. It speaks of innocent deaths. It speaks of desperate ordinary people choosing to plummet hundreds of floors to their deaths to escape an even more horrendous death

197 of being burnt alive. It speaks of religiously motivated political actors prepared to do anything to achieve their goals. It speaks of heroism. It speaks of resilience. But, perhaps more than anything else, it speaks of a new age. As those who are old enough to know well remember, there was a before September 11, 2001, and an after September 11, 2001, and they were very different times. We live in a very different world today, a new world, to the one that we lived in through the 80s and 90s and this new world was largely shaped in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. It is a world where many people accept things as “necessary” that before they just would not have accepted. In the weeks following September 11, 2001, a focus group was organized by the United States Democrats to measure what this terrorist act meant for Americans, this focus group found that Americans believed that 9/11, “had created a new period which is, in many ways, radically different from what has gone before”. (As seen in York 2002: 20-21) This sense that the world has fundamentally changed, and things would not return to how they were before the attacks was not accidental but planned from the very beginning. Philip D. Zelikow, a Jewish/American academic whose interest is in how history is used to justify policymaking, drawing upon William McNeill’s notion of the “public myth”, argued that “narratives” that are thought to be true (but are not necessarily true) and shared by a community could be used to achieve political outcomes. Basically, he is arguing the very un-Christian position, but one argued by Plato, that lies can and should serve a political purpose. In 1989, Zelikow, along with Ashton B. Carter and John M. Deutch, wrote a report called “Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy”. In this report, the authors argued that, . . .the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine American’s fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test. . . Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great “success” or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a “before” and “after”. (Zelikow, Carter, Deutch 1989: 5) Considering the authors and the accuracy of the “prediction” regarding the type of event and what would be realised in its shadow, this is an intriguing paragraph. If somebody came to me and said that they needed a building to be burnt to the ground, so that they could collect the insurance money and then proceeded to build a new business on the same site and those events then actually happened, I would be deeply suspicion of the person who initially told me what they hoped would happen. What makes this

198 paragraph of even more concern is that Philip D. Zelikow, one of the authors of this report, was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission generated a final report on the events leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack explaining how this event could happen and what it meant for the United States. In short, Zelikow was placed in a position to determine the form of the final ‘myth’ of September 11, 2001, that might be shaped in such a way as to achieve the political outcomes foretold in his earlier paper. One conclusion of this report was that, unbelievably if one has even the most basic understanding of Middle Eastern politics, there were close links between Iran and alQaeda. It is now a fact of history that constitutional liberties were challenged and historical “allowable limits” on surveillance, extending laws for the detention of suspects and the use of lethal force, where all eased in the aftermath of September 11. As Edward Snowden said in an interview with John Stossel on Youtube, When the government, writ large, identifies a moment of crisis, they use that crisis for an exceptional demand for exceptional powers to which they would not normally be entitled. This was the rise of the Patriot Act. This is how the Bush administration became involved in more or less wiretapping. This is how we got extra judicial killings through drone strikes off the ground. This is how we got involved in torture. But it is always justified as an exception to ordinary operations. Something that is done for a narrow purpose and in a narrow way and nobody objects to it. This all happens in secret remember. They keep the body of witnesses small by design to limit the amount of descent, that occur internally, organizationally and those that do complain are generally shuffled off the program. All these new powers, including new powers of surveillance, would obviously suit a group operating secretly within government. It is no coincidence at all the high-speed broadband first became available in 2000 and that 2001 marked the year that 50% of America’s population had internet access of some kind. These laws were passed directly to control the flow of information, to monitor who was making what claim, so that the truth could never be easily communicated. It is both not necessary nor an accident that it is basically impossible to access the internet without revealing where you are and who you are. Everything you search, write and do on the internet, even on your private computer, is being monitored by Gnostic Jews either directly through Israel, who boasts the best spy network in the world, or their proxies in the United States. As Snowden observed in the same interview as was cited above, it is domestic surveillance that these organizations really began to focus their attention on after September 11 and not foreign surveillance. It is this internal surveillance, against everyday people going about their everyday lives, that is unprecedented. Indeed, it is increasingly the case, continuously advanced by the media, that surveillance should focus on what it calls “white nationalists” which has become fudged with “domestic terrorists”, as though the two terms are synonymous, and this is such a broad term probably anybody

199 who identified as a patriot would fall foul of these laws. It is not a coincidence in any way that anti-white sentiments have blossomed since September 11 and any attempt to counter the anti-white agenda is called a “white nationalism” or, even, “white supremacism”. As Mohammadi (2011) wrote when commenting on the 9/11 Commission report, it reads, “less of a warning than a blueprint”. It was understood prior to the attacks on September 11 that such an event could function like a new “Pearl Harbour” that could then be used to undermine ‘constitutional liberties’, motivate state sanctioned violence and, most importantly, herald a new era. Today we all accept the loss of privacy as “necessary” for national security and have grown accustomed to the increased levels of surveillance. Indeed, we have largely accepted without complaint the apparently never-ending war on terror that is being waged at a global level where the enemy’s identity seems to continuously morph from group to group in a manner all too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. All these changes to surveillance and people’s acceptance of surveillance occurred in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Prior to September 11, as was observed in a critical Washington Post article by Nathan Perlmutter on the 5th of June 1983 “. . .the West’s strategic interests and profits in the Persian Gulf are given precedence over Israel’s security . . .” whereas after September 11 U.S. interests seemed to be best served by prioritising Israel’s security. Past interests and profits were no longer as important as the War of Terror which dove tailed nicely with Israel’s security. Today, September 11 is etched into our collective memory. The extraordinary media saturation, 24-hour exclusive coverage of the event and the theories around it for three days, has ensured that this horrible event is etched into our collective consciousness as a “era defining event”. It truly was a moment that shaped history and made us see the world in a particular way. It made us see anew who were “our friends” and who were “our enemies”. September 11 showed the world what “we” should do, what “we” must now do, in the face of this new reality. What we must learn to accept if we were to be safe. As the political movement behind Sept. 11 had learnt over many years of experience, fear is a stronger motivator to action than hope. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, there has been numerous wars, increased internal surveillance, and the establishment of vast new government institutions oriented towards domestic “security”. No September 11, no Syria crisis, no Libya crisis, no Yemen crisis, no Egypt crisis, no war in Afghanistan, no war in Iraq . . . The list of events triggered by this act of terror seems never ending. Over 4 trillion dollars have been spent on conflicts in the Middle East. An unimaginable sum to most. The simple truth is that the world today would be very different if not for September 11, 2001.

200 September 11, 2001, had their origin a few years earlier. In 1997, a number of prominent American political thinkers formed a new, extremely well-funded, think-tank called, The Project for the New American Century. The founding members of this think-tank were William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both from prominent Eastern European Jewish families and considered to be extremely influential political theorists in what became known as Neo-Conservativism. Although both these political theorists will be discussed later, both their theoretical contribution and political activities, it suffices for now to observe that they are both students of Leo Strauss who is one of the most influential theorists of Gnostic Judaism in the post-World War II era. One of the first acts of The Project for the New American Century was the publication of a special report called, Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. This report argued, consistent with Neo-Conservativism’s core beliefs, that it was good for the world if the United States, in the reality of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, remained the sole dominant global power. If it was to remain in this position, the United States needed to reverse the military spending cuts that had resulted from the end of the ‘cold war’ through the 90s and commit to massive increases in military spending in order to undertake a significant re-armament program. One aspect of this new military project was to argue that the United States needed to gain “control of space and cyberspace”134 as these were like the new “high seas” of the contemporary world. This “control” would be expressed in terms of the capacity to undertake surveillance on everything that everyone did in ‘cyberspace’ and increase control over what was published online and what was seen through internet searches. In short, according to this report, what was required was to have control over access to information, to know who was accessing what information, and control over everything that was made available on the internet. It was hoped that nobody could be anonymous when either searching information on the internet or when they posted material on the internet. Transparency was everything. The greatest threat to effective surveillance and control is anonymity and it was the publication of truly anonymous material being access by unknown people that had to be made impossible.135 The report identified two barriers to achieving control over global information systems, United States domestic politics in terms of freedom of information and the allocation of resources in a democratic political system. The single greatest challenge to realising the vision of the project for a new “American” century (read

134

Control of space is identified by influential Jewish intellectual Abraham Joshua Heschel to be one of the most important tasks for the Jewish people. As Heschel wrote, “To enhance our power in the world of space is our main objective . . . To gain control of the world of space is certainly one of our tasks.” (Heschel (195101994: 3)) 135 The real secret that these Eastern European Jews hoped to maintain was that Gnostic Jews were taking over the world. They wanted to know if a book like this was uploaded onto the internet, when it was uploaded and by whom and then who might be reading it.

201 Gnostic Jewish Century) was ‘domestic politics’ which, with its quaint, “old fashioned” beliefs about “privacy” and the need for “personal control over personal information”. Such antiquated thinking would definitely slow the required transformative process of relatively decentralized information distribution and consumption to extremely restrictive and centralized information control. As with much military spending, the difficulty, one that had been traditionally addressed by the deception of the “cold war”, was persuading the public to allow governments to spend the tremendous amounts of money required to rearm when other services in the United States, most famously health care, were so desperately underfunded. People generally did not like large sums of money being spent on the military and certainly did not like large sums of money being spent on the military to increase domestic surveillance. The voting public generally preferred people’s taxes being spent on public services and infrastructure. Echoing the original research published by Zelikow & co., 8 years before, the one hope that the report explicitly identifies for overcoming these historical barriers and realising the kind of ‘revolutionary change’ that Kagan and Kristol hoped to achieve, to build what would come to be termed the surveillance state in a post-Cold War world, was if there was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. This catalysing event would have to occur in such a way as to demand both increased military spending and increased domestic surveillance. The exact outcome Zelikow predicted would occur after a catastrophic terrorist attack. Interestingly, and chillingly, on the night of 9/11, as evidence of how the ground had been prepared on how such an attack should be conceptualised, President George W. Bush wrote in his diary, “The Pearl Harbour of the 21st century took place today”. (as seen in Griffin 2004) None other than Israeli’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also observed that 9/11 was a turning point in history just like the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Hoffman 2011) September 11, 2001, was the required “Pearl Harbour” of the 21st century that would allow the allocation of huge sums of money on military expenditure and dramatically increase domestic surveillance with public support. The real purpose behind this agenda was to both ensure that those who currently run the world remain hidden and are never exposed through the internet and, secondly, that the United States military, already serving the interests of Gnostic Judaism, continue to be a formidable military force that will continue to realise the political project of the Gnostic Jews. Later in these volumes, the ‘state within the state’ that has taken control of the United States will be uncovered along with its historical development. Strauss, Zelikow, Kagan and Kristol, will all be shown to be central actors in this extended account. If September 11, 2001, was indeed the ‘new Pearl Harbor’ that presented as the exceptional condition that allowed for greatly increased restrictions and extended surveillance. What Sept. 11 justified is the kind of sacrifice and centralised control which would permit those who control the United States

202 today to take control of all ‘space and cyberspace’. This was actually the primary short-term goal of the September 11 attacks. There were other goals, taking out Israeli’s enemies, ensuring the U.S. budget was ruined, taking the U.S.’s attention away from the actions of China and ensuring that a lot of U.S. dollars were spent in Israel, but the main reason was to increase domestic surveillance so that nobody could reveal the truth that Gnostic Jews now run the world. Those who really control the United States needed to be able to monitor and control the internet to both stop resistance from building and to give an account of events harmonious with their worldview. As can be seen as an empirical fact about the world today, with its intense surveillance over everything that we do, and massive military spending, they have been extremely successful. The Attacks The official story of what happened on September 11, 2001, is familiar to everyone. At 7:59 AM American Airlines Flight 11 (AA 11) left Logan International Airport in Boston on a domestic flight bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. At 8:14 am, air traffic controller, Pete Zalewski, of the Boston Air Traffic Control Centre, had what he described as a “standard exchange” with Flight AA11 when suddenly, without explanation, the pilots failed to respond to the controller’s instructions. Initially, Zalewski claims, he thought that it was a technical glitch that had interrupted communications and there was nothing about which to be concerned. What caused people to pay attention, again according to the official account, was at around 8:16 AM when flight AA11’s transponder was suddenly turned off. This was a clear indication to the flight controller that the plane was not suffering technical issues that were affecting communications but that the aircraft was most probably being hijacked. Having attracted the attention of Federal Aviation Administration ground control due to the transponder being turned off, flight AA11 suddenly veered dramatically off course at around 8:20 AM thereby confirming that the aircraft had indeed been hijacked. Shortly after this change of direction, Zalewski heard a heavily accented voice say, “We have some planes. Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” According to a New York Press article, it is believed that the pilot of flight AA11 had secretly pushed a button that allowed the controller to hear what the hijackers were communicating to the crew. (Szamuely 2002) The timeline of events is extremely important for understanding what happened on that day. At around 8:16 AM, controllers strongly suspected that flight AA11 had been hijacked. By 8:20 AM, Zalewski and the air traffic controllers knew, without doubt, because they had heard the hijacker’s voice, that the plane had been hijacked. At 8:21 AM, flight attendants reported via a phone that American Airlines Flight 11 had indeed been hijacked and that two staff and one passenger had already been killed. (Carlisle 2007: 12) It has since been discovered that

203 Pete Zalewski, the air traffic controller on Sept. 11 who reported the initial exchange between the hijackers of flight AA11 and flight control, happens to be a particularly unlucky air traffic controller. As with so much in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, the story of Pete Zalewski, the flight controller on that particular day, overseeing that particular flight, is quite unexpected. Not only was Zalewski responsible for both AA11, that would later crash into the World Trade Centre, and United Airlines Flight 175 (UA175), which was also hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, which was the second aircraft to crash into the World Trade Centre, but he was the flight traffic controller for the hijacked Egypt Airlines Flight 990 (EA99) (also a Boeing 767) which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on October 31, 1999. This is an unbelievable coincidence that would appear to be simply beyond probability. That the same flight controller, who is Jewish, was responsible for both Egypt Airlines Flight 990 and American Airlines 11 and United America 175 cannot be a coincidence. What it does at least suggest, is that, unlike what has been done, Pete Zalewski needs to be taken into custody and rigorously questioned regarding his likely involvement in both the hijacking of Egyptian Airlines Flight 990, which now must be understood as some kind of test run for September 11, and the hijackings on September 11, 2001. It has since been claimed that five hijackers, supposedly led by Mohamed Atta, had taken control of Flight AA11 with the prior intention of flying the plane into the World Trade Centre. Over the day, it has since been claimed, that a total of 19 Islamic extremists, all associated with al-Qaeda, hijacked four passenger jet aircraft with the intention of flying them into previously identified targets. The supposed perpetrators of this attack were identified, names, date of births, addresses and occupations, within two days of the attacks. This response was so quick that one former FBI official claimed in an interview with The New American, “Obviously this information was available in the files, and somebody was sitting on it” (Grigg 2002) otherwise this information could not have been gathered so quickly. The problem with this hasty identification of the supposed perpetrators of September 11 was, according to The Telegraph, four of the 19 named “terrorists” who apparently died in the attack were later confirmed to be actually alive. (Harrison 2001) To adjust to this inconvenient truth, the FBI later claimed that the four people who were obviously alive must have had their identities stolen by the terrorists for the purpose of the attack but, as Hendrie rightly observes, why would Islamic terrorists, who were supposedly motivated to undermine the relationship between Israel and the United States, take the identity of Arabs when they could just as easily adopted the identity of Israelis thereby making it appear that it was their enemy who was behind the attack and not Muslims? (Hendrie 2010: 1-2) For the terrorists to have taken the identity of Arabs to commit the crime means that they were either extremely stupid or totally incompetent but, as the successful attack would confirm, they were apparently neither. Whoever was actually onboard those

204 flights on that day, and nobody really knows, it is known that two planes were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York city. The first plane to hit the North Tower of the World Trade Centre (WTC) at 8:46 AM made contact near the 80th floor of the 110-story building. Hundreds of people were instantly killed in the initial explosion including, it is assumed, all the passengers and hijackers on the aircraft. Hundreds more people were trapped on the floors above the incident and, therefore, unable to escape. The plane used in the attack was an American Airlines Boeing 767. The aircraft hit the building 32 minutes after suspicion had been raised that the plane may have been hijacked, when communication was lost, and 30 minutes after this suspicion had been confirmed, when the transponder was turned off. Everyone in New York, including the emergency services, who watched this catastrophe unfold initially believed that it was just a terrible accident. This means that despite the air traffic controllers knowing that it was a terrorist attack, this information was not being communicated to emergency services in New York. 17 minutes after the first plane had struck the Twin Towers at 9:03, 42 minutes after air traffic control knew that planes were being hijacked, a second Boeing 767, United Airlines Flight 175, hit the South Tower of the World Trade Centre complex. It was only from this moment, as a result of the second plane and not as a result of communication, that everyone realised what officials had known since the planes were hijacked, this was not just an unfortunate accident but a deliberate terrorist attack. Surprisingly, especially to many engineers, at 10:28, just one hour and 42 minutes after being struck, the North building collapsed into a pile of dust. The building fell vertically in on itself at roughly the speed of free-fall. It has since been claimed that burning jet fuel compromising the integrity of the steel infrastructure of the building, causing the building to fall vertically to the ground. 56 minutes after the North Tower fell, the South Tower, initially struck at 9:03 AM, collapsed in the exact same manner, apparently for the exact same reason. Later, at 5:20 PM that same afternoon, so quite some time after the two higher buildings had collapsed, Building 7 of the World Trade Centre complex also collapsed. Although Building 7 was an impressive 47-story skyscraper, a building that would dominate many city skylines around the world, it was dwarfed by its neighbours so appeared to be a significantly less imposing building making its collapse less conspicuous. After all, many people may have thought, it was only a “small building” and therefore, more fragile. Building 7 was not struck by any aircraft, because it was some distance away from the other buildings it was largely unharmed by aircraft debris and was not exposed in any way to aviation fuel, but it too collapsed in the same manner as the two taller buildings. It was later claimed that this building collapsed, unlike Buildings 1 and 2, because of the intense fires that had resulted from burning office material inside the building. This account was later rejected by hundreds of qualified engineers as implausible observing that a building collapsing due to being struck by planes and filled with

205 burning aviation fuel was extremely unlikely but a significant building, a 47-story high-rise building, collapsing because of a paper fire was simply impossible. It must be remembered that buildings had never collapsed like they did on that day before and have never collapsed like that since. A unique historical event happened not once, not twice but three times in one day to buildings designed to withstand the event supposedly being the cause of events with one of those building largely unharmed. With just a little reflection, the official story becomes ridiculous and utterly unconvincing, but most people do not reflect, even a little, but accept what they are told. While these events were unfolding in New York, another hijacked aircraft supposedly hit the Pentagon building just outside of Washington D.C. At around 9:35 A.M., air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport identified an aircraft veering off-course and heading towards the White House. The pilot of the aircraft, Charles Burlingame, seemed to lose control of the flight, American Airlines Flight 77 a Boeing 757-223, when it suddenly turned towards the Pentagon from the west. The jet aircraft apparently came in so low over Washington that it clipped the top of light poles. At 9:43 A.M., the jet supposedly careered into the west side of the Pentagon. Tim Timmerman, a pilot who witnessed the events in Washington, claimed that it sounded as though the plane increased power as it made its final approach before colliding with the building. (Carlisle 2007: 146) 125 people died in the Pentagon and all 64 passengers and crew onboard American Airlines Flight 77. The final plane hijacked on that day was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, killing all passengers onboard. United Airlines Flight 93 was supposed to take-off at 8:00 A.M. but was delayed for 42 minutes. It has been proposed that four Arab passengers who were affiliated with Al-Qaeda were aboard. The official story is that these four ‘terrorists’ took control of the plane by incapacitating the pilot and the co-pilot. Although the passengers were under constant supervision by one of the terrorists, he made no attempt to stop them contacting people by phone on the ground. More than 24 cell phone calls were made by the passengers onboard that flight to family and loved ones. One of these calls was made by Ed Felt just before 10 A.M. and he claimed that he had locked himself into the plane’s toilet and made a 9-1-1 call from his mobile phone informing them that the flight had been hijacked. It has been theorised that upon the passengers learning about the World Trade Centre crashes, they organized to try to attack the hijackers and take the plane back. When the terrorist pilot learned of these efforts, he decided to crash the plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing himself and everyone on board. The total fatalities from the hijacked planes and the buildings were almost 3,000 people. Amongst the many who went to work that day and would never see their loved ones again, were 343 firefighters. This is obviously a terrible event that is etched in everyone’s mind who is old enough to remember.

206 Thousands of people, going about their everyday lives, ruthlessly killed. It was shocking. These events cannot, should not, be left to the historians until properly understood. As a direct result of these attacks and their attribution to radical Islam there have been, by conservative estimates, well over 1 million people killed in the Middle East since 2001. The attacks on September 11, 2001, have truly proven themselves to be events soaked in blood . . . but also effective for realizing the agenda of The Project for the New American Century. The President of the United States of America As with those thousands who were about to die that day, President George W. Bush was going about his morning as usual. He had an appointment to visit E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, hoping to publicise his policies on educational reform. (Carlisle 2007: 4) At 8:45 AM, as American Airlines Flight 11 was striking the first tower, George Bush was en route in his motorcade to the school apparently totally unaware that an unprecedented 4 American planes had been hijacked over American skies. It was later claimed that Captain Deborah Loewer was the first person to inform him of the unfolding events in the skies over America just as he arrived at E. Booker Elementary School at 8:55 (Approximately 10 minutes after the first flight had struck the Twin Towers but 35 minutes after people knew that a number of planes had been hijacked over America) but it does not seem to be the case that he was informed that the plane that struck the building was hijacked, which they knew, or that other hijacked planes remained in the air. This was an unprecedented terrorist attack on the United States involving 4 large passenger aircraft and the President of the United States was not properly informed. At that time, it seems that the information flowing to the President was not from those who knew what was actually unfolding but simply observers of the plane striking the building who believed that the plane strike on the World Trade Centre was just a terrible accident. That is, none of the many people who must have known what was happening had tried to inform those who might inform the President of the United States. Not knowing about the hijackings, and this as will be discussed is extremely important, the President continued with his planned visit to the school. Of course, it would not be expected that the President would instantly respond to every terrible accident that occurred in the United States but taking responsibility for most disasters was the responsibility best left to those trained for such events. The outstanding question is, if nobody knew that the plane was hijacked then everyone agrees the President should not be involved but should the President have both been told and involved in the decision making of four hijacked aircraft and the use of at least one of them, at that time, in an act of serious terrorism? I am certainly no expert on security protocols in the United States, but it seems to me that an unprecedented terrorist attack, especially involving passenger aircraft, should have involved the President

207 in the decision making process. At 9:06, Chief of Staff Andrew Card told George W. Bush that a second plane had struck the Twin Towers and that it was being undertaken by terrorist. The United States was under attack. To the surprise of many, President Bush, perhaps still not fully comprehending the extent of what was happening, nor his responsibilities in such a situation, continued with his visit to the classroom of children. He continued reading a book to the students for another 10 minutes. Although the President has been criticised for not responding more urgently to the news, it is actually understandable that he did not instantly appreciate what was the proper response to such news. He would not have been as familiar with emergency protocols as his aides. They should have communicated to him the seriousness of the situation and his role in such a crisis. Indeed, his response basically proves that, if the United States government is indeed implicated in this event, he personally did not know about it at the time. Anyone in that same situation may have failed to react “as they should” in exactly the same manner as the President. Although his response upon being told of the second plane hitting the Twin Towers has become part of the “hopeless President Bush” narrative, this is actually one of the few understandable events to have occurred on that day. At the further prompting of his increasingly agitated staff, Bush finally left the classroom at 9:16 to be properly briefed on what was known about events in a separate room at the school. At 9:30 PM, one hour and 10 minutes after people knew of the hijackings, the President of the United States of America gave a short-pre-prepared speech to the nation where he said, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” Not the most inspiring words but George W. Bush was a particularly uninspiring President. What is interesting is that from the President’s very first words on the matter there was the narrative of “resolve”. Indeed, in the years and decades that followed, “resolve” would be a reoccurring theme, resolve to “stay the course”, resolve to “see things through” but what was the “course of action” requiring “resolve” at this stage when almost nothing was actually known about what was happening? George Bush’s speech writer at that time was David Frum, a Jewish Canadian/American who is on the board of directors of the Republican Jewish Coalition. On the day of the attacks Bush said, “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Incredibly insightful words considering what was understood to be the true situation in Afghanistan, where it was claimed Osama Bin Laden had taken refuge. It was that Afghanistan was “harbouring” Osama Bin Laden that justified the initial deployment of American troops into the Middle East. Did Frum know what the United States needed “resolve” to achieve? Did Frum already know that Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and that American troops would need to be deployed to dislodge him? On September 20th, 2001, just 9 days after the event, the

208 President said, “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” Again, shortly after the attacks and merely days after discovering who the perpetrators were, there was already a narrative that the “war on terror” would not stop with Al Qaeda but would continue until every “terrorist group” had been “defeated”. Were there people surrounding the President who already knew that this war on terror would take them to Iraq, Syria and Libya? Interestingly, the President was taken to his specially prepared Boeing 747 jet - Air Force One, in the aftermath of the attack. Air Force One departed from Sarasota at 9:55 AM without a destination. He was told by senior advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney who had actually taken over as the head of the chain of command without requesting or receiving permission from the President and despite the President never being out of contact. At approximately 10:35, the decision was made to deliver the President to Barksdale Air Force Base. Air Force One reached Barksdale with the President onboard at 11:45 A.M. He would later depart Barksdale and be flown around to various destinations before being allowed to return to Washington D.C. at 6:42 P.M. that afternoon. Some have argued that because of the President’s isolation, there was another aircraft with advanced communications that was not used, that he was always moving and spent much of that time in the air, the only information he received about events was filtered by Dick Cheney and that they were making all decisions about how to respond to events and not the President. In practice, by all appearances, there had actually been a short coup in the United States where power was illegally transferred from the President to Dick Cheney outside of proper procedures. Dick Cheney was very close to the Neo-conservatives, and, unlike George W. Bush, he actually participated in The Project for the New American Century along with many other in the Bush administration including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Some have claimed that Air Force One proved to be an excellent operations office for the President and that he remained informed, although everyone admits not in control, of events as they unfolded while others have claimed that the U.S President was kept out of decision making and was ignorant about much of what happened on that day in his name. Whichever of these accounts is closer to the truth really does not matter, if President Bush was isolated or informed, the important point is that Dick Cheney had taken control of the instruments of power even though the elected President remained able to function in the role. On September 11, 2001, not only was there a terrorist attack but there was also a coup. The question that continues to be raised is what was the responsibility of the President on that day under those circumstances? Stan Goff, 26-year military veteran, U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant and tactics instructor, asks, and I quote at length,

209 I have no idea why people aren’t asking some very specific question about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks . . . Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time. Who is notified? This is an event that is already unprecedented. But the President is not notified and goes to a Florida elementary school to hear children read. By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong.136 The President is glad-handling teachers. By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Centre, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into the world’s best-known twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief. No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either. At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade Centre building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to George W. Bush who ‘briefly turns sombre’ according to reporters. Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second graders . . . and continues this banality even as American Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in the direction of Washington D.C. Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force? No. An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public statement telling the United States what they already have figured out; that there’s been an attack by hijacked planes on the World Trade Centre. There’s a hijacked plane beelining to Washington, but has the Air Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No. At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon. The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that the Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77 was headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has already flown South and past the White House no-fly zone, and is in fact tearing through the sky at over 400 naughts. At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC. Now, the real kicker: A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessna, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in twoand-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 naughts. (Goff as seen in Ahmed 2002: 161-162) Although Goff’s statement raises some of the issues in relation to this attack that has yet to be raised, interestingly questioning the ability of a poorly trained yet to be formally qualified light air craft pilot to be able to complete the difficult manoeuvres supposedly performed by the pilot on that day, it does nicely

136

8:15 was around the time, within a minute or two either way, that the transponder of Flight AA11 was indeed turned off and when the authorities did indeed know that the place was hijacked.

210 question the president’s behaviour and the actions of those around him and raises pertinent questions as to why there has not been more critical commentary on either those who are responsible for keeping the President informed or the President’s own actions. The most important feature of the President’s lack of concern about the unprecedented events unfolding over the United States is that only he, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to order the shooting down of a civilian aircraft to protect the security of the nation. That decision cannot be made by anyone else. With his apparent lack of knowledge regarding his responsibilities and non-participation as the events unfolded the option to shoot aircraft down to stop greater catastrophes on the ground was not available to the military. This is crucially important as ensuring that the President did not order the planes to be shot out of the sky meant that the terrorist missions were almost ensured of success. That is, even if the planes had been scrambled, which does not require the President’s permission, they could not have done anything to stop the planes anyway. That he was not informed of his responsibilities and does not seem to have been informed of the situation ensured that the attacks would be a success even if other measures had been more effective. As will be discovered, the truth is that even if the President did appreciate what was happening and acted as might be hoped, giving permission for the planes to be shot down to prevent worse harms, this would have been ineffective because the defence planes were not even scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft as they should have been. It has since been claimed that the President did not give the orders for the air force to be scrambled but this action does not require the President’s approval. Why was the United States air force, supposedly the most efficient and highly trained air force in the world, scrambled? The truth is, by the time something could be done, it was already too late as nothing could have prevented the attacks on the Twin Towers or the Pentagon.

Supposed Motivation for September 11 The supposed motivation for the terrorist attack on the United States has never been made clear. Indeed, as D’Souza observes, “What the 9/11 Commission Report does not tell us, however, is why it happened. On the subject of why the terrorists and their sponsors did what they did, the report is largely silent.” (D’Souza 2007L 32) It is actually surprising that the motivation for this attack has attracted so little attention from the media or commentators. The apparent reason for the attacks was in in retaliation against the United States for their unconditional support of Israel. Osama Bin Laden was apparently concerned that Zionism and the United States were imposing their values on the Muslim world and would be “like locusts, eating our fruits and wiping out our plantations”. America and their allies in Israel together presented as an existential threat to Islam. Israel, therefore, was always a central feature of the

211 September 11 narrative despite this fact attracting very little media attention. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that is believed to be responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, had its origins in the Arab militants who, with massive American support, fought a “Jihad” in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. In those days, these Islamic fighters were considered ‘freedom fighters’ against Soviet communist oppression. The founding members of Al Qaeda were Osama Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Dr Fadl. They were initially formed, it is claimed, to resist the United States military presence in the Middle East in the same way they had fought against the Soviet Union. Bin Laden had proposed that the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was to form a Muslim army to destroy Hussain. Instead, the United States moved thousands of Christian troops into the heart of the Middle East bringing with them all the immorality and decadence that American society promotes. Although Al-Qaeda was opposed to various strategies used in the Middle East, his central motivation, apparently, was intended to sever the ties between America and Israel. Bin Laden says “the United States stops any efforts to condemn Israel” no matter the atrocities they perform against innocent Muslim women and children. Bin Laden cannot tolerate the presence of ‘infidels’ in places sacred to Islam as they spread “oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery”. (Carlisle 2007: 7) This narrative is harmonious with that being promoted by Israel itself which argues that extreme violence and marginalization of Arab populations both within Israel and in the surrounding region is necessary because these people aspire for nothing less than the total destruction of Israel. Al-Qaeda, as does the Israeli established Hamas, legitimizes this narrative. If the primary motivation for Al-Qaeda to attack the United States was to undermine Israel and one plank of that strategy was to undermine the U.S./Israel relationship, then September 11 was a terrible strategic error as one should have expected. If the attacks on the United States were understood as an attempt to destroy U.S/Israeli relations then the implications were, if the United States stopped supporting Israel, it would now appear that the United States was ‘giving in’ or ‘surrendering to’ terrorism. United States support for Israel, always extraordinarily high but attracting some critical attention prior to September 11, as happens from time to time, became an even more entrenched feature of U.S. foreign policy than it had been prior to the attacks. The main reason for this increased support was the simple fact that “. . .Israel’s apartheid civil war was vindicated. . .” by the terrorist attacks. (McMurtry as seen in Ahmed 2002: 279) September 11 happened at a time when there were growing voices, some with real authority, criticising America’s unconditional support for Israel. Supporting Israel did little to advance United States’ strategic interests in the Middle East and, actually, was known to do a great deal of harm.

212 The United States is seen as an apologist, at least, for Israel’s terrible behaviour in the Middle East and this undermines the United States’ moral standing. As Guyenot observed, In the years preceding September 11, Israel’s reputation had bottomed out; condemnation had been raining from around the world for its policy of apartheid and colonization, and its systematic war against Palestinian command structures. Increasing numbers of American voices questioned the merits of the special relationship between the United States and Israel. With the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, the argument that U.S/Israeli relations were necessary for the future safety of the world was, apparently, proven to be true. As none other than Netanyahu was quick to state publicly, “It’s very good [Sept 11]. . .it will generate immediate sympathy . . ., strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive haemorrhaging of terror.” (Netanyahu as seen in Guyenot 2020) How many people around the world, no matter heads of state, were saying that Sept. 11 was “good”? Not even Arab nations long suffering at the hands of Israel and the United States were saying that the attacks were “good”. To be fair, Netanyahu was being honest for a change. It was no longer the case of Israel saying, ‘if you were in our shoes, you would do the same’. Now it appeared to be the case that America was in those vary same shoes. They too were victims of Muslim terrorism and, under those same conditions, were shown to be prepared to do the exact same, at least, or even worse than Israel. Again, as Guyenot (2020) observed, “From the day of the attack, it was all over. As Americans now intended to fight Arab terrorists to the death, they would stop demanding from Israel more reasonable, proportionate retaliation against Palestinian suicide bombers and rockets.” Israel now had a green light for anything because many Americans were now extremely supportive of any attacks against global terrorist organizations. As the headline in the New Republic asserted, “We are all Israelis now”. If the United States now stopped supporting Israel, then the United States would appear to be cowardly in the face of terrorist provocations. Why might this strong American support for Israel be so important as to motivated Israel to orchestrate such a terrible event. The full answer to this question, as with so much, is multi-layered. As already discussed, one element to ensure that information flow in cyberspace would be controlled. At the same time, Israel benefits greatly from American aide and this aide was being questioned. It should be remembered that Israel, a developed advanced economy that is ranked 22nd on the UN Human Development Index, has been the largest single recipient of United States foreign aid since WWII. It has received around $230 billion since 1948 with $130 billion of that money being paid since 2001. Israel was

213 the largest annual recipient of aid between 1976-2004. (McArthur 2013) Today, Israel officially receives over $3 billion dollars in grants annually.

This ‘aid’ sum does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid which included giving Israel billions of dollars’ worth of military weapons at the end of the Iraq War because it was considered too expensive to bring the latest most advanced military equipment in the world, paid for by working Americans, back to the United States. In 2014, for just one example, Israel received $3.1 billion in military aid and was guaranteed $3.8 billion in military aid between 2016-2026 by the Trump administration. In crude terms, Israel, an advanced economy by every measure, received over $7 billion dollars in direct aid in 2014. Further, Israel benefits from about $9 billion in loan guarantees annually, which allows Israel to access foreign loans on the same terms as the United States. (McArthur 2013) This aide is for a country of just 8.5 million people of which 1.7 million are a socially and economically marginalized Arab minority who would not benefit very much at all from this aide because Israel is an extremely segregated society. So less than 7 million people benefit from these massive aid packages. As Prof. John Mearsheimer, of the University of Chicago, and Prof. Stephen Walt, of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

214 University, wrote in their now renowned and extremely revealing book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, on the dangers of the ‘Israel Lobby’, Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $14 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of American’s foreign-aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. (Mersheimer and Walt 2006: 30-31) That the United States generously supports Israel is beyond question. Former Congressman James Traficant claimed that when all the trade compacts, economic assistance, military assistance and direct aid is considered, Israel receives around $15 billion a year. As the Congressman observed, this is at the same time that US citizens are “losing their pensions” and the welfare state is being increasingly restricted. Homelessness in the United States has reached levels that are more than a little reminiscent of a 3rd world country with plastic sheeted “tent cities” arising on the streets of its major cities and yet this much money can just be gifted to Israel. This level of support for Israel becomes unsurprising when it is discovered that when running for office in the United States, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the leading, so called, “Israeli lobby organization”, according to former Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney, approaches every candidate with a formal ‘pledge’, “stating that as a candidate I would commit my tenure, should I win, to the military superiority of Israel, to Jerusalem as the capital city, to continued aid at the level requested by Israel.” (McKinney as seen in Chehata 2011; emphasis added) All candidates for office are approached by these Israeli lobbyists and asked to sign this pledge. How many other countries would like to determine their level of aid being given by the United States? How many politicians from a supposedly independent country are approached by advocates of a foreign power asking them to sign an agreement of basically unconditional support or not get elected?137 With the Israeli lobby’s well documented control of the media and controlling billions of dollars in political funding it can only be imagined the chances of someone winning their election if they refused to sign this “pledge”. As Avnery observed of the power of this lobby,

137

At the same time that this kind of pressure is brought against American politicians by Jews living in the United States on behalf of Israel, it is officially an act of anti-Semitism to claim that American Jews have divided loyalties. How did everyone come to accept all this?

215 It’s [Jewish Americans] electoral and financial power casts a long shadow over both houses of the Congress. Hundreds of Senators and Congressmen were elected with the help of Jewish contributions. Resistance to the directives of the Jewish lobby is political suicide. If the AIPAC were to table a resolution abolishing the Ten Commandments, 80 Senators and 300 Congressmen would sign it at once. This lobby frightens the media, too, and assures their adherence to Israel. (Avnery 2002) That they wield so much power and have so much money means that every politician is being extorted to either unconditionally supporting Israel or give up on having a political career. As Giraldi observed, [The Israeli Lobby] have bought or intimidated every politician that matters to include presidents, congressmen and even those in state and local governments. Anyone who criticises Israel or Jewish collective behaviour in support of the Israeli state is subject to character assassination and blacklisting a la Mel Gibson and Rick Sanchez. Those who persist are denounced as antisemites, a label that is used liberally by Zionist groups. At the same time that the United States gives less support to its own people, Israel has an extremely generous welfare program for Israeli Jews. Universal health care, universal child support payments, and generous pensions, are all features of Israeli welfare whereas in the United States none of this supplied. The most basic reason for Israel instigating September 11 was to at least maintain, but hopefully increase, this level of U.S. financial and military support to Israel. The next layer of concern was to implement the agenda of The Project for the New American Century. The final “layer” is to help realize the agenda of Gnostic Judaism. The more that is learnt the more the idea that people would believe that attacking the United States would ever stop the U.S. government from supporting Israel seems highly questionable. One would expect, as has actually been the case, that such an attack would only reinforce and extend U.S. support for Israel. As United States Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano observed in 2010, “The bond between the United States and Israel has never been stronger.” (Napolitano as seen in Blumentahl 2011) One day before the attacks on the Twin Towers, on 10th September 2001, the Washington Post reported, based on research from the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), that Mossad, Israel’s military intelligence agency, was a “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” (as seen in Ahmed 2002: 349) Not only might this be a public announcement of what was about to actually happen the very next day, but it shows that prior to Sept. 11, there were some very real questions from reputable sources beginning to question the unconditional support of the United States for Israel as Mearsheimer and Walt’s book confirms. After the attacks, all these concerns were silenced. Nobody today is questioning the “special relationship” status between Israel and the United States despite the relationship continuously facing many challenges. It actually became

216 almost treasonous to question the U.S.’s relationship with Israel after Sept. 11, as it suggested accommodation of the enemy. In light of the terrible terrorism being undertaken by radical Islamists, how could somebody question the role of Israel in the Middle East and United States unconditional support for those activities. To question U.S. support for Israel was now seen as surrendering to terrorism. The Israeli worldview had been vindicated. Muslims were terrorists, they were dangerous, they needed to be dealt with ruthlessly. Surly, the only “winner” out of these attacks was not radical Islam, who would know that as a consequence of the attacks that they would bring the wrath of the most advanced military machine in the world down upon them, but Israel who would equally know the consequences of such an attack. Just like any beneficiary from an event, whether it is a fortunate fire at the local factory, or a wife suddenly dies who is well insured by the husband, the beneficiary of an event should be investigated on suspicion of involvement because they, at least, have a motive. This investigation simply has not happened. Before moving on to more evidence to support the claim that Jewish actors were behind September 11, it is interesting to ask in light of the unprecedented support given by the U.S. to Israel, what does Israel do for the United States in return for this support? After all, the United States have literally fought wars on behalf of Israel for decades, spending billions upon billions of dollars, while the Israeli Army has not only preserved its military capacity but extended it greatly, while remaining safely at home. The United States can be seen to have spilt the blood of its finest youths in a foreign land for another country. As former US Congressman James Traficant138 observed, . . .Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control both, members of the House, and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don’t beat you at the poll, they’ll put you in prison. . . They’re controlling much of our foreign policy. They’re influencing much of our domestic policy. Wolfowitz as undersecretary of defence

138

Traficant was a continuous annoyance to Israeli and Jewish interests in the United States. He served a time in prison on what he claimed were trumped up charges to silence him, but he continued to speak out. On the 23rd September 2014, Traficant was admitted to hospital. It was originally claimed that Traficant had been involved in a tractor accident on his farm. His wife initially made a public statement to say that he was “sedated and doing well”. Then, on the 27th September, five days after being admitted, Traficant surprisingly died. It was claimed that Traficant had died without ever regaining consciousness. Questions were instantly asked by his supporters, about the mixed messages regarding the state of his health. The forensic pathologist concluded, failing to quite concern, that Traficant had died of “positional asphyxiation” that he had suffered, supposedly, while under his tractor on the farm. So, he apparently both died of suffocation on his farm and lived several days doing well in hospital. Of course, as would be expected given who he was speaking against, many of his supporters have rightly suspected foul play. Although one can never know if foul play was really what caused Traficant’s death, what is known is that they are most certainly prepared to kill to further their project.

217 manipulated President Bush number two back into Iraq. They’ve pushed definitely, definitely to try to get Bush before he left to move into Iran. We’re conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and everybody’s afraid to say it. They control much of the media, they control much of the commerce of the country, and they control powerfully both bodies of the Congress. They own the Congress. What does Israel do for the United States in gratitude? Surely Israel must give every possible assistance, every possible aid, every possible support, that they can to the United States in return. They must be the United States’ staunchest ally in the Middle East guaranteeing military assistance whenever required. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Israel has never fought alongside U.S. troops in any conflict around the world at any time in history. This might be contrasted to a country like Australia, a true friend to the United States and her people, who receives no U.S. aid, (indeed the U.S. benefits to the tune of around $11 billion annually from a massive trade surplus which is the result of a very generous “free trade” agreement signed in the 1990s) who has militarily supported the United States in all their significant conflicts since WWII. Not only has Israel never fought alongside the United States in a conflict but Israel famously attacked the United States surveillance vessel, the USS Liberty, intending to sink the vessel with all her crew because the USS Liberty may have heard sensitive Israeli communications. As a result of the surprise attack from a military force the sailors believed they were there to protect, using both aircraft and naval vessels, 34 American crew were killed and 171 were wounded. This act of aggression was quickly hushed up by the then President of the United States, Lindon B Johnson, which up until that time was the most pro-Israeli President the United States had ever had.139 The official reason for this accommodation was to secure Jewish votes, and more importantly funding from Jewish Americans, in the up-coming U.S. election along with softening of the extremely negative media coverage being generated from Jewish controlled media sources on the ongoing Vietnam War. Nobody has ever been held responsible for this war crime in the United States or Israel. Israel is one of two nations to undertake a surprise militarily attack against the United States, the other being Japan. Two of the most respected academics on U.S. international relations, Mersheimer and Walt, observe that Israel “does not act like a loyal ally” nor has it ever. These highly respected scholars observe that just one expression of this disloyalty is that Israel flatly refuses to accent to United States directives. For just one example of their refusal, Israel continues to build illegal settlements in occupied territories of Palestine despite the United States continuously requesting that this building program be stopped. Indeed, millions of dollars from the US Jewish community ‘charities’, which are tax exempt, are given to

139

Many have since surpassed Johnson in groveling to Israel. The most recent was Donald Trump who knows how to return a favor.

218 illegal Israeli settlements at the direct cost to the United States economy above and beyond the official aide given by the United States government. In an investigation Forward, “uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a Fortune 500 company and focuses the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.” (as seen in McArthur 2013) It is also known that Israel disregards international standards by undertaking extrajudicial ‘targeted assassinations’ at unprecedented levels. These accusations are only brought against Israel regarding the many murders about which the world knows about but, of course, does not even begin to count those many, who knows how many, murders carried out by the Israeli state and their many passionate supporters about which the world remains ignorant. In committing these murders, Israel has shown itself time and again to totally disregard international law. How many Americans, how many Australians, how many Europeans, are quietly killed for transgressing Israeli or Jewish interests around the world? This question becomes particularly pressing when the full agenda of Gnostic Jewry is appreciated. The truth is that we just do not know. What we do know is that in countries like Australia, Jews admit to forming militia type organizations, trained and equipped with military grade weapons by Mossad, that operate under such innocuous names such as the “Community Security Group” which are really paramilitary forces intended to protect and advance Jewish interests abroad. The Community Security Group’s explicit purpose is to “protect Jewish life and the Jewish Way of Life” in Australia. I cannot help but to wonder who is protecting my life and my way of life as a Christian Australian living in Australia against this militia? Most Australian’s do not even know that such organizations exist or that there are state funded organizations whose sole purpose is to ensure Jewish financial well-being. No other community seems to be allowed to maintain its own private militia, most probably funded by Israel using money secured originally from the United States. Their activities are surrounded in mystery, but we know, after the case of Ben Zygier, the prisoner X, that at least some of its members are indeed trained assassins. Will I myself get a knock on the door one day, or exposed to some unknown poison, or accidently swallow something slipped into my drink, for writing these books? If I died, even under unusual circumstances, no questions would be asked. The truth is that we just do not know how many people Israel or those organization sympathetic with Israel have killed. It could be 10s, it could be 100s, it could be 1000s, it could be tens of thousands every year and nobody would know. All we know is (1) they are more than prepared to do extra-judicial killings, (2) that they are trained and armed through their militias to undertake extrajudicial killings and (3) that they loath Western civilization and are determined to see it destroyed. These are not three facts that would fill one will confidence. How have we let these people get away with this?

219 Finally, beyond being deceptive and spying on behalf of potentially enemy states, Israel is certainly not the robust Western style democracy in the Middle East that it presents itself as being. Israel is not “. . .a flourishing democracy . . . A defender against irrationality and irreverence of life surrounded by infidels, a tower of strength and stability fuelling American industry” (Goldberg 2009: 116) that many Jews are eager to promote. Indeed, as this document will make clear, Israel was established to oppose rationality and advance the cause of “infidels” against the West. Beyond this theo-political agenda, according to a 1998 report by Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem, Israel uses “routine torture”, these “Illegal practices included . . . isolation, sleep deprivation, psychological torment and direct physical force including beatings, kicking, violent shaking, painful shackling and use of objects designed or used to inflict extreme pain.” (as seen in Ahmed 2002: 267) Finally, it is well known in United States security circles that Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S” by anyone in the world which has meant that several senior officials, like Larry Franklin in 2004, have been caught passing on secret information to Israel. For this act of espionage, Franklin served just 10 months of home arrest and nobody else involved in the case, there were several Jewish Americans mentioned as being possibly involved in the case but were never arrested or charged, were brought to justice. As observed in the introduction, there is no equality under the law in the United States. This treatment of Larry Franklin, who was interested in serving no purpose other than his own, might be contrasted to the treatment of people like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who fight for truth and an accountable government but are punished most severely. Perhaps of greatest concern, as will be elaborated upon throughout these volumes, it is known that Israel has sold critical military technology that has been given to them by the U.S., to the second most powerful country in the world and future potential threat to American supremacy, China, Indeed, and this is very important, when one begins to investigate, “Jewish Americans” are doing everything that they can to advance China’s global interests at the expense of the United States to such a degree that it is treasonous. Sept. 11 was in part undertaken to help their Chinese comrades by drawing America’s attention away from the Pacific region, where it should be, onto the Middle East. After the Communist revolution in China, there was a period of time, from the mid-1950s through to the late 1970s, when relations between China and global Jewry was extremely poor. Probably for reasons of retaining power, Mao associated Jewish political activity and Zionism with American imperialism. Trying to cast itself as the nation of liberation from European colonialism, in places like Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East, Moa railed against Europeans. Mao characterised Israel as “the poisoned knife which the American imperialists pushed into the heart of Palestine.” It was not until the late 1980s, in post-Mao

220 China, that Sino-Jewish relations began to improve and improve quickly. The general perception of American Jews in China is much more insightful than most Americans. In no small part that is because the Chinese have not been exposed to the continuous propaganda intentionally aimed at distorting perceptions that occurs in the West. Unaffected by an education system and entertainment industry intended to shape the way people think in regards to Jews, many Chinese observe the reality of the situation in the United States. They recognise that Jews have incredible power, prestige and wealth in the United States and seem to be able to achieve anything they want. This is not to be critical of Jews, this is not the same narrative that has informed Western perception of the all-powerful Jew who must be stopped, but they actually greatly admire and are even envious of the power, influence, and wealth that American Jews have in the United States. As Chinese scholar Zhou Xun wrote capturing these feelings, . . . Chinese intellectuals’ attitudes towards Jews were often mixed with curiosity and envy. Why should the Jewish, not the Chinese, be the dominant culture in the world? Why should Judaism, not Confucianism, have been widely accepted as the guiding moral principle of human society? Why should a Jew, not a Chinese, be the richest man? (Xun 2016: 6-7) As this quote shows, the Chinese did not see the injustice of a small minority have such a disproportionate amount of power but, instead, asked why they themselves especially with their many millions of people, cannot achieve the kinds of success that Jews have achieved. In the 1980s, in an attempt to understand how Jews managed to wield such disproportionate power, China undertook to seriously research how such a small population managed to control the entire political and international program of the United States for their benefit. To undertake this research, a . . .space was opened for Chinese scholars to pursue independent research on issues and topics related to Judaism and, more significantly, to reach out to foreign groups abroad mostly as a way to procure funding, materials and networking opportunities. . . [with the aim] to foster ties with groups perceived to have an influence on U.S. politics. (Al-Sudairi 2015) That is, Chinese groups reached out to American Jewish organizations for financial support with the aim of networking with Jewish organization to realize shared aims. To this end, Chinese scholars began to undertake research into global Jewry and develop personal relationships with Jews around the world. This was not one or two academics working out of dimly lit rooms next to the janitor’s office. Large centres of research were created in Shanghai, Harbin, Nanjing, Tianjin, Jinan, and many other Chinese cities, specialising in Judaism and focusing on the Jewish diaspora. (Xun 2016: 15) This interest was enthusiastically reciprocated by global Jewry. Sensing a great opportunity

221 to advance their cause, a number of Jews from the West and Israel actually moved to China to help develop relationships and to better investigate what potential benefits might be available for Jews in China. From the start, the Chinese wanted to learn both how Jews had achieved their success and how might the Chinese and Jews form collaborations in order to achieve mutually beneficial goals. These early tentative explorations quickly flourished as both sides realised shared interests, shared cultural values and the massive potential gains that might be achieved through collaboration. It was at this time, most likely as a result of this very relationship, that China opened itself to global trade. Instantly, global Jewry began pouring huge sums of money into China giving them the capital to begin to industrialize. By the turn of the 21st century, China had learned the types of strategies used by Jews to hold such power and began to try to replicate the same strategies by both using the existing Chinese diaspora in the U.S and in other Western countries while insisting that Western countries, such as Australia, accept much higher numbers of Chinese immigration. As Ehrlich (2008) ambiguously suggests when elaborating what global Jewry was teaching the Chinese. When speaking to a . . . group of high-achieving Chinese expatriates returning to China to find out more about their former homeland and seek their “spiritual” roots. I spoke on the relationship between Jews and the Jewish homeland. At first the audience did not understand the connection between the Jewish Diaspora and themselves. Slowly the prospects of a spiritual relationship between overseas Chinese and the Chinese homeland were understood . . . Considering the estimated 200 million Chinese living abroad, being potential members of a Chinese Diaspora, the benefits. . . seem significant indeed. It is as a result of this realization that several significant scandals have emerged where Chinese businessmen and academics have been proven to be operating on behalf of the Chinese government. As Ehrlich’s quote suggests, the Chinese are not naïve. They understand only too well how the world works. They know exactly what it means to enter into a strategic partnership with global Jewry. In China, American Jews are considered ruthless, without normal moral restraints, and, therefore, people who one deals with only with the greatest care. There is a perception in China that Jews are “‘aggressors’ and ‘killers’ of the weak and innocent”. (Wald 2004: 62) Because of this, China has taken the strategy of ensuring that it is perceived as strong and prepared to act in an attempt to interact with global Jewry on equal terms. They have realized that if they are to stand alongside global Jewry, as they hope, then they must show themselves to be equally capable of the kind of immoral ruthlessness and unconditional brutality that they see is displayed by Jews. China believes that if you show weakness to Jews, and because it is under their control the United States, then their response will be ruthless. This has meant, because of the role Jews play in the United States, China has taken a “strong man” approach to international relations

222 as, they believe probably correctly, it is only by being feared that they will be respected. The best stance to take towards American Jews, from a Chinese perspective, is one of confidence and to leave Jews in no doubt that they are as equally prepared to use any measure if they are not getting a good deal out of their relationship. In this confrontation of giants, Westerners are viewed and treated like naïve children ignorantly playing with their toys while the adults of global Jewry and China sit at the adult table deciding the fate of the world. As Wald makes clear in his study of Chinese/Jewish relations, Chinese perceptions of Jews as aggressive, cruel, and brutal is not to be thought to be a criticism of Jews. The Chinese people are an Eastern people and, as such, they have a much more pragmatic view of human behaviour then that held by most in the Christian West. Even though the Chinese do believe that Jews are cruel, violent, and immoral, they genuinely respect these characteristics. They respect global Jewry in a way that they simply do not respect Westerners because they think of Westerners as naïve and easily manipulated. The Chinese believe that the West is being ruled by a handful of Jews and so the West is simply not worthy of respect. Why, they ask, respect slaves? Unlike in the West, the Chinese praise the intelligent use of violence and deception, as long as it serves a purpose, in a way that would be viewed as immoral in the Christian West. As Wald notes, “The Jews are admired, but perhaps also envied because they are seen to have what every Chinese wants to have for himself and his nation: money, success, and power.” (Wald 2004: 63) As Xun also observes, giving a Chinese perspective on this relationship, “According to Xue, if the Chinese were as rich as Jews, then China would be the most powerful nation in the world.” (Xun 2016: 7) It is all about wealth and power and not about, for just one possibility, being a good global citizen. The Chinese do not judge Jews morally for their aggression, deception, or greed, as was historically the case in the West, but they envy their wealth and power and want to know how they, a powerful country of millions, can achieve the same. China is not judging Jews for their perceived immorality but want to learn how to be the same. It is for this reason that when the Chinese claim, for example, that the Rothschild family controls the world economy, China is not turning this into a moral criticism, “isn’t it wrong that the Rothschild family controls the world’s economy” but are simply observing this as a truth about the world. They then ask, how did the Rothschild family become so powerful? How do they retain their power? Why do Western countries allow this obviously destructive control to continue? According to scholars like Xun and Wald, there will never be a pogrom in China against the Jews because pogroms are motivated by moral judgements and the Chinese will never judge Jews for being immoral. It is in no small in recognition of this Eastern thinking that both global Jewry and the Chinese leadership are determined that Christian morality will never find a voice in China. As things currently stand, traits such as skilful deception and manipulation are enviable

223 in China, when used correctly, and China today can be seen using these behaviours on the international stage. As the West has finally learnt, dealing with China is not like dealing with France or German. It is not even like dealing with Russian or even India. China will say one thing and do the exact opposite, they will fabricate research in order to achieve their ends. If France, Russia, or India say that they will withdraw troops then you can be fairly secure that the troops will be withdrawn. When French, Russian, or Indian academics sign a non-disclosure agreement you can rest assured that they will respect that agreement. The Chinese, by contrast, will be more likely to build up troop numbers after saying they are going to withdraw, and their academics will return to China and begin research centres built on the information that they had agree to keep secret. The West is finally learning this, but it has taken over two decades. The very reason why Chinese and American Jews have formed their special relationship is because they “use these relations for their own interests and policy goals.” (Wald 2004: 78) The “friendship”, or “alliance”, between Jews and Chinese is simply a relationship of temporary convenience with the West their mutual target. As Chinese academic Shan Shili observed in 1910, “. . .if they did not learn from the lesson of the “Jewish race” they would not be able to win the racial war against the “whites”.” (as seen in Xun 2016: 8) The Chinese approached the Jews in particular, not the American Hispanic or the black population, “Because the Chinese believe that the Jews have power and influence . . .” in the U.S. which these other groups simply do not wield. (Wald 2004: 78) Because of this expectation, Wald argues, Jews “. . . must be aware of what the Chinese expect from the Jews, whether these expectations are officially stated or not.” (Wald 2004: 78) The China/Jewish relationship began to show clear benefits for the Chinese in the 1990s as they opened their country to global trade. Whereas China was looking to expand its global power and ultimately defeat the West, a project harmonious with Gnostic Jewish aspirations, Jews have tried to present the Chinese as a culturally similar people to themselves. As Ehrlich (2010: 2) wrote, Comparisons between Jewish and Chinese festivals, calendars and rituals also have fascinating dimensions, especially as the Hebrew and Chinese calendars share many of the same intercalating techniques and milestones of the agricultural year marked by concurrent lunar and solar festivals. These suggest parallel development in aspects of the cultural and symbolic worlds of the two societies and point to the existence of similar sentiments, as they respond to events of the lunar and solar cycles. One area where they share many similarities is between the religious traditions of Buddhism and Gnostic Judaism. As it says in Wikipedia, a rather important access point for shaping popular perceptions, “Shared commonalities and similarities between the cultures and values of the two nations with ancient roots dating back thousands of years as well as convergence of interests have made the two countries (China

224 and Israel) natural partners”. Jews like to portray China as a fellow “Eastern” civilization that “celebrates riches, success, and well-being in this world” unlike, so the Gnostic Jews claim, the moralizing Western tradition that has always placed their foolish Christian beliefs above material interests. The West, at least traditionally, has praised a kind of meekness and humbleness that, at least Wald feels, is alien to Eastern beliefs and practices and is treated contemptuously by the Chinese.140 (Wald 2004: 63) Not only do Jews identify as an Oriental culture, and always have, but they claim to have also suffered persecution at the hands of Europeans like the Chinese and therefore share the same bitterness and desire for revenge. As Khlystov wrote in a cloying piece obviously aimed at winning the Chinese people over to the Gnostic cause, “It is quite interesting how the Jews and Chinese faced persecution by Europeans, making them share such a close bond.” This is to suggest that the Chinese and Gnostic Jews make natural partners who not only share a common origin and beliefs but have also suffered at the hands of the evil West. As proof of this shared experience, Jews, and the Chinese, when trying to affirm their relationship as an historical one, often point to an episode during World War II when China141 accepted 20,000 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany at a time when Europe, Australia and the United States had refused them entry. Of course, this ignores the truth of the situation that Jews were actually placing pressure on Western governments not to accept the refugees as they wanted them to be “forced” to go to Palestine. One of the largest barriers to the establishment of a Jewish state, a problem that they had tried to overcome since the late 19 th century, was the small population of Jews living in Palestine prior to World War II. That this is used as an example of Jewish/Chinese bonds is wrong in all kinds of ways and actually shows a level of ignorance by the Chinese regarding their understanding of Jews. The Chinese do not seem to appreciate, as far as I can

140

Although there are resonances between these Eastern cultures that have been observed by many and magnified by some Jews, there are also extremely important differences about which the Chinese remain ignorant. The idea of “gratitude” is extremely important for the Chinese and there have already been concerns expressed that Jews have not been adequately grateful for the help the Chinese have already offered the Jews. The truth is Jews do not believe in gratitude except to their God. According to the Jewish faith, God is behind all hardship and blessings of the Jews so, at best, the Chinese will only ever be seen as the vehicle of God’s blessings and, as with the United States or the United Kingdom or Australia, no matter what these countries do for the Jews, especially the United States, Jews will do what they believe they need to do for their God and if that means destroying their most generous benefactor then that destruction will be attempted. Jewish culture has no room for gratitude or obligation only pure self-interest. Indeed, many Chinese still believe in doing “good” which again, according to Gnostic Jews at least, is highly problematic. For their own interest, China would do much better having normal, respectful relationships with the West and having that reciprocated while staying well clear of Gnostic Jews but, sadly, I do not expect this to happen. 141 To be clear, and this is often neglected, Shanghai was not controlled by the Chinese government in 1939 when these refugees were accepted. In 1937, Japan invaded the Chinese section of Shanghai and established a government of collaboration. The rest of the city, in 1939, remained as it had historically, in the hands of an international body. The “Chinese government” had nothing to do what-so-ever with allowing Jew’s entry into Shanghai.

225 discern, the theological agenda underpinning the actions of global Jewry and that that theology has no historical precedence in China. They may share a seat at the adult table today, but the time must come when they will be pushed to the floor. Interestingly, in Ehrlich’s book, he notes that Jews have developed “modern hospitals”, tried to introduce the Sabbath day of rest, and are leaders in business, while the Chinese contribute, “manual labourers” to Israel. (Ehrlich 2010: 3) This is how the Gnostic Jews really see the Chinese. As an excellent example of Chinese naivete, in return for the Chinese welcoming Jewish refugees from Europe, the Jews who remained in China enthusiastically joined the Communist Party and helped the Communists to seize power. As Ehrlich (2008) observes, “Six of the ten foreign-born members of the Central Government’s People’s Consultative Conference were at one point Jewish.” As with many Westerners, the Chinese simply do not understand how Jews can be nationalists for Israel while being cosmopolitan everywhere else, racist at home and yet supporters of multi-culturalism abroad, atheists when in West and yet religious zealots in the Promised Land. This book will come almost as much of a surprise to the Chinese as it will to the West. No better example of the role of Jews in shaping Chinese history than the story of Jakob Rosenfeld. Rosenfeld was captured by the Nazis and held in Buchenwald concentration camp until he was released in 1939 on the condition that he left the country. He was amongst the 20,000 Jews who were offered asylum in Shanghai. In 1941, Rosenfeld joined the Chinese Communists fighting against the Republican Chinese government. His contribution to the Chinese revolution was later acknowledged with the erection of a statue at Rosenfeld Hospital in Junan County, Shandong. Gnostic Jews also played an important role in the bloody cultural revolution, as will be discussed later, that ripped China apart in the 1960s. I hope this volume will encourage China to deal with the West sincerely, as the West, as the West, does genuinely want global peace and prosperity and will deal with the Chinese honestly if given the chance. Never trust the West as long as they stay under the sway of the Gnostic Jews. What the Chinese hope will be realized from their alliance with American Jews is that they will help them, as they have, advance Chinese interests in the United States. As Wald states quite unequivocally, “China wants to have the support of the American Jewish community in managing and improving China’s crucial, but complex and oscillating relationship with the United States.” (Wald 2004” 79) As a concrete expression of the mutual benefits from the relationship between American Jews and China, a group of Wall Street executives from Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and the Blackstone Group, pressured President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s to dramatically lower trade barriers to China and

226 support China’s aspiration, despite warnings about the way Chinese business functioned in China142, to become a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The main negotiator of the Chinese trade deal was Charlene Barshefsky, an American Jew, who attracted rave plaudits from Jewish controlled media such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. She even received a standing ovation from “many [business] executives” because of her supposedly fantastic negotiations during trade deal discussions. Maurice Greenberg (Jewish American), chairman of the American International Group, complained to Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin (Jewish American), that the Clinton administration “had missed the boat” by not quickly taking the unbelievably generous trade deal that Barshefsky had negotiated with China. (Sanger 1999) By contrast, Gene Sperling, one of the main architects of the balanced American budgets of the 1990s and a person truly concerned with American interests, attracted a lot of public criticism, both personal and professional, from Jewish business leaders and the Jewish controlled media for arguing that the trade deal was simply nowhere near good enough and should most definitely be rejected. Sperling argued that the trade deal gave China a great deal, international standing and recognition along with excellent trade opportunities, while the United States seemed to benefit very little. Robert Kapp, President of the US-China Business Council, who is Jewish, actually had a well-documented heated argument with Sperling in public over their different positions on the trade deal. Kapp was on the public record claiming that Barshefsky had managed to get an “extraordinary range of achievements” through her exceptional negotiation skills and that “this dazzling laundry list” was an overly generous offer from the Chinese that simply could not be missed by the desperate United States. Zhu himself, with the perfect timing of a salesman, publicly agreed with Kapp. Zhu made it publicly known that he had, supposedly, been sharply criticised by Chinese authorities for giving away too much and asking for so little in return. When Congress continued to hesitate because many economists could plainly see that in fact, despite the incredible pressure being applied from the Jewish media and business interests, it was a bad trade deal, Kapp argued that the White House was missing out on a deal that would bring billions of dollars into American businesses. Sperling, by contrast, cautioned that there was no need to rush into a trade agreement with China, China was the one desperate for a deal while the United States could wait. With a little patience, Sperling argued, China would be extremely prepared to give the United States many more concessions. (Sanger 1999) Robert Hormats, Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs (International), a Jewish American, argued forcefully to congress that it was a good trade deal and that, “Zhu basically went to the country. City by city, he said ‘Look what’s in this for you’” thereby putting increased pressure on the

142

As an extension of the Communist Party.

227 President. Hormats was arguing that Zhu had gone to great lengths to prove the benefits of the trade deal to middle America, which risked so much if American production shifted to China without getting anything in return. As a result of pressure from American Jews and the Chinese, despite concerns that it was a bad trade deal and China was not a democratic liberal society and that China would not adhere to international trade rules of business, Congress eventually accepted the deal. Not coincidently, this trade deal replicated the trade deficit between the United States and Israel but on a much grander scale. I can just imagine Chinese officials shaking their heads saying no idiot would sign such an agreement and the Gnostic Jews across the table assuring them that they can guarantee that the trade agreement would be signed.

The massive trade deficits that resulted from the Barshevky negotiated trade deal that today costs the United States around $350 billion a year. It looks like the promised “billions of dollars” from the “dazzling laundry list” was not intended for America but did materialize for the Chinese just as Sperling, a true patriot, had warned. The amazing thing is that nobody is ever held accountable for such terrible “blunders”. Barshevky should have put in prison. The “Chinese miracle” was paid for with Western wealth. Sourced from https://www.statista.com/chart/17982/us-trade-in-goods-with-china-since-1985/

Shortly after the signing of the trade deal and the inclusion of China in the WTO, the same “businesspeople” who had encouraged the Clinton administration to lower trade barriers to China were pouring huge sums of U.S. capital into building the Chinese economy. The Chinese economy grew at an astronomical rate, perhaps unequalled in history but this growth was achieved as a result of Western trade

228 deals. There is nothing miraculous, even impressive, about growing an economy with hundreds of billions of dollars pouring in for nothing. Ever since that time, Jewish Wall Street executives have done everything they can to ensure that nobody paid too much attention to what was happening in China but ensured that wealth and trade continued to flow from the United States into China. September 11 and the “War on Terror” ensured, if nothing else, that the United States spent billions of dollars fighting useless wars in the Middle East that had no strategic benefit for the U.S. while China quickly grew its industrial military complex in peace.

As can be seen from this graph, the economic lull after September 11 and the Global Financial Crisis have had significant negative impacts on the United States’ economy but these crises have had no negative impacts on the Chinese economy. These future projections do not, of course, consider the impact of Covid 19, which was the direct result of China not acting in accordance with international law by refusing to report the epidemic. China seems to have been well-prepared for this outbreak and it has not had a significant impact on China while devastating many Western economies most especially the United States. Image sourced https://mgmresearch.com/china-vs-united-states-a-gdp-comparison/

It was like the Jews and China were intentionally sucking the wealth and power out of the United States and the West more broadly like some kind of parasite while China grew wealthy and powerful from the proceeds. The overly intimate relationship between certain Jewish American business owners and China has progressed so far that White House National Trade Council and Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director, Peter Navarro, has called these businessmen “unregistered foreign agents” who, he felt, were actually doing the bidding of China and were certainly not serving the interests of the United States. Navarro said, “When these unpaid foreign agents engage in this kind of diplomacy, so-called diplomacy, all they do is weaken this president and his negotiating position.” He went on to observe the obvious, “No good can come of this”. To be clear, this massive transfer of wealth from America to China is being used to build the Chinese empire, most especially its military. While a great deal of wealth is being created in

229 China, Jenny Chan, Mark Selden, and Pun Ngai observe in their book, Dying for an iPhone, how Apple in China uses forms of labour abuse, which includes, extremely low wages and institutionalized wage theft, incredibly long, unsustainable hours of work, no sick leave, unsafe work conditions, substandard work environments and unrealistic quotas, that contribute to extraordinarily high rates of worker suicide, to build the wealth of China’s elites and the wealth of the owners of Apple. Workers often actually live onsite, in dormitories next to their work, and only know a life of moving between the dormitories and the factories. This is in order “to facilitate high-speed, round-the-clock production” at the expense of the Chinese workers quality of life and overall health. (Hedges 2021) Jewish American business leaders have managed to realise conditions in China where the vast majority of people are substantively slaves existing only to generate wealth for the Jewish business owners and those in the Chinese communist party. China has become the perfect expression of how Gnostic Jews see all non-Jews, productive animals with the ability to speak so that they can better serve Jews. As a New York businessman, former President Donald Trump has long been aware of the growing influence of China over American businesses. He reversed the Obama strategy of trying to nurture a “strategic partnership” with China to accept the reality that anybody who cared to look could see that China was intent on being America’s global competitor. As expressed in the 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS), These competitions [China with the U.S.] require the United States to rethink the policies of the past two decades – policies based on the assumption that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners. For the most part, this premise turned out to be false. American Jews have since systematically helped the Chinese government in the United States. The United States has come out publicly against China and accused it of breaking its trade obligations with the WTO, whose membership the United States supported with the enthusiastic advocacy of American Jewry. The United States claimed that the Chinese government is strategically protecting the Chinese economy from fair foreign competition by manipulating its currency thereby making its exports more attractive and imports more expensive. Unlike in Western democracies like Australia, New Zealand and the United States, Chinese currency value is not market based. That they control their rate of exchange has allowed the Chinese government to manipulate the currency market and undervalue their currency in order to undermine the United States and, indeed, the global economy. President Trump, probably the most supportive U.S. President for Israeli causes in history, and that really is saying something, was removed through the direct efforts of Gnostic Jews probably because of his opposition to China.

230 That Gnostic Jews were prepared to remove such a supportive president of their causes is all the evidence required for the value that they place on their growing relationship with communist China. China may have supplied the pathogen for the global pandemic, but American Jews made sure nobody looked to China as a culprit. American Jew Ian Lipkin, who has worked in China for decades working on Covid-like viruses including at Wuhan, seems to have influenced Anthony Fauci into arguing that the Covid virus was “natural” and did not come from a Chinese laboratory. In an email exchange on the 5th of May 2020, that was heavily redacted before being made public, Lipkin expressed his appreciation to Fauci in his “efforts in steering and messaging” regarding the Covid narrative. As Fox News observes, it seems that Lipkin is working on behalf of the Chinese government and is thanking Fauci on their behalf. (Schoffstall 2020) In trade arrangements between China and the United States, as revealed in the documentary The China Hustle, there seems to be systematic fraud aimed at stealing money from the United States and securing it in China. Almost certainly with the assistance of the Chinese government and Jewish American business intermediaries, dishonest Chinese businessmen have managed to pull up to $50 billion out of the United States economy in order to feed it into the Chinese economy. When $50 billion of American money goes to China it does not matter if it produces nothing, it does not matter if it goes into a black hole, when it is U.S. money, that money enters into the Chinese economy and leaves the American economy. This is what these dishonest business deals wanted to achieve. When these activities were discovered, as is so often the case, nothing was done. Nobody went to prison. Nobody in China was even fined. The whole scandal just disappeared. It has also been discovered that China has been systematically stealing, at a state level, intellectual property, either directly through the products that are now produced in China or by stealing technology using methods of old-fashioned spying or cyber-attacks. Trump asserted that the United States would “no longer turn a blind eye to unfair economic practices” such as stealing intellectual property. To apply pressure on China to conform to international norms, Trump imposed new levies on tariffs that have certainly harmed the Chinese economy. Against Trump’s efforts, people like Stephen Schwarzman, called “Trump’s China whisperer”, a man who donated $100 million U.S. dollars to launch a scholarship program in China143, has been doing everything he possibly can behind the scenes to aid Chinese businesses and advance Chinese interests more broadly. Nobody sees the links between American Jewry and China and so these kinds of activities remain, to a high degree, unnoticed.

143

That is $100 million leaving the United States and being spent in China. That goes to build Chinese buildings, pay Chinese workers, educate Chinese people, and leaves, forever, the United States economy. $100 million dollar scholarships are not created in Australia. Questions should be asked but Gnostic Jews control the media in the United States thereby ensuring that no questions are asked.

231 Many people, including Navarro, remain misguided about the real motivations of these Jewish business leaders that give unconditional support and advocate on behalf of China. He, along with others, wrongly believe that these businesspeople are simply responding to the Chinese government’s manipulations when they collectively try to influence U.S. government foreign policy to benefit China against the interests of the United States. Navarro believes that these business leaders do so in order to take advantage of business opportunities in China. That is, they are doing it out of the understandable motive of self-interest. This is not simply the case at all. The truth is that these Jewish businessmen are doing everything that they can to help China become a global leader with the ultimate aim of destroying the United States in order to advance their theo-political program. It is certainly no coincidence that the very same banks with the closest relationships with China today are also the very same banks that were implicated in the Global Financial Crisis that devastated the economies of the United States and the West. Indeed, Stephen Scharzman was one of the most influential advisors who encouraged Barack Obama to bail out the big banks in the aftermath of the GFC ensuring that those responsible for the crisis would not actually financially pay for their crisis. Up until now, Jewish wealth has relied on Western countries, first in Europe, then in North America, to store their accumulated wealth and exploit the local labour, but now they are creating an alternative site so that when they do finally destroy the United States and the West, which is not too far away, they do not lose their wealth. The importance for maintaining their wealth, is again, religious, because it has long been claimed that at the “end-of-days” all Jews will be so wealthy that they will no longer need to work. Wealth for Jews is not so much motivated by simple greed, although it is in part because greed is a natural aspect of being human according to their theology, but also one step in fulfilling the apocalyptic prophecy that has become so important to their gnostic religious vision. That they strive to make this a reality shows just how literal and fanatical these people are. China has long known that Jews control the United States, it is, after all, rather obvious to a people who understand scheming for power in the absence of God much better than the Christian West. It is for this reason that when Vice Premier Liu He, China’s chief trade negotiator, visited the United States in February 2018, to try to strike a trade deal with the White House in response to Trump’s actions, according to The Wall Street Journal (Dec 2nd), “Before meeting his U.S. counterparts, [Liu He] turned to a select group of American business executives – mostly from Wall Street.” This group included Larry Fink (Jewish), David Solomon (Jewish) and Jamie Dimon (Greek/Turkish). The Trump government wisely rejected He’s offer as “too narrow” and not giving enough concessions, but China continues to get strong support from Wall Street. These powerful men of Wall Street continued to publicly support China against the United States until the very last days of Trumps Presidency. A year after these failed trade talks, Covid 19 finds its way

232 around the world, originating in China, devastating most especially the United States while having only a limited impact in China itself. As already suggested, Jews influenced China long before the 1980s. Gnostic Jews were already active in China in the years building up to the communist revolution. As Wald notes in a recent report on Jewish/Chinese relations, “. . .a small number of foreign Jews joined the Communist’s fight against the Japanese occupants in the 1940’s, befriended the revolutionary leaders, became Chinese citizens, and are held in high esteem to this day.” (Wald 2004: 62) In fact, this small group of politically active Jews from the West did much more than simply “support” the Chinese communists “against” the Japanese. In the 1930s, Otto Braun, a German Jew who had moved to the Soviet Union, became the leader of the Chinese communist military in its struggle against the Government of the Republic of China. Unlike their token efforts against the Japanese, the Chinese communists fought eagerly, though largely unsuccessfully, against the Chinese government. This list of Jews in leadership roles in communist China is not huge but due to where they were positioned in the party apparatus, it was certainly significant. This list includes, Hank Sneevliet, Mikhail Borodin, Adolph Joffe, Otto Braun, Jakob Rosenfeld, Richard Frey, Sidney Rittenberg, Israel Epstein, Hans Shippe, Ruth Weiss, and Soloman Adler. As Otto Braun’s role suggests, these Jews were extremely active in facilitating the communist revolution. During World War II, American Jews helped ensure that the communists were given good quality American weapons which was the most important factor for allowing them to take China after the war. These Jews were not only supplying military advice and assistance but were extremely influential in shaping how the revolution itself unfolded. Jews were the extremely influential in Mao’s Cultural Revolution for the same reasons and in a similar manner that they are driving the Western cultural revolution today. It was no coincidence that Israel was one of the first states in the world to formally recognise the communists as the legitimate government of China when it did so in January 1950. That was decades before Western countries which did not begin to recognise the communists until the 1970s. American Jews were also active in instigating the protest movement against the Vietnam War, in which the Chinese were combatants supporting Vietnam against the United States, along with traitorous support in promoting the ideas of Chairman Mao through their underground “communist” networks. More recently, Israel has not only passed technology on to China, that was given them by the United States, but the Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, who was born in Galveston, Texas, was, . . . found guilty of stealing thousands of classified documents from the Défense Department where he worked, gave these materials to his masters, the Israeli Mossad operating in the U.S.A. The Israelis, in turn, transferred these valuable military secrets straight to Red Chinese dictators in Beijing. (Marrs 2011: 201)

233 Not only did Pollard steal technology but he also stole information that greatly undermined the United States defence policy in the 1980s. As C.I.A. director at the time, William Casey, stated “The Israelis used Pollard to obtain our war plans against the USSR – all of it: the co-ordinates, the firing locations, the sequences, and Israel sold that information to Moscow. . .” The C.I.A concluded, “Pollard’s operation has few parallels among known U.S. espionage cases . . . his first and possibly largest delivery occurred on 23 January [1994] and consisted of five suitcases-full of classified material.” Of course, the state of Israel, recognising the historical support of the United States forcefully denounced the actions of Pollard in the sharpest terms and expressed public shame at one of “their people” being involved in the whole sordid affair. Not at all! Pollard is considered an absolute hero in Israel. He is a household name and there are huge wall murals painted in his honour. This honour is for stealing American military secrets and passing them onto fellow Eastern state China against not only the interests of the United States but against the interests of the West in general. On an official visit to the United States, Prime Minister Netanyahu personally visited Pollard in prison, in a public show of disdain to America, and assured Pollard that Israel and Jewish lobby groups in the United States were pressuring then President Barak Obama to pardon the convicted spy. Incredibly, for a man who probably should have been shot for the extent of his treachery, Pollard actually was released during Barack Obama’s presidency in 2015. Again, it is informative to note the contrast in the treatment of Australian Julian Assange who continues to rot in jail. Australia which does everything in its power to support the United States, fought in every significant war alongside United States soldiers, has never spied on the United States or done anything against their interests but quite the opposite and yet the Australian rots in jail without a proper trial and this human scum, Pollard, is not only free but assured of an extremely privileged future in Israel. One can be assured, that if somebody undermined Israeli interests to the degree Pollard undermined the United States they would be killed without question. It was actually Donald Trump, one of the most supportive U.S. Presidents of Israeli causes144, who ultimately realised Pollard’s complete freedom by lifting travel bans on Pollard allowing him to travel abroad. One-week after being granted permission to travel, Pollard flew to Israel aboard a luxury executive jet loaned to Pollard and his wife by gambling magnate and American Jew Sheldon Adelson. Adelson is actually a major donor to Donald Trump who famously admitted that he regretted having worn the U.S. Army uniform when he was drafted into the U.S. Army in the 1960s and that he would have been prouder to wear an Israeli Defence Force uniform. Upon arriving in Israel, which Pollard

144

During his four years as President, Trump has withdrawn from the Iranian nuclear agreement, shut the Palestinian offices in the United States, stopped U.S humanitarian aid to Palestine, moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and given Israel a “green light” in the West Bank.

234 referred to as “home”, he was met by none other than his long-time supporter Benjamin Netanyahu on the tarmac as he disembarked the plane. At the airport, Pollard and his wife both knelt together and kissed the ground of Israel.145 This is just rubbing the citizens of the United States nose in the ground. Netanyahu then handed him an Israeli citizen I.D on the tarmac and welcomed them both as Israeli citizens. The person who was Pollard’s initial contact for his spying activities was a former Israeli Air Force officer by the name of Aviem Sella. In 1987, somehow learning of what was about to unfold, Sella fled the United States to Israel just days before Pollard was arrested trying to make his way into the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. The United States instantly issued extradition orders for Sella’s arrest but, as people should have come to expect from such a close ally which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid, they flatly refused. The whole episode was brought to its final disgraceful end when, in the shadow of Pollard’s release, the outgoing President Donald Trump gave Aviem Sella a full pardon for his criminal activities against the United States. As Giraldi wrote, “Trump’s pardon for Sella as a favour to Netanyahu sends yet another signal that Israel can spy on the U.S. with impunity.” (Giraldi 2021) Is this really how to make America great again? Although the request for a pardon was endorsed by Netanyahu and the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, it was also supported by the American Jew and United States Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman along with Trump financial supporter and American Jew Miriam Adelson, wife of Sheldon Adelson the person who loaned Pollard his luxury jet. The truth is, as Pat Buchanan observes, “When it suits them, our Israeli allies launch air strikes on Tunis, Baghdad or Beirut; they invade Lebanon; they even enlist U.S. traitors, like the Pollards, to loot the secrets of a nation that has manifested toward them an extraordinary indulgence." As a result of Israel’s espionage, the United States counterintelligence operations, “strategically focused against [the] priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel”. (as seen in McArthur 2013) Israel is on the same counterintelligence list as China and Iran and yet the United States funds them to the tune of billions of dollars in aid and continues to give them the absolute latest military equipment, even before Australia, at bargain basement prices. Is this type of treatment fair repayment by Israel to the United States and her people for their support, protection and generosity? The claim that September 11 was ultimately about destroying the Israeli state by first fracturing the relationship between Israel and the United States is simply unpersuasive. History has shown that not only has it reinforced what was already an extraordinarily strong relationship

145

Despite the kind of fervor for Israel expressed by people like Pollard and Adelson, it is considered antisemitism to even suggest that some American Jews favor Israel over the United States. This is the greatest danger that emerges from the ever-ready accusation of antisemitism, as with other such movements, like feminism and the Black Lives Matter movement, is that they first crush the truth and then make it somehow immoral to argue against the lie.

235 with the United States giving unconditional support to Israel, but it makes it almost impossible for the United States to place conditions on its future support for Israel, even if they wanted to, as now it would appear that they were “giving in” to terrorists. The claim that September 11 was intended to undermine U.S/Israeli relations is either the worst strategic blunder in history or, as is the case, stated as a distraction. It is because of the destructive behaviour of Israel against America that, as Andrew Sullivan notes, . . .the U.S. gets nothing in return for the extensive military and diplomatic support that it provides Israel, . . . the U.S. “suffers internationally” on account of its close relationship with Israel, and . . . its government under Netanyahu has behaved badly towards the U.S. (as seen on Larison 2019) What an understatement. The short lived Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, recently observed that Netanyahu was a “Machiavellian” politician who would deliberately create “misinformation” in order to persuade President Trump to do what Israel wanted. Tillerson claimed, They did that with the President on a couple of occasions, to persuade him that “We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys.” We later exposed it to the president, so he understood, “You’ve been played.” It bothers me that an ally that’s that close and important to us would do that to us. (Tillerson as seen on RT 2019) Australia, by contrast, would never behave like that towards the United States. The United States provides no developmental assistance to Australia and does not even, despite being a faithful ally, subsidise Australia’s purchasing of United States’ military equipment. The U.S. Australian Free Trade Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 2005, allows the United States to receive a massive surplus of $28.9 billion dollars every year. Tillerson claimed that when he was Secretary of State, he was consistently marginalized on Middle Eastern issues in preference for the President’s Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner who is extremely pro-Israel and a good personal friend of Netanyahu. Tillerson was quickly dismissed by Donald Trump after extensive pressure was exerted from within the State Department because he did tell the President the truth about what was happening, and this had to be stopped. Tillerson had tried to reduce State Department funding because the entire department is really just another pressure point for advancing Israeli interests. Although the US State Department did indeed lose funds, this reduction was carried out by Mike Pompeo and his targets were people who were insufficiently submissive to Israel’s demands and did absolutely nothing to reduce Israeli influence in the State Department. (Margolis 2021) For his patriotic service and commitment to truth, Tillerson became one of the shortest serving Secretary of States in history. In the broken condition that the United States is in today, Tillerson is actually shown to be a true patriot and American hero in being dismissed so quickly. Success is only achieved in the United States today, in universities, Hollywood, the media and government, if you are serving Gnostic Jewish

236 interests. An apparent plurality of voices came out denouncing Tillerson’s time as Secretary of State. Eliot Cohen said, “I think he really will go down as one of the worst secretaries of State we’ve had”. Ilan Goldenberg stated, “He will go down as the worst Secretary of State in history”. The truth is that Tillerson dared question, one or two policies that were designed to serve Israel and for this minimal interference he has been systematically and intentionally demonized. The “plurality” of voices when investigated are revealed to be just one . . . Gnostic Jewish. Goldenberg is an American Jew who served as the Israel Policy Form’s Policy Advisor and Cohen is an American Jew who was one of the most militant and forceful voices advocating and then supporting the war in Iraq. That such people even dare talk about a man of the stature of Tillerson is beyond reasonableness and is utterly despicable. In conclusion, the proposed motivation for undertaking the attacks on September 11, 2001, it is interesting to note, as Edward Hendrie does (2011: 28), that on the day before 9/11, on September the 10th, 2001, Secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to acknowledge that “according to some estimates we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions”. Rumsfeld was admitting that the Pentagon had lost 2.3 trillion dollars and had no idea where it had gone. That sum would have paid a little under half of the United States’ total debt in 2001 which, of course, is much higher now. $2.3 trillion was approximately a quarter of the United States total GDP for 2001. This is to observe that $2.3 trillion is a massive sum of money by any measure, beyond most people’s comprehension, and for that to just go missing would rightly have attracted months of media attention. The top financial officer at the time, responsible for the lost money, was Dov Zakheim, a dual American/Israeli citizen. Zakheim was born in 1948 to Eastern European Jewish parents. His father had fled Lithuania because he was an active member of Betar, a militant Zionist movement. Dov Zakheim himself is a staunch supporter of Israel. As he said of his childhood, I was really brought up on God and country. I’m an orthodox Jew. I’m a sixteenthgeneration rabbi. My son is now the seventeenth generation, one of my sons. None of our family for the last hundred years has practiced as a rabbi. My father was a lawyer as I mentioned. But we believe in religious values. So, on the one had we have God, and on the other hand we have this wonderful country that had made a home for both of my parents who obviously would probably never have met if it hadn’t been for the United States. (Zakheim 2012) Out of everything that the United States has offered his family, all the safety and opportunity, all the wealth and power, all he can credit the United States for is that it allowed his parents to meet. One of the “favours” he managed to achieve for his beloved Israel was to arrange for the sale of squads of F-15s and F-16s at a much-reduced price by classifying them, for this sale alone, as “surplus” military equipment. (Hendrie 2011: 28) Zakheim began as the Under Secretary of Defence (Comptroller) in May 2001 and

237 served in the role until April 2004. By the time he left the role a total of around $2.3 trillion dollars had just gone missing. Dov Zakheim was also a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) whose paper, Rebuilding America’s Defence, concluded that for their plans to be realised quickly there needed to be a “catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” In 2011, Zakheim published a book, A Vulcan’s Tale: How the Bush Administration Mismanaged the Reconstruction of Afghanistan which was extremely critical of America’s attempt to rebuild Afghanistan after the worst of the Afghanistan war was over. The basic accusation was that the United States had spent a lot of money destroying the country but did not spend a lot of money rebuilding it. If the claims made in this volume are true, it is simply beyond outrageous that one of the people who may have instigated the whole series of events, stealing money to fund a secret mission, planning a terrible terrorist act as a false flag operation so as to realize a situation harmonious with their vision, would then be critical of the United States handling of the issue. To create a situation and then criticise the United States for being involved is a strategy that has been successfully used by Gnostic Jews for a hundred years. Why Were the Planes Not Intercepted? One of the many outstanding questions surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, is; why was there no response by the United States military to the hijacking of the planes? This question actually becomes more pressing in light of comments made by General Anatoly Kornukov, a Russian Air Force Commander, who said on the 12th of September 2001, Generally, it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on this scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. . . The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction of the anti-missile defence. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reporting about that right away and in a minute, we are all up. (Kornukov as seen in Mir 2011: 340) This was said at a time when the military capacity of Russia was greatly depleted following the collapse of the Soviet Union and yet, even in this incapacitated state, the opposite of the United States at the time, the Russian military could not imagine such a strategy ever being successful because strategies to respond to this type of attack are well established, prepared for in advanced, and, therefore, such attacks are easily neutralized. It has to be remembered, despite numerous claims to the contrary after the attacks, it was certainly not unexpected that commercial aircraft could be hijacked and used as weapons. Indeed, this exact scenario was used for practice scenarios multiple times prior to September 11, by the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), including a scenario codenamed MASCAL, that took place between October 24-26, 2000, which considered how emergency teams would quickly and

238 effectively respond to a hijacked plane intended to crash into the Pentagon. The entire defensive system over the United States was actually designed around the possible need to intercept a hijacked aircraft before it could be used to cause any damage. This meant, developing a system that responded quickly to any perceived dangers. To contrast how air response is supposed to happen under normal conditions, an English academic Nafeez Ahmed, in his excellent book on September 11, “The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked on September 11, 2001”, contrasts the response of NORAD to the well documented events around golfer Payne Stewart’s Lear jet incident. On October 25th, 1999, a chartered Lear jet 35 rose above its assigned altitude and flew off course before crashing killing everyone onboard. The famous golfer, Payne Stewart was killed in the accident. The reason why this tragedy might be of interest is because it is an example of how the military is supposed to respond to an aircraft that is unresponsive or off course. The principle of interception is to respond quickly and to then use a “graduated response” to any threats. The approaching fighter jets may first rock its wingtips to attract the pilot’s attention or make a pass in front of the aircraft that could not be missed. If these strategies fail to get a response and the dangerous situation continues, the intercepting plane can fire tracer rounds into the airplane’s path, or, even, under certain circumstances, with the permission of the President, shoot the aircraft down. This graduated response can be seen in the case of Payne Stewart’s Lear jet as the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report of Payne Stewart’s aircraft attests, 9:19: The flight departs. 9:24: The Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control. 9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38: Having failed, the controller called in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone to ask for military assistance. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs. 9:54: 16 minutes later – the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapse time: 21 minutes. According to the chronology of events, at 8:20 A.M., Flight 11 made an unexpected left turn towards New York deviating markedly from its intended flight path towards its destination of Los Angeles. This followed closely behind the aircraft’s transponder being disconnected which had already alerted flight controllers that failed attempts to communicate with the pilot was not a technical error. A few minutes later, United Flight 175 also deviated from its flight path and also turned towards New York. The important thing to note is that unlike in the case of Stewart’s aircraft, the traffic controller, Pete Zalewski,

239 knew that this was a hijacking and, despite having this knowledge, Zalewski did not notify NORAD for 18 minutes. 18 minutes is the difference between success and failure. It took 4 minutes in the case of Steward when dealing with a small aircraft which weas not hijacked yet two large passenger aircraft with hundreds of passengers on board are known to have been hijacked and it takes 18 minutes for NORAD to be informed. As ABC’s John Miller observed, “There doesn’t seem to have been alarm bells going off, traffic controllers getting on with law enforcement or the military. There’s a gap there that will have to be investigated . . .” This gap between knowing that the planes were hijacked, and NORAD being informed is crucial and either must be explained or those responsible, especially Zalewski, must be thoroughly investigated. This is a passenger jet aircraft that is certainly being hijacked and heading towards New York, which might be contrasted to a small propellor craft with only one passenger, and yet it took only 21 minutes to scramble planes to intercept Stewart’s aircraft whereas it took, some have claimed, 26 minutes just to get two F-15s off the ground. (Ahmed 2002: 151) When everything is considered, from loss of contact to getting jets in the air, there was a break of around 35 minutes. This terrible delay meant that even if the pilots had been given permission by the President to shoot the planes down, and this permission was never given, thereby saving the lives of those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, they would have arrived too late to intervene. “When the second tower was hit the fighters were still 70 miles from Manhattan.” Indeed, although there are several versions of events in the public domain, obscuring attempts to give an accurate account of what exactly happened, one common account of events claims that the planes were not scrambled until after the plane had struck the Pentagon. (Ahmed 2002: 156) This response might be contrasted to the response times in the Payne Stewart’s case when the FAA responded to a failure to communicate, not a confirmed hijacking, in just 4 ½ minutes with interception time in just 21 minutes. Using these times, with hasty permission from the President, the whole event could have been minimised with the jets shooting down the aircraft resulting in far fewer deaths. This is why, as General Anatoly Kornukov confirms, it is usually impossible for this type of attack to be effective. Indeed, the instructions are quite clear, “In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC (National Military Command Centre) will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will . . . forward requests for DoD (Department of Defence) assistance to the Secretary of Defence for approval.” (as seen in Szamuely 2002) The important point that Ahmed is trying to make is that despite what was claimed in the days following September 11, it takes no special approval from the president to scramble jets to intercept aircraft, this is done routinely time and time again within the United States airspace. Presidential approval is only required to shoot aircraft down. Therefore, even if the President was out of communication, which should raise questions itself, the jets should have been scrambled. This did not happen. Why? Although

240 the ABC reporter rightfully observed that there was a gap that needs to be investigated, no investigation into the lack of military response has been undertaken. The greatest military power on earth was humbled on this day but this simply could not have been achieved without people trusted with the responsibility to respond in a certain manner failing to do so. The obvious question is why? Who Really Did September 11? Now that there has been raised a number of questions regarding this terrorist attack, why did the buildings collapse, the questionable role of the President and the Vice President Dick Cheney, and finally, why were the planes not intercepted? Further, it has been argued that the true motivation for the attacks were not to undermine U.S./Israeli relations, a ridiculous claim, but that it was actually in part undertaken to ensure that that valuable relationship, from an Israeli perspective, would continue without interruption. The task in this section is to find out who really perpetrated the terrible attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. Within 24 hours of the event, United States officials appeared certain that it was a fundamentalist Muslim attack perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. As CIA director George Tenet mused immediately after the Flight 11 hit the World Trade Centre, “You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it.” According to the FBI, there was never any evidence linking Bin Laden to September 11. Bin Laden himself denied any involvement in clear terms while pointing to who he believed were the real perpetrators, I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government in the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself . . . That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. . . The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. (bin Laden as seen in Haitel 2014: 211) There are two serious problems with any claim that the Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks: capacity and motive. As has already been suggested, the actions of several people and organization in relation to this event are highly questionable. The military should have been advised and the President should have retained command. It really does look as though, as Bin Laden himself claimed, that it required inside support, but Osama Bin Laden lacked the inside influence to affect the militaries response to matter remove President Bush from office for a period of time. Further, a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda would know that it would not benefit from such attacks. They would have known that such attacks would bring the wrath of the United States upon its head and that it would only strengthen U.S. and Israeli relations. If it is accepted that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida were not the perpetrators of the terrorist attack, then who? One well established strategy for finding a perpetrator of any crime is to ask, as Ahmed

241 asked in 2002 in relation to September 11; ‘who benefits?’ Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who was put in charge of the Saudi investigation into September 11, answered Ahmed’s question, “Who benefited from September 11 attacks? I think the Jews were the protagonists of such attacks.” (Nayef as seen in Mir 2011: 342) The problem with the official account, as evidenced by how events have unfolded, is that the supposed terrorist organization, al Qaeda, has certainly not benefitted in the aftermath of the attack nor would there have been any expectation that it would benefit from such an attack against the United States. As has already been discussed, the real beneficiary so far from the September 11 attacks has clearly been Israel. They have obviously benefitted by having Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, both vocal Middle Eastern opponent of Israel, removed. In a 1996 policy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, written by Jewish American Richard Pearl for Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, it called for the creation of a ‘New Middle East’ which involved, “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussain from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”. If we look at events following September 11, two of these countries, Iraq and Syria, have been utterly destroyed and the third, Iran, appears to be firmly in the United States sights. The aggression towards Iran expressed by the United States has gone so far as to drive it to oppose the wishes and strategic interests of its ever-compliant European NATO allies of Germany and England. What has Iran ever done to the United States to attract this level of hatred? Has it militarily attacked the United States? Has it undertaken systematic espionage on behalf of the United States’ most powerful enemy? History would suggest that Iran has been a better ally to the United States then either Israel or Saudi Arabia. Not only has it done less to harm the United States than Israel or Saudi Arabia, but Iran’s values seem to be more harmonious with those of the United States then either Israel or Saudi Arabia if the real situation is properly understood. But, as elaborated upon later, the links between Gnostic Judaism and Muslim Brotherhood are extremely strong and all the disruptions in the Middle East has greatly aided their cause. The conclusion that Israel has been the greatest beneficiary of September 11146 begins to reveal the perpetrators but as will be revealed, there are simply too many American Jews involved in the events surrounding September 11, 2001, for it to be attributed just to Israel. Once all the evidence is considered, the short answer as to who did the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and why this truth has been hidden is because, as Bin Laden rightly observes, there is a government within the U.S.

146

Another benefit beyond having potential opponents removed from the Middle East, it was argued at the End of the Second Iraq War that it would be too expensive to bring all the military equipment back to America so massive quantities of armaments and equipment were simply given to Israel. It would be interesting indeed, to discover who exactly was responsible for making the decision that returning all the military equipment to the United States would be too expensive.

242 government, a state within a state, a deep state, and this inner government consists of a relatively small group of religiously motivated Gnostic Jews who are sympathetic not just with the cause of Israel but with a theo-political ideology aimed at global domination and the destruction of Western civilization. Ritterband, also a Jewish author, agrees with Bin Laden by claiming that Jewish control over Presidents and Congress meant that Jews functioned in the United States like a ‘government within a government’ or, as he put it in Latin, an ‘imperium in imperio’. (Ritterband 1995: 378) It was as a result of this hidden government within a government that Jews act with such a high degree of confidence to advance their interests. This relatively small group of people control the United States with an ever-tightening grip that allows them to then use the massive resources of the United States as a vehicle for both realizing their religious project while advancing Israeli interests in the world against those of the United States. Millions of Americans are literally homeless and yet a massive proportion, far beyond what is directly gifted to Israel, is wasted on the theological agenda of Gnostic Judaism in the form of re-education programs, enabling talentless people with a particular agenda to rise into positions of authority and creating instruments of propaganda as entertainment that have very little true appeal to an audience. These people are directly responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon and hide the most damning evidence from public scrutiny. This relatively small group of people can do this, in our age of instant global communication, when so much information is literally at our fingertips, because they control, and have controlled for many years, the means of communication in the United States and, to a large degree, global communication especially after Sept., 11. They mediate, and politicise for their own purposes, everything in the U.S., and increasingly in the world, the way we come to understand events in the world and tell everyone how to respond with a singular, consistent voice that would be unbelievable if it could not be shown to happen. As highly respected veteran U.S. journalist Helen Thomas observed in her usual candid manner, when asked by Playboy journalist Glynnis Macnicol, “Do you actually think there’s a secret Jewish conspiracy at work in this country [the US]?” Thomson replied candidly, “Not a secret. It’s very open.” (Thomas as seen in Macnicol 2011) Once you know what to look for, as Thomas did know, then how open it is become obvious. As is all too often the case when this kind of thing happens, Thomas died two years after giving this interview. One of the most suspect aspects to the official narrative, and the one that made me initially suspect at least Israel’s involvement, is motive. Although the full motivation for September 11, 2001, is extremely complex and requires not only all the contents of this volume but several books besides, at a most basic level though, certain activists in the early 19th have argued that war was a necessary precondition for revolutionary change. So, while the United States’ military’s attention was being drawn

243 to the Middle East, an agenda revealed by Julian Assange through computer hacks of US military computers in the 1990s, these activists would do everything in their power, and that is a great deal indeed, to undermine “white nativism” in the United States and across the Anglosphere through what has become known as the “culture wars”. As will be fully disclosed in the final volume of this series, using the cover and disruption of a failed military interventions to carry through a revolutionary project was first theorised by Russian Marxist Jew Alexander Parvus (born Isreal Lazarevich Gelfand) around the turn of the 20 th century. The first time that this strategy can be seen to have been used was during the Sino-Russian war of 1904-1905 when a cohort of Russian Jews undertook revolutionary action against Tzarist Russia while the Russian militarily was engaged with Japan. This strategy was again used in Russia during World War I that created the conditions for the successful “communist” revolution of 1917. The same strategy, encourage war in order to realize a revolutionary agenda, was also used to support the cultural revolution in the United States in the late 1960s and, here we are again, another culture war coinciding with a real international war that is not going well. In realizing their basic agenda of getting the United States military bogged down in never ending conflicts in the Middle East while nurturing social unrest on the domestic front has obviously been incredibly successful. As part of this agenda of social unrest, the “deep state” has also used the danger of terrorism to greatly expand the United States government’s capacity to place all US citizens under intense surveillance. Increased surveillance, that has now spread across the Anglosphere and beyond, allows the political Hasidim to intervene in potentially disruptive acts prior to such actions actually taking place. For the first time in history, those in power can disrupt descent before it really gets under way. Not only was this false flag operation undertaken as a distraction and disruption to enable social unrest but, the attacks also changed people’s attitudes towards Israel’s behaviour towards Muslim states. As Mendes observed, Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on America, political conservatives in the USA, Australia, Canada and elsewhere have identified Islamic fundamentalism as the enemy, and the State of Israel as a key ally in the global struggle against terror. Many have forged an unconditional alliance with Israel as reflected in their supportive positions on the 2008 Lebanon War, Operations Cast Lead in Gaza, and the recent Gaza flotilla episode. That alliance involves endorsing all Israeli government policies and actions without question, irrespective of the implications (good or bad) for the prospects of peace, and Israel’s longterm interests. (Mendes 2010: 4) As already observed, prior to September 11, a number of questions were being raised not only about the massive levels of support that continue to be given to Israel despite Israel today being an advanced economy, but questions were also being raised about United States unconditional support for a country that people were describing as “rouge”. The terrorist attacks shifted people’s attitudes towards

244 Israel and Muslims firmly in Israel’s favour. As actually revealed by Israeli spies caught on September 11, 2001, in relation to the act of terror insinuates, changing American attitudes towards Muslims has meant increased support from the Anglosphere for Israel, who also hoped that the U.S. and her allies would at least remove Israel’s strategic enemies at the time, Syria, Iraq and Iran, in the Middle East.147 Finally, it might appear odd, but Israel is now an unofficial but generally acknowledged ally of Saudi Arabia. The motivation for this alliance between Jews and Arabs becomes apparent when the political movement behind the attacks is properly understood. Arabs, like Jews, are a Semitic people and, according to some interpretations, the Torah says that the Arabs will one day rule a vast empire in the service of Jews. The actual motivations for September 11 include.

•

•

Initiating the Parvus Strategy of involving a nation in an overseas conflict that does not go well. Then use this conflict as both a distraction from what should really matter, the rise of China, and as a source to nurture dissatisfaction amongst the masses, who generally dislike wars, that then justifies a “cultural” revolution or a fundamental change in the failed culture that led to catastrophic war. September 11 really marks an important moment in an ongoing attempt to delegitimize claims by white, Protestant, Christians as the “true” Americans. Justifying Western countries developing pervasive systems of internal surveillance. The ‘cold war’ required external surveillance via secret police oriented primarily towards the Soviet Union, for reasons that will be explained, the so called ‘war on terror’, by contrast, has justified developing sophisticated and extensive surveillance of domestic populations in all western countries as outlined in the Project for a New American Century and enacted via The Patriots Act. The Patriots Act was basically originally drafted by the current President of the United States, Joe Biden, in the 1990s but initially rejected for being too invasive. September 11 changed the metric on privacy. This surveillance has been implemented as a response to the risk of what has been labelled “domestic terrorism” which is increasingly being applied to disgruntled white Americans who are concerned about what is happening in their country. The greatest danger to the aspirations of Gnostic Jewry is that people will discover their project and make that knowledge public thereby creating sites of resistance. Internal surveillance is primarily aimed at stopping the creation and dissemination of material, such as this, that might reveal the reality of our existing political situation. The most important aspect of this neutering of the possibility of resistance before it can even begin is to stop the formation of an intelligentsia. The single greatest danger to the total mind control of Gnostic Judaism over the American people is if people begin to think for themselves. It is for this reason that disseminating material linking Israel to September 11 or identifying the role of the ‘deep state’, American Jews must be avoided. Hiding this involvement is extremely important. Most recently, Jewish American and former CIA analyst turned House Representative, Elissa Slotkin, eagerly informed America that, The post 9/11 era is over. The single greatest national security threat right now is our internal division. The threat of domestic terrorism. The polarization that threatens

147

On the Larry King show, former Democratic congressman (1997-2013) and Ohio gubernatorial candidate, Dennis Kucinich, claimed that there is a ‘deep state’ that has intervened in several attempts at brokering piece in Syria including apparently ordering a missile strike to intervene in a proposed peace deal being brokered between Putin and Obama.

245 our democracy. If we don’t reconnect our two Americas, the threats will not have to come from the outside. (Slotkin as seen in Jardula 2021)

•

Whitney Webb, a journalist, also observed that the “war on terror” was over and now there was the “War on domestic terror”. This is using the same permissive laws drafted, supposedly, to combat those who burned people alive in cages and cut people’s heads off, against people who espouse traditional American values such as not teaching that homosexuality is healthy. As a concrete example of how these new laws are being employed, on the 29th of September 2021, the National School Boards Association (NSAB) wrote a letter to the Biden administration requestion that the thousands of parents going to school meetings to protest the teaching of critical race theory to their children should be labelled as “domestic terrorists”. They argued that the threatening behaviour of these concerned parents warranted them being labelled “domestic terrorists” and the appropriate policing of such matters, under terrorist laws, should be implemented. (Simon 2021) White Americans are being systematically demonized, especially white men, and this is the realization of a long project that has its origins in the aftermath of World War II, are increasingly demonized with labels such as “white nationalist”. The development of the surveillance state really is the realization of the project clearly outlined in Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. That is, September 11 allowed the creation of state apparatus that can now be easily deployed against white Americans rightfully fearful of losing their country. Gnostic Judaism eventually hopes to depopulate areas in southern Syria that will later be taken to form ‘Greater Israel’ as the ‘Promised Land’. If Israel is to realise its God given borders, as outlined in the Torah, then it needs to occupy “all the territory between the Nile in the south and west and the Euphrates in the north and east” (Goldberg 2009: 116) which includes large swathes of areas currently claimed by Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Palestine.148 As Jewish/American Knesset member Meir Kahane defined this dream, The southern boundary goes up to El Arish, which takes in all of northern Sinai, including Yamit. To the east, the frontier runs along the western part of the East Bank of the Jordan River, hence part of what is now Jordan. Eretz Yisrael also includes part of Lebanon and certain parts of Syria, and part of Iraq, all the way to the Euphrates River. Quite a region. This is believed to have been the borders of Judea during the reign of King David (Friedman 1997: 62) The recreation of the Davidian Israel is one of the Messianic aspirations of Gnostic Judaism. The day will come, soon, when Israel will use some pretext to move its forces into southern Syria in the same manner that it has done in the past in other areas and then will simply never leave. This will be followed by housing settlements etc. etc. We have seen it all before. Syria is so destroyed it can do nothing about it and the United States, to its own destruction, has been under the sway of Gnostic Judaism for decades, at least, will also be unprepared to do anything.

148

The realization of ‘Greater Israel’ has always been the plan. Herzl, perhaps the most important Zionist at the turn of the 20th century, said that “the time was not yet ripe [for realizing Greater Israel} it would be more appropriate for the time being to create a germ cell out of which a state could grow organically.” (Herzl cited in Polkehn 1975: 79-80)

246

•

•

•

Spread adherents of Muslim Brotherhood around the world. In the Torah, God promises the land from the Nile to the Euphrates to the children of Isaac, but God tells Abraham that the children of Ishmael, the supposed progenitor of the Arabs, will rule a ‘great nation’ that will then serve the Jews. “As for Ishmael, I have heard you, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.” (Genesis 17:20) Like all religious fundamentalist movements, political Hasidim believes that Torah is the word of God therefore if the Torah says the children of Ishmael will rule a ‘great nation’ then a great nation, they shall rule. Further, Muslim Brotherhood is a form of Gnosticism, like Gnostic Judaism, so promoting the interests of this movement furthers the global Gnostic project of Gnostic Judaism. Force the United States to take an aggressive stance to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. (Mersheimer and Walt 2006: 32) In short, it has made Israel’s enemies, America’s enemies even though none of these countries, according to all the official reports, were involved in any way in September 11 or global terrorism. If anything, countries like Iraq fought against Islamists. Indeed, some have observed that in all, Israel would like to see five countries, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, “curtailed”. The political Hasidim hoped that people would turn on Muslims and be more sympathetic with Israel. Sept. 11 meant that Israel has been allowed a free hand in their dealings with Hezbollah and the Palestinians as well as ongoing support for Islamic terrorists in Syria. (Mersheimer and Walt 2006: 32)

This is not an exhaustive list, for just one further reason it has been argued that since Sept. 11, the sometimes-flagging security industrial complex in Israel has been greatly revived because of the increased demands in the U.S. for security products like surveillance devices for airports and tamper-proof biometric IDs, etc., (Goldberg 2009: 114) which Israel specializes in, but this list indicates the most important shortterm goals directly related to September 11. As others have observed, the influence of September 11 is waning, and we are increasingly living in a post-September 11 world, but we will perhaps never “move beyond” the laws and institutions to which it gave birth.

Dancing Israelis At a three-day conference in Ireland in 2017, International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Exceptionalism and Responsibility, the American Jewish scholar Joel Kovel claimed that there was a lot that happened on September 11, 2001, that Americans did not know about, Did you know that, as the towers were burning on 9/11 in lower Manhattan, about five painters were cheering on the process from across the river? . . . They were Mossad agents. And they were arrested and disappeared from the face of the Earth? (Kovel as seen in Friend 2017)

247 Kovel is telling something of the truth, but his account is actually not very accurate. The people that he is referring to as “painters”149 were actually Mossad agents and they have gone down in history as the “Dancing Israelis”. In my experience, very few people do indeed know anything at all about the Dancing Israelis even though they present as the most damning evidence linking Israel to September 11. The following account is mainly derived from a publicly released F.B.I. report initially acquired through a freedom of information request by an American citizen and then made publicly available on the internet. Early on the afternoon of Sept 11, 2001, a call was made by an eyewitness, codenamed ‘T-1’ in the F.B.I. report to keep her identity secret, to police saying that there was a group of men ‘dancing’ in the Doric Tower parking lot as they watched the Twin Towers burn. T-1 claimed that shortly after feeling her building shake from the impact of the first plane slamming into the World Trade Centre, she received a call for a neighbour telling her to look out her window at the southern Manhattan skyline. (Madsen 2014: 16) Although being directed to see the unfolding catastrophe of September 11, she noticed as she watched the events unfold, a white Chevy van parked in the parking lot of the apartment block with three of the five men present jumping on the roof of the van obviously celebrating while being filmed with the smouldering Twin Towers clearly visible in the background. (Madsen 2014: 16) The men were obviously exuberantly celebrating; smiling, hugging each other and giving each other high-fives, as the buildings burnt. They were celebrating like they were watching a success. This was just moments after the first plane had struck the World Trade Centre and quite some time before the second tower had been struck. The men were spotted, confirmed, at 8:50am, just 5 minutes after the first tower had been impacted. One eyewitness claimed that they actually saw the men in the parking lot as early as 8:00am, 45 minutes before the first tower was struck, but this citing has not been corroborated. T-1 was shocked by the behaviour of these men who were obviously celebrating the horrific tragedy unfolding across the bay. As the van pulled away from the parking lot, T-1 wrote down their number plate, JRJ-13Y. As the eyewitness was unsure of the relevance or importance of what she had seen, she did not instantly contact police but, after some reflection and in discussion with her husband on the unusual nature of what she had seen, in an undeniable act of bravery and conscientiousness, T-1 decided to report what she had seen to the New Jersey police. In response to the eyewitness report, New York police issued a BOLO (be on the lookout)

149

Kovel seems to be confusing two separate events. One was the Dancing Israelis who seem to know more about September 11 then they are making public while there is another event when “Israeli painters” or Israeli citizens with links to the IDF were selling paintings that were mass produced in China to selected American officials. The motive for selling these paintings, why they were being sold, who they were being sold too, was never established beyond the whole episode being very suspicious. I myself was visited around 2004 by an Israeli claiming to be an artist selling his paintings.

248 for a white van with the reported number plate. Luckily, at 3:56 pm, the van that had been in the parking lot at the Doric Tower was indeed spotted traveling eastward on State Route 3 on the turnpike in New Jersey. Police officer Scott DeCarlo150 and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli, their names should go down in history, pulled the vehicle over based on their number plate despite one of the numbers given not matching but the description of the vehicle and the rest of the number plate matched perfectly so DeCarlo decided to pull the van over. The East Rutherford Police report said, Officer assigned to Special Detail on Route 3 was rerouting traffic on Highway 3 East to Hwy 120 and 3 West. Lincoln Tunnel was shut down and officer was diverting traffic. Officer notified by dispatch of a National Broadcast to be on the lookout for 2000 Chevy Van White, NJ tag JYJ 13Y. 3 to 4 occupants. Officer noticed van traveling at slow speed east towards Lincoln Tunnel on the Service Road with 2 occupants visible. Officer informed sergeant of possible match. No front license plate but JRJ 13Y tag may have one letter off from National Broadcast. Sergeant told officer to stop vehicle because van seen in Liberty State Park at time of first impact. Driver did not exit vehicle. He fumbled with a black “fanny pack”. Officer removed driver and van was searched. County bomb squad and FBI notified. FBI Newark ordered occupants to be held for prints because occupants were seen in Liberty State Park at time of first impact. 5 individuals were detained. Vehicle registration and insurance card were obtained. Officer spoke to FBI Special Agents Robert F. Taylor, Jr., Bill Lloyd, and Dave O’Brien. Prior to transportation to NJ State Police Barracks at Giants Stadium, driver said, “We are Israelis, we are not your problem. Your problems are our problem. Palestinians are the problem.” (as seen in Madsen 2014: 43 from East Rutherford Police information) As the report says, upon being stopped, the men initially refused to leave the vehicle but were then forced to do so at the point of the police officer’s gun. When the occupants were pulled from the

150

In an interview with Dave Gahary, Scott DeCarlo appears to suggest that people continued to intervene in his life years after finding the wanted van. In the interview, a rather desperate sounding DeCarlo, who has since left the police force hoping to have a career in music, seems to ask if he could be left alone and allowed to go on with his life. When asked if he thought the actions of the Dancing Israeli’s was suspicion DeCarlo refused to be drawn on the question as though he feared giving a response that might upset those who continued to meddle in his life. DeCarlo seems to be seeking a way of communicating with his stalkers to tell them that he was not particularly interested in Middle Eastern politics and that his capture of the van was not against Jews or Israel but that he was simply doing his duty on the day and therefore wanted to be left alone. Gnostic Jews do intervene, and worse, in people’s lives if they have caused any kind of trouble for their movement. That Gnostic Jews do this is claimed by victim’s time and time again. I too have suffered from this kind of activity which resulted in me losing a lecturing position in a university just because my research was heading in the wrong direction. I had yet to link my research to any group whatsoever but even doing the wrong research attracts attention and punishment. I was later chased out of a city by a low level Gnostic Jewish drug dealer at the point of a gun. This kind of abusive behavior of those who cause trouble has to end and end now. The only way that this will be achieved is if victims of this kind of abuse are believed and action taken to protect them from persecution. Most people are so coward by Gnostic Judaism and their power that we are like children in an abusive family, happy if the abuse is directed at someone else. It is time for us to be brave, stand up for each other, and act against the oppressors. DeCarlo is a hero and needs to be treated accordingly. He should be famous and held in high esteem not fleeing persecution while trying to establish a career in music.

249 vehicle, they said that it was “ok” because they were “on our side” and, therefore, there was no need to be concerned. As an ABC 20/20 report confirms, upon being captured the men said, “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” It does not need to be pointed out that these were strange statements to be made by removalists being pulled over by police. I am sure that the police officers, who had probably gone through pulling suspicious cars over hundreds of times before, had never heard anyone say anything like this before. Interestingly, from the first contact with officials, they were advancing what would become the official narrative. The United States had now experienced terrorism like Israel and, therefore, Israel and the United States were now strong friends against a common enemy. The problem with these men advancing this particular argument at that time was that it was around 4 o’clock on the same day of the attack so most people remained ignorant about what was happening. These men seemed very well informed about the supposed nature of the attack, who was behind the attack and what was to be America’s response when the attack had just happened mere hours before. Upon inspection, the men were found to be carrying a camera and the developed photos clearly show the men celebrating as the second plane struck the Twin Towers. One of the men even held up a cigarette lighter to the remaining tower before it was hit by the second plane as though showing it burning. The five men found in the van were Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omar Marmari. All five men were later found to be Israeli citizens. Two of the men were confirmed to have links with Mossad while it was generally suspected that all the men were probably Mossad agents. Sivan Kurzberg was carrying over $1,000 in cash while Oded Ellner, supposedly a poor tourist doing removalist work to get by while staying in the United States, had $4,700 stuffed down one of his socks. It does not need to be stated that these were extremely suspicious men captured under extremely suspicious circumstances saying extremely suspicious things. What were Mossad agents pretending to be removalists doing photographing a terrorist attack while celebrating the fact that thousands of Americans, supposedly their allies, had been killed. Upon further questioning by Newark-based FBI agents Robert R. Taylor, Bill Lloyd and Dave O’Brien, although all their accounts differed significantly and were full of inconsistency, the most generous account has the five men hearing about the first plane strike on the Twin Towers through the media and they then decided to rush to a vantage point near where they worked in order to “record events”. The men claimed that they were Israeli tourists working for the removalists company, Urban Moving

250 Systems.151 This company was well known for employing illegal Israeli ‘tourists’ not on work visas who were, U.S. secret services knew, really doing Israeli secret service work. Beyond the inconsistency and known lies, the most obvious problem with the story told by the five Israeli Mossad agents is the timeline. These men were seen, by multiple witnesses, dancing and celebrating, already unpacked and established at the site, at just 8:50am. The first plane crashed into the Twin Towers at 8:45am. How did these men have time to hear about what was happening, even briefly discuss what they were going to do, decide to move to a better vantage point, pack up their gear (they were carrying cameras etc.), arrive, unpack their equipment at the site, all in less than 5 minutes? It has since been claimed by people who have tried to replicate their drive, from Urban Moving Systems to the Doric Towers, under similar road conditions as those on the day, that it takes at least 15 minutes just to drive from their warehouse to where the men were seen dancing. This does not include making decisions about what to do, packing up equipment, pulling out of parking spaces etc., etc., all of which takes time. To be generous, the fastest they could have achieved their journey after seeing television footage would be 20 minutes and that timeline, at least according to their story, is impossible. According to the real timeline, they must have left at least 15 minutes before the first plane stuck the North Tower. Their story just does not make sense. How did these men get to the Doric Towers so quickly? On the morning of 12th September 2001, the same three FBI agents, Taylor, Lloyd and O’Brien, all of whom have since been transferred away from the Newark Field Office, questioned people living in the Doric Temple at the corner of 9th Street and Palisades Avenue in Union City. They found that the men were established at the Doric Towers by 8:50 adds legitimacy to the eyewitness who claimed to have seen the van parked in the parking lot as early as 8am. If this is true, and it is an eyewitness statement, then the men obviously knew of the terrorist attack in advance. Even without this citing, they obviously had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks. With just a little bit of critical reflection, there entire story simply unravels in being revealed as the fabrication that it is. Indeed, there are real questions about what was their true motivation? Why did they move to a better vantage point at all? Nobody else went to the parking lot although it was a very good vantage point to view the buildings. They claimed that they wanted to, ‘document the event’. The fact of the matter is, Oded Ellner claims, “we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the

151

Even the name of this business is odd. Urban Moving Systems seems to suggest that they have systems for moving the “urban” which itself might be a vague reference to the Twin Towers terrorist attack. Not is the name unusual but on the 22 June 2001, the U.S. federal government granted a Small Business Loans award to Urban Moving Systems worth $498,750, along with 166,250 in “Non-Federal Funding”, despite this business being known to the federal government as a Mossad front organization. This grant was “To aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit marketplace”. (as revealed by Madsen 2014: 22)

251 event.” But at the stage that they were supposed to have moved to see the events unfold, everybody thought that it was just a terrible accident. What was there to “document” that the media was not already thoroughly documenting from 50 different angles? They claimed that they just wanted photos of the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers just like everyone else. Why did these men assume, even at this early stage, that it was a terrorist attack that needed to be ‘documented’? Their testimony seems to raise more questions than it answers. After all, out of all the New Yorkers that lived in that area, these particular five men, some of whom had known associations with Mossad, were the only people, in the whole of New York, who gathered filming equipment to record the event. Not only were these particular men, caught filming the event but, of course, most damning of all, they were celebrating the disaster. Not only were the Israeli men’s stories highly suspect and riddled with questionable claims but shortly after the van had been secured, while still in situ, the police used K-9 explosive detection dogs, provided by the Bergen County Police, that alerted the handlers to the presence of explosives. In response, the nearby Homestead Studio Suites Hotel was evacuated for several hours. The van was later tested by scientists for a range of substances and the F.B.I. admitted that they had found traces of ‘explosive materials’ inside the van. The F.B.I report did not specify if that material was Nano-thermite, an explosive substance that was later confirmed by scientists to be on the debris from the destroyed buildings, but that a removalist van had any explosive material is troubling enough especially given the context under which the vehicle was being inspected. Further a map was found in the vehicle with a confidential source from Bergen County Records confirming, “There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted . . . It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.” (as seen in Lima 2001) Finally, it was also claimed, that Urban Moving Systems van had a picture of a plane actually flying into the Twin Towers painted on its side. That the removalist van had a mural of a plane flying into the Twin Towers was confirmed in a report authored by The Mineta Transportation Institute titled Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks. On page 20 of that report, it confirms that on 9/11, 2001, “A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Centre was stopped near the temporary command post.” Many have questioned why, if they really were involved, would they advertise the fact on the side of their vans, but this is the exact kind of hubris that this theo-political movement displays because they are confident that they are really untouchable. They would find such a macabre display not only humorous but confirmation that they are above the law. The fact that they displayed a representation of the attacks on the side of the van actually supports the fact that they were involved in the attacks and certainly does nothing to negate the fact. As nothing has been done against either these agents, anybody else from Israel or their

252 American associates, their confidence in advertising their intentions appear to be well placed. Israelis, and if truth be told Jews in general, are literally shown, time and again, to be above the law. While in custody, the five Israeli agents were asked if they were prepared to take a polygraph test. Paul Kurzberg refused to take the polygraph test for 10 weeks and when he eventually did, he failed the test suggesting that he was lying. (Madsen 2014: 47) The transcripts of these tests have not been made publicly available. Shortly after failing this test, two and half months after being arrested, the men were released with the help of Judge Michael B. Mukasey and were hastily deported to Israel before any other action could be taken against them by people who were deeply concerned with what was unfolding. This release took place over the objections of the CIA. The incriminating photos found on the men were claimed to have been destroyed by court order on January 27th, 2014, but some extremely poor-quality photos, claiming to have be copies of those taken by the before the originals were destroyed, were later released on the internet. Acts by brave patriots continues to thwart the sinister practices of these people. Beyond these few photos, no material evidence surrounding these men has remained in the hands of the FBI as a result of court orders. This lack of material evidence means that no action could be taken concerning these five men even if there arose public demands to investigate this matter further in the future. Despite the seriousness of the situation and their obviously suspicious behaviour, (who celebrates such a devastating event that was obviously going to result in thousands, potentially tens of thousands of deaths) the five men were held in federal custody for just 71 days. This might be contrasted to the incredible suffering by people like Australian Julian Assange or patriotic Afghan soldiers who were held for years in terrible, brutal conditions without a trial simply for defending their country against an illegal invasion. No further action was taken against the men once they returned to Israel. The owner of Urban Moving, Dominik Otto Suter, was not arrested but was briefly questioned by the F.B.I. Upon his release from questioning, how this man was released at all is mystery in itself, Suter hastily closed his business and fled back to Israel before any further action could be taken against him. Again, as with the celebrating men, this does not seem like the actions of an innocent man. Suter’s name did get listed on a terrorist watchlist generated by the FBI, which was leaked by Italian financial surveillance authorities, but he remained at large. There has never been official confirmation that he is indeed on any FBI terrorist lists. Upon investigation, the F.B.I concluded that Urban Moving Systems was indeed a Mossad front organization, but, surprisingly, that the five men were not in any way involved in Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A Jewish weekly newspaper, The Forward, reported that U.S. government officials concluded, “The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it . . . the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs.” (Perelman 2002) The F.B.I. believed that although the five men were spies and

253 were “documenting” the events of September 11 for a foreign agency, they were not spying on the United States or involved in the terrorist attack but were instead spying on Muslim’s living in the New York area suspected of funding Palestinian organizations. In 2015, Fox News reported that, A highly placed investigator said there were “tie ins” between the spy ring and 9/11. However, when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, “evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 was classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” (Fox News cited in Mir 2011: 342) Although this is not a lot of information, merely to admit, “evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 was classified” actually tells everyone that there actually were indeed links. Interestingly, in the period following September 11, the Jersey City police computer system had been maintained by Larimore Associates which was a well-respected experienced company that specialised in archiving police emergency calls. The person ultimately responsible for allocating this contract, Jersey City Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham, suddenly died of a heart attack in 2004. The new mayor, upon taking office, abruptly cancelled Larimore’s contract and it was awarded instead to Information Spectrum. Information Spectrum oversaw the transition of the emergency call archive data, that had been planned for some time, from a Wang to a Windows environment. The Jersey City Police claim that during this transfer of data 8000 emergency 911 calls registered on September 11, 2001, were “accidently scrubbed”. Indeed, the lost data was so extensive that it also included the 911 calls relating to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre. This meant that T-1s call was deleted and any other incriminating call from her apartment block or anywhere else on that day was also deleted. This would mean that the call could not be used in a court of law to convict suspects. The only call that remained that was relevant to the terrorist attack was a 911 call reporting a suspicious vagrant in a south Jersey City neighbourhood. When Larrimore heard about this loss, they offered their services to retrieve the lost data, which can usually be done under such circumstances, but their offer never even received a response. (Madsen 2014: 16-17) The data remains “lost” to this day ensuring that no action in relation to that call will ever take place in the future. If the dancing men were Iranian, caught under these exact circumstances on that day, the United States would have undoubtedly used this as a casus bellum. That no action has been taken regarding these men despite all that has been revealed in the public sphere is a disgrace. Indeed, why were there no serious and public questions asked of Israel more generally and their possible involvement in this devious act? On the 14th of September 2004, 3 days and 3 years after the event, the five “dancing Israelis” filed a suit against the United States in the US District Court in Brooklyn for wrongful arrest and imprisonment.

254 Their suit made an interesting claim. They claimed that the men were held not because of any real grounds for suspicion, the eyewitness report, the celebration, the strange behaviour upon being arrested, but because they were Jewish Israelis and that the police “engaged in racial, religious, ethnic, and/or national origin profiling. Plaintiffs’ race, religion, ethnicity, and/or national origin played a determinative role in Defendants’ decision to detain them initially . . .” So, according to the suit, they were held not because they were seen celebrating the terrorist attack, not because they disobeyed police directives upon being confronted, but because they were Jews. They went on to claim, The plaintiffs are Jewish Israelis, not Moslems, but due to the similarity of language and the geographical location if Israel in the Middle East, and the ignorance or lack of understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the fact that Israel is an ally of the United States, the defendants mentally placed the plaintiffs in the same category as Moslems and discriminated against them the same way. It was, apparently, because of ignorance of geography and biases of the American people, confusing people who were really allies as enemies, that resulted in their arrest and detention of these men and not the fact that these men were; celebrating a terrible terrorist attack, having at least left their point of origin before the first strike, filmed the attack as it unfolded, acted suspicious upon arrest, could not explain their behaviour, lied to the police, had traces of explosives in their vehicle, were foreign agents and had a mural of the attack on the side of their van. How much more suspicious could people get? It is like the child with their face smeared with Nutella, holding the Nutella covered knife, standing beside the open jar, saying, “It wasn’t me”. It would be laughable if not so serious a matter. Just to try to obfuscate things in terms that are basically accusing the police and the FBI of anti-Semitism without quite being prepared to use the word. Perhaps the most incredible, and actually most damning, aspect of this whole affair is that the details of the “dancing Israelis” are not well known by the vast majority of Americans. In an age supposedly without secrets, when our individual lives are scrutinized and recorded at every turn, such an apparently important event in relation to September 11, that should be taught in high schools and open discussed on every talk show, has been largely kept secret. How did this happen?

The Buildings and Their Last Owners Although amongst the most famous buildings in the world, by 2001, the value of the World Trade Centre was greatly depleted. For many years prior to 2001, these buildings had very high vacancy rates and, because they were built in 1973, had extremely high maintenance costs. The high maintenance costs were not only the result of aging materials but also because the facilities in the buildings, such as the extensive air conditioning system and lifts, were old and in continuous need of repair. Another well-known

255 problem with the Twin Towers was that they offered extremely limited retail space on the lower levels which meant that an alternative source of valuable revenue in the heart of the city was impossible. The buildings themselves were actually filled with asbestos which government authorities were insisting had to be removed by whoever would agree to lease these obsolete buildings. The buildings themselves were designed to accommodate office spaces as conceptualised in the early 1970s and many businesses simply no longer wanted or could even use this type of space. So, although the buildings continued to be prestigious, many businesses who may have been interested in high rise central New York real estate were simply not interested in renting office space in the Twin Towers. For all of these reasons, aging buildings, aging facilities, high maintenance costs, poor design, and limited retail space, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who was in charge of allocating the lease of the World Trade Centre, had a great deal of difficulty in finding appropriate people interested in leasing these iconic New York buildings. Despite these troubles, a coalition of people, Larry Silverstein, GMAC Commercial Mortgage, Westfield America and Lloyd Goldman (BLDG Management) came together and decided to take out a 99year lease on the complex. All of these businesses and people have deep and abiding associations with Israel and the global Jewish community. Without easy access to the Twin Towers, it would have been impossible to organise the controlled demolition that many suspect was the real cause behind the collapse of the Twin Towers. The primary lease holders of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001 were two Jews, the American Jew Larry Silverstein and the Australian Jew Frank Lowy. Silverstein and Lowy were business partners who leased the World Trade Centre just months prior to the deadly terrorist attacks. For a very small investment, these men would make hundreds of millions of dollars out of the catastrophic attacks and Silverstein at least now has a 99-year lease on not only one of the most prestigious buildings in the world, but now that it is up to date, one with low maintenance costs. Exactly who are these extremely lucky men? Larry Silverstein is a Jewish American Businessman from New York. He is known as an extremely “hard” businessman even by New York standards. Silverstein managed to negotiate with Neil Levin, who was Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for a 99-year lease of the Towers. Neil Levin was previously a vice president of Goldman Sachs152 and also worked as head of the Commission on the Recovery of Holocaust Victim’s Assets which arranged for restitution of property taken

152

As will be revealed in Vol. III of this series, one of the most important businesses for Gnostic Judaism. Goldman Sachs has also been identified as the most important conduit for enabling Chinese influence in the United States. As Hamilton and Ohlberg note in Hidden Hand, “No organization has been more important to the CCP’s campaign to penetrate US elites, or more willing”.

256 from Jewish families during World War II. Under pressure from his Jewish wife, Claudia Cohen, Senator D’Amato (a good friends of Donald Trump) placed Levin as Director of the Port Authority to oversee the leasing of valuable real estate in New York and New Jersey including the World Trade Centre. Because the World Trade Centre was old, expensive and poorly designed, with high vacancy rates, there was not a lot of interest in leasing the $3.2 billion towers. Then, suddenly, for some reason that has never been explained, Larry Silverstein, as he said, “felt a compelling urge to own them”. Silverstein and his business associates were quickly granted a 99-year lease over the buildings on the 24th of July 2001 for just $125 million. No justification has ever been given for deciding to lease these unprofitable buildings. It is true, usually business decisions do not really need to be justified, but, as events have unfolded, there are legitimate outstanding questions as to why this particular man leased these particular buildings at that particular time. There are coincidences then there is suspicious behaviour and Larry Silverstein leasing these buildings at that time is suspicious. It is just another of the many incredible circumstances that seem to surround September 11 that an American Jew with strong ties to Israel, a strong supporter and friend of Netanyahu and a person known to be highly supportive of the global Jewish community, happened to lease buildings that, at least on the face of it, do not appear to be good investments, had been available for quite some time, but in which he had not been interested. Just six weeks after taking control of the buildings, just enough time to wire the buildings up for detonation, three of the World Trade Towers lay in rubble. Again conveniently, Silverstein negotiated special insurance conditions on the Twin Towers in the incredibly unlikely event that the buildings were somehow destroyed. After all, no high-rise buildings in New York have ever been destroyed in the past. Part of these special conditions were that it was believed at the time that the World Trade Centre complex was significantly over-insured. Silverstein and Lowy had insured the complex for $3.55 billion even though replacement costs of the buildings were estimated to be a little over $1 billion.153 Importantly, this insurance policy stipulated prior permission that if the buildings were destroyed then not only would the lease holders be permitted to rebuild on the site but that they would be permitted to increase the retail space. This increase in retail space would, of course, address one of the most significant problems with the profitability of the original buildings potentially generating hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue for the owners. If this eventuated, which of

153

The One World Trade center which replaced these buildings did indeed eventually cost $3.9 billion which makes it the most expensive office tower in the world by a significant amount and it might be argued that, therefore, these buildings were actually underinsured. The problem is that Silverstein and Lowy only paid for a replacement insurance and not insurance that would cover the construction of a new improved building. For replacements costs, these buildings were indeed significantly over insured.

257 course it did, it would mean that the value of the site would increase in value significantly. The disaster happened so soon after Silverstein had taken control of the buildings that the insurance policies had not been finalized although they were honoured. Later, despite the insurance not even being settled, Silverstein made two unusual claims against the unlucky insurers. Firstly, he claimed that the insurers needed to pay for a new improved building and not simply pay for the replacement of the existing buildings which his insurance covered. As Judge Harold Baer said in the initial rejection of this claim, “Insurance against technological change and shifts in the political winds may very well exist in the marketplace, but no court has ever found that such coverage is included in a replacement-cost policy.” (emphasis added) The leasers had not paid for insurance that covered the rebuilding of a new premise using new technology but had only paid for the replacement costs of the existing buildings. The difference between the replacement costs and rebuilding a new building should have been carried by the owners. The second surprising feature of the insurance claim was that in 2004, Jewish American judge Michael Mukasey oversaw a decision which awarded Silverstein damages from some insurers for two separate terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. It was argued that each plane represented a separate terrorist attack and therefore there had been two terrorist attacks on September 11 despite everyone knowing that both planes were part of the one scheme. As a result of this judgement, they were entitled to two full insurance payments. This is an extremely counter-intuitive verdict as there was only one asset insured. Each building was not insured separately but the entire complex was covered by one insurance policy. How could there be two separate attacks on one asset? Once the asset is destroyed and, therefore triggering an insurance claim, then the asset cannot be redestroyed by the “next” terrorist attack. An asset does not recreate itself thereby allowing for a second attack. Despite this, in the end, with the help of a sympathetic New York judiciary, Silverstein and Lowy received both money to build new improved buildings, even though they had only paid for replacement cost insurance, and were paid for two separate terrorist attacks on one asset. These decisions meant that Silverstein ultimately received $4.5 billion dollars in insurance payments. This was an astronomical figure that was by far the largest insurance payment ever paid and had repercussion for insurance around the world. The ultimate cost for building a high-tech new building on the now vacant site was estimated to be $3.9 billion. So, Silverstein, and his business associates – GMAC Commercial Mortgage, Westfield America and Lloyd Goldman, received $600 million, a vast sum of money by any measure, and a brand-new high-tech building in the very heart of New York city after owner the asset for just six weeks. Are these not the luckiest men alive? Because the money for rebuilding was initially held up due to ongoing legal squabbles, Silverstein initially did not have the up-front capital to fulfill his obligations to rebuild on the now vacant site. Because

258 of this delay, public pressure was growing on New York authorities that something had to be done to build on the ugly site that stood as a reminder of that terrible event, or the original owners would be forced to forfeit their right to rebuild. This really was a crisis that might have meant that this unbelievable opportunity to rebuild and own the most prestigious real estate in the world would be lost. In this moment of crisis, and this is a nice example of why Jews are overrepresented in positions of wealth, power and prestige in the United States, for reasons beyond anyone’s understanding, George Pataki, then governor of New York and, some claim, potential future President of the United States, ordered the Port Authority to refund Silverstein’s initial $125 million equity on the site while allowing him to retain control. So, for some inexplicable reason, the people leasing a building returned the initially payment to the investors while allowing them to continue to lease the buildings. I wonder how good a businessman I could be if somebody just gifted me $125 million and a building lease for gratis. A sweet deal if you can get it. This was enough money to keep the rebuilding project afloat, continue with reconstruction planning, thereby silencing the growing discontent, until the outstanding legal matters relating to the insurance claims could be resolved. All these matters were resolved very much in Silverstein’s favour. In Larry Silverstein’s world it seems that you win some and . . . well . . . you win some more. For all intents and purposes, legally, the $125 million was a gift from the city of New York to Silverstein of more money than most of us could even imagine. In effect, this now meant, that Silverstein rebuilt the World Trade Centre, the interestingly named One World Trade Centre154, and received the $600 million for nothing. Not only did the conditions of the insurance benefit Silverstein, but his actions on the day are also extremely suspicious. Silverstein was well known to start every weekday with a business breakfast at the “Windows on the World” restaurant high in the North Tower. Silverstein was never known to have missed his breakfast at the ‘Windows’ except on Sept. 11, 2001. On that particular day, of all days, Silverstein did not have his usual business breakfast at the “Windows of the World” because he had a dermatologist appointment. Not only was he fortunately not present in the buildings on the morning of September 11, 2001, as was usual, but none of his family, many of whom worked in the buildings, were in the building on that fateful day. Unlike many thousands of families across America who lost people they loved dearly under terrible circumstances on that terrible day, despite being more exposed than most people to potential dangers, Silverstein luckily managed to avoid personal tragedy. It has to be appreciated that Silverstein is not just any businessman, he is not even just any Jewish American businessman, but he is

154

The idea of creating “one world” or overcoming nations and creating a world government has long been an aspiration of Gnostic Jewry. One of the most active political activists for Gnostic Jewry, Albert Einstein, said, “The only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of world government.”

259 well known to be a strong supporter of Israel and a good personal friend of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Silverstein and Netanyahu were so close that Silverstein would ring Netanyahu personally on the phone every Sunday. Why an American businessman would need to keep in such close contact with a foreign leader is at least curious but, probably more accurately, suspicious. Indeed, all the central actors identified around the events of September 11, 2001, had close associations with the President of Israel. At what point do the coincidences surrounding September 11, amount to the unavoidable conclusion that they are not coincidences at all but clues for answer the question as to who actually did the September 11 terrorist attacks? The Haaretz reporting service reported, “Their collapse [the Twin Towers] was also the collapse of the deal of his life, and since then, he has been trying to put the pieces back together in the face of fierce public criticism, some of it anti-Semitic”. (Leibovich-Dar 2001) With billions of dollars in insurance money, hundreds of millions of dollars from the city of New York, and a brand-new building, I think Silverstein has managed pretty well at putting the “pieces together” and, as there has been absolutely no investigation into Silverstein regarding the attacks or the strange collapse of the buildings, claims of “anti-Semitism” seem, as is often the case, somewhat exaggerated. Larry Silverstein is not the only ‘lucky’ investor on that all-important day. Frank Lowy, Silverstein’s business partner and owner of Westfields USA, is a Czechoslovakian Jew who moved to Australia as a poor immigrant shortly after the state of Israel was established. Despite his financial circumstances upon arriving in Australia, Lowy managed to establish a global retail empire that was worth billions of dollars when he decided to sell his remaining shares in October 2019. Luckily for Lowy, this was really selling at the peak of the market as it was just a few months before Covid 19 struck the world crippling global retailers which would have wiped millions off his assets. Luck really does follow Frank Lowy. Lowy is a thoroughly committed Zionist who passionately supports Israel and other Jewish causes. (Koutsoukis 2008) Lowy, while an “Australian” business owner, as with many Jews, used to spend at least three months of the year in Israel. As a young man, Frank Lowy fought within the infamous Jewish terrorist organization the Golani Brigade. The Golani Brigade fought primarily against the English in support of the establishment of a Jewish state after the Second World War. So, although Lowy was prepared to fight and die for Israel, just after his efforts had been awarded and Israel was established, he decided to leave. Perhaps he thought he could serve Israel better by working in another country rather than remain in Israel. Until recently, Lowy was the well-known and extremely influential owner of the Westfields Shopping Network. Lowy owns shopping complexes around the world with multiple centres in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. He is well known for his absolutely ruthless business tactics, which some have suggested, verge on being more like an organised crime gang. He has incredible political influence and has

260 had the confidence of several Australian Prime Ministers. Despite doing so well in Australia and associating with the most powerful n the country, he has a reputation for his ability to avoid paying taxes in the countries in which he generates his wealth. As just one expression of his political power, Lowy established the extremely influential private Sydney think tank, The Lowy Institute for International Policy which has become one of the loudest voices on international affairs in Australia and is regularly featured as an authoritative commentator on the Australian national broadcaster, the ABC, as well as at academic institutions. He also established the Israeli international policy think tank ‘National Security Studies’ in Tel Aviv, Israel. Through these vehicles he is able to ‘interpret’ global events and shape public opinion that can then be used to leverage government to do his bidding. Lowy’s family has continued his interests, Peter Lowy is chairman of Tribe Media Corp, I could not make these names up if I tried, which publishes the Jewish Journal. Despite Frank Lowy is often being promoted by government officials as the exemplary immigrant who came to Australia with nothing, accumulated a great deal of wealth, and is now a loyal “Australian”, straight after Lowy sold Westfields, thereby no longer being required to live in Australia for business reasons, he quickly moved to Israel where he now permanently resides. Of course, he took hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth made in Australia with him. In 2001, Westfields leased the small shopping concourse area at the bottom of the Twin Towers on a 99-year lease in partnership with Silverstein. The problem with this space, as with the rest of the building, was that the facilities were outdated, and the available retail space was too small to be a valuable income steam to supplement income from office space. Like the rest of the Twin Towers complex, the retail space also suffered from the presence of asbestos that needed to be removed in the very near future. As already observed, as part of the purchase negotiations, it was agreed that on the chance that the Twin Towers were destroyed, there would be allowed a significant increase to the retail space. The new building, of course, has excellent, modern and extensive, retail space perfectly suited to making a profit. Like Silverstein, Frank Lowy made billions out of the tragic events of September 11 through the twin insurance claims that were accepted by a sympathetic legal system. Lowy’s business interests in the World Trade Centre complex were bought out by Silverstein in 2003 for $140 million. Again, a nice profit. This, of course, was above his share of insurance payments. Again, as with Silverstein, Lowy also has long been a close friend of Israeli political leaders including Benjamin Netanyahu. Despite his historical tendency to want to kill the English on behalf of Israel in the years following the Second World War, Lowy was recently knighted by the Queen of England in 2017. Both Frank Lowy and Larry Silverstein are known and committed Zionists who are well connected to the powerful elite of global Jewry. They had only leased the Twin Towers a matter of weeks prior to the

261 terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This would be just enough time to wire and charge the buildings. The reason for leasing these difficult, aging, unprofitable buildings has never been explained. They both made literally billions out the attacks through the doubling of the insurance claims, controlling the new building, and other forms of payment related to the Twin Towers such as government largess.

The Significance of the Date One aspect of the attacks on September 11, 2001, is the centrality of the date in narratives around these terrorist acts. The attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are not known to history as ‘the attack on the Twin Towers’ or even ‘the attack on the World Trade Centre’ but it has become known to everyone as ‘9/11’. This framing, of course, is not something that has just happened, it is not just a popular expression, but was used from the very earliest reports in the media and by government. If this attack was planned, then why name an event after the date on which the event occurred? The most obvious answer to this question, why there was such an emphasis on the date of 9/11, was because 911 is the emergency number in the United States. These numbers, like the emergency services number from any country, are drilled into Americans from childhood. Dialling 911 is the correct response to an emergency. This, apparently, is the exact atmosphere the Islamic terrorists hoped to create. 911, this is an emergency, the people of the United States must act. Doing nothing is not an option. Act now! If this was what motivated the “terrorists” to select this date for this reason then, it might be wondered, why would Muslim terrorists promote the idea that this was an emergency requiring urgent action? Surly terrorists benefit most through U.S. apathy, complacency and inaction. You would think that the terrorists would want America to do nothing against them but allow them a free hand in the Middle East. The truth is that it was not the supposed terrorists or the organizations to which they were supposed to belong that emphasized the date but the United States media and government. Of course, that events unfolded on this date might just be a coincidence that the U.S. media took up and promoted because it was so meaningful for the and the emergency number simply could not be missed by the media, but this seems unlikely. The numbers are just too symbolic. The reason for emphasizing 9-11-01 might be explained by seeing it as a reference to Torah. In Hebrew, as is common for Eastern cultures, writing is read from right to left. So, 9.11.01 would be read from a Jewish perspective as 01.11.9. If this is read as a reference to the Torah, then it could be a reference to book 1, chapter 11, verse 9. Genesis 11: 9 is, incredibly, the story of the destruction of the tower of Babel. Genesis 11:9 literally reads, “That is why it is called Babel – because the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the earth.” When all the other

262 evidence is considered, this must be more than a coincidence. Indeed, it can actually be read as the key for unlocking the code that is September 11, 2001. Because of the traditional importance of numbers and letters in the mystical Jewish tradition, it would be consistent for Gnostic Jews to hide a biblical reference in an important number or date. So, what might be trying to be communicated if this is a reference to the myth of the Tower of Babel? There are various accounts of what the story of the Tower of Babel is about. In the Orthodox tradition, according to the School of Rabbi Shila, the story of the Tower of Babel is to teach humbleness. This tradition believes that humans built the tower with the intention of piercing the heavens with axes to release the water from the sky so that it would be impossible for God to bring about another Great Flood. This has been interpreted by Jewish scholars as saying that humanity tried to use science and technology to fight God in His domain, but God interrupted their efforts showing the power of God over human technology and the futility of human action in the face of God. This kind of account would necessarily rely on the Oral Torah, the Talmud, for instruction on what the story of the Tower of Babel actually meant. The story, remaining true to the original text, might be read as a warning to humanity about believing that they can find their own way to heaven or that human values are adequate for guiding human actions without the necessary guidance of God. Humanity tried to build a tower to heaven, but God can easily disrupt such undertakings as it is only by being guided by God can humanity be good and find their way into heaven. The Babel myth might be read as a warning that it takes more than human knowledge and technical skill to find your way to God. The story itself deploys an awkwardly phrased sentence, “Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves.”” This sentence, as with the entire story, is said to show Babylonian influences when a King might become famous around the world for building a spectacular building. What is interesting is that this wording really draws the reader’s attention to the line “so that we may make a name for ourselves” or so that humanity can enhance its own reputation, humanity can make itself great. In effect, it is like humanity aspiring to become a God. This account would explain why it is called the Tower of Babel because Babel, in Hebrew, sounds like the Hebrew word for “confusion” so it is a tower of confusion, or a tower built by the confused who believe that they can acquire greatness that could challenge God. But the story then takes what seems to be a change of direction and God says, “If as one people all sharing a common language, they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.” God expresses concern to . . . another God(?) asking them to “go down” to confuse humanity’s language otherwise humanity will be able to achieve anything. God seems to concede that humans can indeed become like God’s but by confusing their language their

263 aspirations are intentionally and actively thwarted. Once again, like the multiple creation stories in Torah, there is one sophisticated section, making what seems to be an important and poignant point about the necessity for humanity to be humble before God if they are to enter Heaven, followed by a section that seems to misunderstand or want to reinterpret the prior section to reach another, almost polar opposite conclusion. The apparently added section would give the Gnostic reader of the Tanach confidence because it seems to suggest that humanity can indeed become Gods after all. This tension in the narrative of the Tanach, almost like there are two distinct books being combined into one, happens time and time and time again in the Tanach.155 The brief story of the Tower of Babel ends with God punishing humanity, not, as one might expect, for hubris but seemingly out of fear of what humanity might actually be able to achieve if they ever realized their power. God’s punishment for their apparent aspiration to become like a God is not that he gives them all different languages, as the myth is so often explained, but that He “. . . confused the language of the whole world”. The story, so presented, is that if the language is not confused then humanity may achieve its aims and find their own path to heaven without God’s guidance. To suggest that there might even be the possibility of finding a way to heaven without God seems to go against the entire Jewish and Christian traditions. According to Braiterman (1998: 63), giving an account of the Story of Babel as interpreted by Buber, “After Babel, Buber taught, the nations must bind themselves together into a single humanity in order to realize God’s dominion upon the earth. Chaos and catastrophe occur when people fail to establish a just and loving common life.” So, at least according to Buber, humanity fails to realize God’s plan, which does not really seem to be an aspect of the story, if they are not united and living without borders. The truth is that there seems to be this continuous portrayal in the Torah of humanity struggling against God, as though humanity is always trying to outsmart God and God is in eternal fear of what humanity will achieve if they ever realise their true powers.156 Why would God and humanity be in conflict when, at least in the Western Christian tradition, a relationship with God is necessary for our true humanity? Interestingly, confusion is exactly what the destruction of the Twin Towers has achieved. At a time when people were really beginning to question U.S. relations with Israel there suddenly is a terrorist attack

155

It is argued by some that this is because there are competing narratives being harmonized or conflicts being resolved in the writing of the text, so some part of the story accommodates one group of people while another section accommodates another. Sadly, it seems as though the less educated, less sophisticated people from Southern Levant had the final word in the ultimate meaning of Torah. 156 It is surprising how so much of Judaism is about fighting God. The word “Israel” itself means to “fight or wrestle with God”. It is as though the Jewish people, or at least a section of those people, are indeed fighting against God. Such a notion would certainly go against the Western Christian tradition.

264 supposedly perpetrated by radical Muslims. The most basic conclusion drawn from this act, so understood, is that Israel has been right all along, and Muslims in the Middle East are dangerous. The only response to this kind of danger, as Israel has shown time and again, is violence. According to what has been presented in this text so far, this really does show that the language is confused. Who might once have been rightly thought of as allies against United States real foe, governments like Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar al-Gaddafi are now all removed because now the United States is fighting as an ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia. We blame radical Muslims for being our enemy while on the side of the Jews when the attack was most probably undertaken by a certain sect of Jews. This is really the primary motivation for the attacks. To confuse. To misdirect. Just like a magician misdirecting attention away from where we should look, we are instead misdirected to look where the magician wants us to look. They are saying, “Look at the Middle East, destroy our common enemies. Don’t be concerned about what is happening at home. Leave that to us” Interestingly, the attacks by the United States in the Middle East have not been primarily directed at radical Islamism. The country that has done more than any other to nurture and fund radical Islam is Saudi Arabia.157 Saudi Arabia today is, for reasons that will be explained, increasingly and explicitly a strong ally of both the United States and Israel. Afghanistan was attacked, and it did adhere to a radical form of Islam, but that group came to power with the support of the United States. After Afghanistan, the U.S. attacked Israel’s Middle Eastern opponent Saddam Hussain. Saddam Hussain was again put into power by the United States to stop the countries earlier support for socialism. Saddam was well known to be fundamentally opposed to the radical Islamic elements in his country as he was a Shia when radical Islamists are most typically Sunni. Removing Saddam has not only further radicalized Sunni Muslims throughout the Middle East as evidenced by the rise of ISIS, but it potentially gave them a much stronger position. The United States removed the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to flourish in that country. After Gaddafi was removed, without the help of the United States this could not have been achieved, radical Muslim Brotherhood Libyans filled out the depleted troops of ISIS to continue their war in Syria to undermine the Presidency of Bashar Al Assad. The United States supported, along with media giant Facebook, the political drive of Muslim Brotherhood Islamists in Egypt.158 Indeed, Egyptian Lawyer Ahmed Nabeel Al-Ganzouri, lawyer and professor in criminal law at Cairo’s Ain Shams University, brought a formal legal case against Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, claiming that he “noticed that Facebook leans shamelessly towards members of the Muslim

157

Another country that is continuously named as a supporter of fundamentalist Islam is Israel. In 2000, Pakistan and Afghanistan named Israel as a supporter of fundamentalist Islam in their countries. (See Ahmed 2002: 358) 158 This is at a time when Facebook and other Jewish controlled internet giants are explicitly marginalizing what they call “white supremacy groups” especially those associated with “antisemitism”.

265 Brotherhood” accusing Facebook of “allowing them to set up many pages that do nothing but disseminate lies about the Egyptian state.” Facebook has unashamedly supported the Muslim Brotherhood by showing a total “lack of neutrality and objectivity”. Al-Ganzouri warned that Facebook was “playing a dangerous role in misleading the youth and society and inciting strife, and intentionally hides away those writers that support the stability of the state and the preservation of its judicial and security institutions.” (Raseef22 2019) These Islamists were removed from power just in time by a vigilant Egyptian army although this heroic act that stopped madness from breaking out in Egypt was, as might be expected, demonized by the Western media. It is widely believed throughout the Middle East that the Arab Spring was instigated by the United States government in collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood to enhance the power of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just by way of introduction, the reason why Gnostic Judaism used the United States to support the Islamists of the Arab spring is because that too are a gnostic movement which seems to have its origins in Sabbateanism. As Miliopoulos rightly observes, “Political religions” are diametrically opposite to the spirit of the traditional religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam itself and rather comparable with ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism, Fascism and National Socialism. It would be necessary to differentiate between specific revolutionary types of Islamism which could be described as totalitarian, gnostic and messianic “political (pseudo) religions”. (Miliopoulos 2013: 127) Muslim Brotherhood is rightly a Gnostic religious movement that is fighting for the opposite of “the traditional religions”. This is what the political Hasidim wanted to support. This was the real aim of September 11, 2001. It was the Tower of Babel. If this tower was not destroyed, then the United States might have navigated its own path to find its “heaven” but the destruction of the towers ensured that they would serve the other side. After September 11, Israel ensured that the soldiers of the United States army would not serve the interests of the United States but that Israel “. . . scattered them over the face of the earth”. Not only were the United States soldiers scattered over the earth but, more importantly, radical Islamists were successfully scattered over the face of the earth as refugees. Most recently, thousands of Afghan refugees poured into the West, when America finally admitted defeat.

Remote Controlled Planes The supposed terrorist pilots who flew the planes on 9/11 had extremely limited flying experience. The limited experience that the pilots did have was only in small, single engine, propeller planes. They had no experience flying any passenger jet aircraft at all no matter the large passenger jet aircraft used in the attacks. The pilot who it is claimed flew the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was named Hani Hanjour. Testimony from those flight trainers that tried to teach Honjour how to fly indicate

266 that he was a totally incompetent pilot. (Hendrie 2011: 6) Independent pilots have officially confirmed that the 360-degree descending turn into the Pentagon that Hanjour supposed performed was an extremely difficult manoeuvre that was beyond the skills of even recreational pilots no matter pilots with the limited experience of the supposed terrorists. As Captain Russ Wittemberg, former U.S. Air Force Pilot then Pan Am and United Airlines pilot for 30 years said, “The government story they handed us about 911 is total bullshit plain and simple. To expect this alleged airplane to run these manoeuvres with a total amateur at the controls is simply ridiculous.” The terrorists had only been learning to fly from July to December 2000 in a propeller driven Cessna 172. So how were the planes made to hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon with such precision? By an incredible coincidence, again, all the planes that were involved in the September 11 attack, including those that hit the Twin Towers, were Boeing 757/767. That is, they were all basically identical planes. This is surprising as it would be expected that terrorists would pick flights for convenience of access on the day and, therefore, there would be a random sample of planes used in the attacks. I cannot see how, with the plan that they had supposedly devised of hijacking a plane and crashing them into key buildings, that one type of plane should be preferred over another. Any domestic jet would have suited their purposes but, what is found, is that the same type of aircraft was used in every event. This might not, at first, appear to be particularly significant. So what? The same plane was randomly selected by the terrorists by chance. This might be the response until it is appreciated just how unlikely that this particular plane would be randomly selected for all flights. To explain, out of all the passenger jet aircraft that fly in the United States, only 45.78% of them are built by Boeing. Already, if chosen randomly, statistics would suggest that only half the planes used in the terrorist attacks would be Boeing planes at all no matter 757/767s. The fact that all the planes are from Boeing is already statistically unlikely. Around half of all the planes that were manufactured by Boeing are 737s. Out of the four planes used, statistically, only one of the planes should have been a Boeing 737. What is found though, is that all the planes are not only Boeing but actually none of them are 737s. Just over 5% of total planes flying in the United States are either a Boeing 757 or 767. For all four of the planes to be a 757/767, which is basically the same plane, has a 0.000006% chance of occurring as a random event. This is approximately a 1 in a 166,666 chance that all the planes used in the terrorist attacks on September 11 would be Boeing 757/767s. As can be seen, the statistical likelihood that these planes were selected at random is practically impossible. We must conclude, therefore, that these places were chosen because they were Boeing 757/767s. The question becomes, therefore, why were Boeing 757/767s in particular chosen for this terrorist attack?

267 It has been widely theorized that the pilots of these planes were so inexperienced that the planes that hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon had to be remote controlled from the ground. (Ahmed 2001: 359-360) There was simply no way that these inexperienced pilots could have successfully performed the flying manoeuvres done on that day. The interesting thing about 757/767s is that these particular planes, more so than others at the time, could be turned into remote controlled aircraft. These planes, unlike any other, have fully integrated flight management computer systems which allow for automatic guidance as a standard feature in both the Boeing 757 and 767. These systems could easily be adapted for remote controlled flight. Such systems have been used for remote controlled flight by the U.S. military since the early 1990s. The technology would be well known to state actors such as, for example, the military of Israel. For another coincidence, Dov Zakheim, the Jewish rabbi who was Comptroller of Under Secretary of Defence when trillions of dollars went missing, was deeply involved with System Planning Corporation (SPC) which oversaw the development of Flight Termination System (FTS). The FTS is a system which is used to destroy target drones or aircraft in the event that they malfunction. The FTS was a fully developed system that was capable of monitoring, remote controlling, interacting and terminating aircraft. These systems could also be used on commercial and military jetes in addition to the standard drone aircraft. Some have speculated, therefore, that it was actually Zakheim who supplied the technology to remote control the planes.159 The claim that the planes that were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were remote controlled might sound a bit too much like a script for a science fiction movie, and indeed, this exact scenario, a plane hijacked remotely to carry out a false flag operation, was used in a television series pilot The Lone Gunman just six months prior to the actual event, but on September 19, 2016, the US Department of Homeland Security managed to successfully remotely hack a Boeing 757 while it sat on a runway using only WIFI access. This hack was achieved without any ‘insider’ support. (Cluley 2017) In the case of Sept. 11, there potentially was access to all the planes prior to the actual attacks. This would only make the ‘hacking’ of the planes so much easier. The reason why all the planes used on September 11, 2001, were Boeing 757-767 is because these planes could be easily remote controlled from the ground thereby removing the skill deficit as a confounding factor in explaining how this mission was successfully completed. If this was the case, then it becomes unnecessary to have actual terrorists onboard as, if the plane was remote controlled, then the pilots would have lost control and would be passengers on the plane like everyone else. It would also mean, as has been suggested for other reasons, that these were state actors. This level of sophistication is far beyond the kind of low-tech operations undertaken by Al-

159

Dov Zakheim was also involved in securing the release of the 5 “dancing Israelis” along with Harvard chair and lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

268 Qaeda operatives in the past. Remote controlled planes explain how the mission was undertaken when the supposed terrorists lacked the adequate skills to perform the manoeuvres and why Boeing 757/767s were used in particular. Although positing remote-controlled planes answers some of the outstanding questions regarding September 11, 2001, it raises a raft of others that are simply inconsistent with the theorised method of the attack and the likely identity of the perpetrators.

Evidence of a Controlled Demolition In 2005, in the final report on the collapse of the World Trade Centre by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it “found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001”. It claimed that “. . .the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of . . . the towers.” Can this unambiguous conclusion stand up to critical scrutiny? The starting point when considering how the buildings collapsed as they did must begin with the simple truth that buildings generally do not collapse the way the Twin Towers and building 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001 as a result of fire even with jet fuel accelerants. The initial theory as to why the buildings collapsed was presented by the Jewish American director of Construction Engineering and Management Program at the University of Southern California, Henry Koffman. Koffman concluded, “The bottom line, in my opinion, is that intense heat from the jet fuel fires melted the steel infrastructure, which went past its yield strength and led to the collapse of the buildings . . .” (Koffman as seen in Hufschmid 2002: 16) This account of the collapse of the Twin Towers would make the collapse unprecedented. In the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Centre Towers, written by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in full agreement with Henry Koffman, it was claimed that, “The collapse [had] been caused by the simultaneous effects of the impact of the airplanes and the fires.” This claim is particularly interesting when it is remembered that Building 7 of the Twin Tower’s complex collapsed about 7 hours after the North Tower supposedly as a result of fire alone at near free fall speed as it was not hit by any debris from the plane and no aviation fuel had leaked through the building. Unbelievably, NIST withheld its report on Building 7 and it was not released until 3 years after the initial report. That meant the report on Building 7 was not made available until 7 years after one of the defining events in American history. Even though Sept. 11 was a defining event, even such an event had lost a lot of interest in a world of 24-hour news cycles after 7 years. The truth is, as Dr. Frank Legge argued,

269 As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur. The organizations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants. (Legge as seen in Fenton 2010) For that reason, the investigators should have begun with the assumption that it was a controlled demolition because no building of this designed had ever collapsed without the use of explosives. To add weight to this conclusion, in February 2005, the Windsor Tower in Madrid caught fire during construction and burned for 20 hours, despite intense fires promoted by flammable building materials left on site the load bearing steel structure remained intact. Although the building was absolutely enveloped in flames, as the video images of the event clearly demonstrate, in a way the Twin Towers and Building 7 were not, the Windsor Tower did not collapse. Professor Thomas Eager of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems concluded that it was simply impossible for the fires on Sept. 11 to get hot enough to melt steel. Steel melts are 1500֯C while jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of just 1000֯C under ideal conditions. These ideal conditions could not have been realised on Sept. 11, 2001 because the mix of fuel and oxygen was arbitrary and not maximized. The fires that were burning in the Twin Towers could not have even reached even 1000֯C which is certainly well short of the heat required to melt steel. (Hufschmid 2002: 16) It must be remembered, all the buildings in the Twin Tower complex were designed to withstand being struck by not just one large passenger jet aircraft but multiple strikes from such aircraft. As Frank De Martini, the WTC construction manager plainly observed, on January 25th, 2001, The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it . . . I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. Not only could the buildings resist the impact from large passenger jet aircraft, but they were designed knowing that such an impact would involve burning aviation fuel flowing through the building. As John Skilling, the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Centre said in 1993, “Our analysis indicates the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be an horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed [but] the building structure would still be there.” (Skilling as seen in Ikonen 2018) Here are people central to the design and construction of the Twin Towers acknowledging that the buildings were designed to withstand being struck by multiple jet

270 aircraft followed by a fire accelerated by spilled aviation fuel. That these statements were being made prior to September 11, 2001, makes it perfectly clear that everyone was aware of the possibility that planes might, either through an accident or through design, crash into the Twin Towers and that they were designed for just such a possibility. The truth is that the Twin Towers were built at a time when buildings were overdesigned in the sense that they were made so that they would be extremely durable. As Robert McNamara, president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia wrote, again prior to September 11, 2001. “. . .the World Trade Centre was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures . . . nowadays, they just don’t build them as tough as the World Trade Centre.” (McNamara as seen in Hafschmid 2002: 17) The official story that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the combined forces of the plane impact and burning aviation fuel has been discredited by numerous experts on various grounds including modelling. As Paul Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan rightly observes, “It is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.” This is not some university radical out to make a name for himself but a former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan saying that the official story is a blatant falsehood. In support of this statement, 1,700 engineers and architects put their names to a report that concluded that the planes crashing into the buildings could not cause the buildings to collapse in the fashion that they did. These were all experts in their fields. One reason for the established story being disproven is because, as can be confirmed by the footage, the fires in none of the buildings were that intense. Indeed, it was literally impossible for those fires to reach a temperature adequate to melt steel. Yes, eyewitness reports and telephone calls from those who were tragically stuck in the building report saying that the fires were indeed very intense and that they were letting off a lot of heat up the sides of the building, but they were not, as a matter of indisputable fact, hot enough to melt steel. If the Twin Towers and Building 7 did not collapse as a result of being struck by airliners and the resultant fire, then how did they collapse? The NIST report was released in 2008 on Building 7 and unsurprisingly concluded, The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down. Although the previous report by NIST was unconvincing, they did not even seem to try to give an account of Building 7. Against this official account, hundreds of respected firefighters and independent eyewitnesses with nothing to gain report that they heard the ‘popping’ sound of explosions as the

271 buildings collapsed. As Ron DiFrancesco, a Canadian who was Manager of Eurobrokers and fled from the South Tower just prior to its collapse, said, We looked back at the Trade Centre, at the tower we had just come out of, and we started to see it, boom, boom, boom, boom, move. And we stared in disbelief, as this took about 8 or 10 seconds, for the whole tower just to go straight down and dissolve into its own ashes. . . My ears were hearing loud explosions at ground level. Very mysterious. Mike Pecoraro, who was in the sixth sub-basement of the North Tower, said that after he heard an explosion, he went to C Level of the basement to see what had happened and found, “There was nothing there but rubble”. (Pecoraro 2002) A police officer, Sue Keane, reported, “[there was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs . . . I can’t tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.” (Keane as seen in Hagen and Carouba 2002: 65-66) A journalist from the Wall Street Journal which occupied a building near the World Trade Centre, wrote, “I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.” (as seen in Bussey 2001) These are not vague reports but concrete accounts reporting being thrown around by explosives and seeing sections destroyed by explosions prior to the buildings collapsing. All reported by trusted sources with no known agenda. Seismic measures of the collapsing buildings from Columbia University Seismology Group show that the South Tower took 10 seconds to collapse while the North Tower took 8 seconds. (Hufshmid 2002: 73) Nano-thermite, a hightech explosive, has been confirmed by scientific experts to be found amongst recovered debris from Ground Zero. (Harrit, Farrer et. al. 2009) When the images of the collapsing buildings are reviewed, the dust and debris can be clearly seen being ‘blown’ away from the building as the building collapses. How could this outward force occur if the building was collapsing downward under its own weight? Jim Hoffman has calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, freefall time from 400 metres, then it would take 9 seconds for the towers to fall. That the buildings collapsed in 8 to 10 seconds, supposedly with the massive resistance of the existent structure to overcome, means that it simply, scientifically, could not fall at this speed. As Philip Berg, the Lawyer of William Rodriguez and 9-11 victim’s family members observes, “There was no question in my mind that those buildings, based on the laws of physics, could not have collapsed without the assistance of a bomb.” The only way of explaining the speed of the collapse is to suggest that the resistance of the building did not exist because the building was ‘removed’ through a controlled demolition. As Hufschmid wrote, “One way to explain the rapid collapse of the towers (and other odd aspects of the collapse) is that explosives were placed in these buildings

272 before the airplanes hit them. Explosives easily explain the dust that flew out of the towers.” (2002: 74) To be clear, the buildings collapsing how they did is not just highly unlikely, the suspicion does not arise because this kind of event has never happened before or since, but that it is scientifically impossible. Other elements need to be brought into the analysis if the speed of the collapsing buildings is to be explained. The explanation given, as Nano-thermite was found at the scene, is that it was a controlled demolition. Although there is suspicion around the collapse of all the buildings in the Tower complex there is none as suspicious as the collapse of Building 7. The official reason for this building to collapse was because of fire, like the other buildings, but this building was not exposed to the accelerant of aviation fuel nor was it struck by a plane. It has to be appreciated that Building 7 is quite some distance away from buildings 1 and 2 which were supposedly destroyed by being struck by planes. Indeed, Building 6, which was hit by extensive amounts of debris and was well alight with fires did not collapse, despite it standing between the nearest North Tower and Building 7. The first question about the collapse of Building 7 is why was it burning at all? Other buildings around the Twin Towers had suffered at least as much damage, if not quite a lot more, yet they were not alight. Even if we accept that somehow debris had entered into this building and, somehow started a fire then how was this fire so intense as to lead to the collapse of the building in a similar, though importantly different, manner to the taller buildings? Building 7 collapsed differently to the two larger buildings in that it collapsed in a more conventional manner of a controlled demolition. From available video footage that captures the buildings collapse, it can clearly be seen to be destroyed from the base as the building collapsed and not, as with the larger buildings, from the top. Video footage of Building 7 collapsing also captures the centre of the roof arching downwards as a result of it falling more quickly than the edges which, again, is indicative of a controlled demolition. As already observed, one of the barriers to establishing beyond doubt that the cause behind the collapse of the building was that they were destroyed by a controlled demolition was because the debris of the buildings were hurriedly removed after the event therefore not allowing further detailed investigation of the cite or debris. It is usually the case that crime scenes are preserved intact until after the evidence has been gathered by investigators to find out the cause of events. This was most certainly not the case for the World Trade Centre. The truth is that on this cite, uniquely for such an event, the demolition crew had more authority than those who hoped to investigate what had occurred. As was claimed in the report by the Committee on Science on March 6th, 2002, “The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access and delayed the [investigators] in gaining access to pertinent building documents . . .” The owners have already been considered and their potential motive for limiting the investigation is clear. That the owners hampered access meant that

273 attempts to secure evidence had to be given by the clean-up crews. This line of authority is unprecedented. Usually authority, as one would expect, usually sat with the investigators and then moving down to the clean-up crews. The first problem was that the investigation was stalled until almost all the rubble had already been removed by the clean-up crews. Dr. Bement of NIST, one of the government agencies that investigated the collapse of the towers, said to the Committee on Science, “. . .[NIST] would possibly consider examining WTC Building 7, which collapsed later in the day.” So, as late as March 2002, 6 months after September 11 after most of the rubble had been removed, Bement from NIST was still only ‘considering’ beginning an investigation into the mysterious collapse of Building 7. Incredibly, as the statement shows, no investigation was already under way into this nation defining event. Other potential investigators complained of the delays to commence their investigations because they were forced to wait for all the rubble to be removed. Investigators were forced to wait before all the rubble was removed before the investigation. Surely that ‘rubble’ is the key evidence to be investigated. This is like waiting for aircraft wreckage to be removed before there is an aircraft accident investigation. It just does not make sense. This hesitancy to investigate may have been the result of Vice President Cheney suggesting the need to “limit” investigations. (Hufschmid 2002: 7) When investigations did commence into the most significant disaster the world had experienced since the assassination of Kennedy, unbelievably, funding was so limited that some scientists were forced to volunteer their free time on the weekends to undertake important research. By January 2002, the situation had deteriorated to such a degree that the editor-inchief of Fire Engineering magazine published an article claiming that the investigation into what happened at the World Trade Centre disaster was “a half-baked farce”. He went on to demand that, “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Very quickly after the event, it became the case that anybody demanding an investigation were labelled a “conspiracy nut” no matter their standing or expertise. (Hufschmid 2002: 5-6) When investigations were eventually undertaken, such as that by Charles Clifton for the Heavy Engineering Research Association in New Zealand, he said in frustration that, “I don’t have access to material/data from the wreckage of these buildings so I am not in a position to make detailed observations.” (Clifton as seen in Hufschmid 2002: 15) The deliberate strategy to stop access and to then remove evidence meant that there simply could not be a proper investigation into the collapse of the buildings. It was also as a result of these same limitations that the first report by FEMA into the collapse of the buildings, released in May 2002, concluded that, “With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” All the material for generating the necessary information required for making a proper determination had simply been removed. This was not and is not good enough.

274

Chesed Cemetery Not only were eyewitness accounts on the day ignored and investigators after the event inhibited but prior warnings that something serious was going to happen were also ignored or, at best, not taken with the seriousness that such reports deserved. 11 months prior to 9/11, in October 2000, a retired IDF (Israeli Defence Force) officer who fought in the Yom Kippur War, who remains anonymous even to this day out of fear of what Israeli operatives would do to him if his identity were to be revealed, was collecting English Ivy Cuttings from Gomel Chesed Cemetery in Newark, New Jersey (a Jewish cemetery), when he overheard people say in Hebrew, “The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.” (Madsen 2024: 46) When one of the men expressed concerns about the upcoming election results which was being contested between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the other replied, “Don’t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.” The power of this evidence is that it was presented by a Jewish eyewitness who had served in the IDF and who had no motive to lie. Indeed, it is positive proof, if it was needed, that we should not look at these kinds of events as being performed by ‘Jews’ at all but by a theo-political movement called ‘Gnostic Judaism’ that promotes a heretical form of Judaism. Many Jews, perhaps the majority, would be horrified to discover that people who identified as Jews perpetrated September 11. It is because of these kinds of accounts and support for the general community that any kind of generalized attack or marginalization of ‘Jews’ in general must be avoided at all costs. Morality is the only response to a movement hoping to nurture immorality. Well intentioned Jews and law abiding Rabbis around the world should become allies with their Christian brethren in uncovering and dismantling this evil theo-political movement so that Judaism can return to its moral righteousness as a leading light to the world. The former IDF soldier who overheard the conversation at the cemetery at Newark did everything that he could to report the information to the F.B.I. Understandably, the man refused to officially give details of what he had overheard unless he was guaranteed protection by the F.B.I. As an IDF officer, the individual would have been only too aware that Mossad was both willing and able to kill individuals, Jewish or not, who interrupted their schemes. The preparedness of Mossad to do away with difficult people even when they are Jewish was evidenced most recently in the suspicious death of Australian IDF officer and supposed Mossad operative Ben Zygie, the so called “Prisoner X”, who appears to have tried to report something about Israel to Australia’s secret service, ASIO. For his efforts, Prisoner X was first imprisoned by Israel and then, apparently, killed. The official story is that Mr Zygie killed himself, but this story is questionable given that he was under 24-hour surveillance. This terrible murder was treated as an internal matter of Israel by the Australian government because Zygie was Jewish and in the IDF despite Ben Zygie

275 being an Australian citizen and that his interactions with ASIO seem to have been what initiated his arrest. If this is how events unfolded regarding Mr Zygie then it not only shows the ability of Mossad to infiltrate ASIO, and this is, as it is in the United States, because of unpatriotic Jews working within ASIO, but how far Mossad is prepared to go to retain secrets. Returning to the overheard conversation at Chesed Cemetery, surprisingly, despite the explosive claims of the former Israeli officer regarding the ‘Twins’, the F.B.I. refused to give the former soldier any official protection and, therefore, the information was never officially reported to the F.B.I. Despite the continued status of the information, not knowing the eyewitnesses name or that the information was never officially reported, that this information, given its source, was not take much more seriously raises real question regarding the integrity of the F.B.I along with the ongoing questions in relation to the C.I.A. To this day, nobody in the F.B.I has been held responsible for their inaction regarding this attempt to thwart Israel’s efforts. The anonymous informant who overheard a conversation at Chesed Cemetery is certainly not the only person who identifies as a Jew who has come forward to comment on the events of September 11, 2001. Most importantly, the American Jewish U.S Marine and U.S Army War College Director, Dr Alan Sabrosky, who has investigated the causes of September 11, concluded that, “It is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.” Sabrosky does not only unequivocally accuse Mossad and Israel of perpetrating September 11 but asked the all-important question that begs to be answered, “Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the U.S Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath.” (Sabrosky: 2009) The unofficial reason given as to why nobody was prepared, in the media, security or military, to publicly state the rather obvious truth that Israel was involved in September 11 was simply, as Fox News reported, “Investigators within the DEA, INS, and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying . . . was considered career suicide.” (as cited in Mir 2011: 342) That is, nobody is allowed to suggest that Israel, no matter American Jews identified as such, might have perpetrated September 11 in public because it is at best the end of your career and, in reality, potentially threatening to your life. This is as true in academia as it is in the media and the defence and security forces. Israel, and Jews, are a no-go zone. Despite the dangers, some, like Sabrosky, have come out in public and accused Israel of being the perpetrators. Indeed, Sabrosky went on to warn, If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering – and the suffering we [Jews] have inflicted on others – is properly laid on the doorstep of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from

276 them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault. (Sabrosky: 2010) The reference to Carthage is acknowledging that Carthage, which was raised to the ground by the Romans, was a Semitic people, like the Jews, and the defeat of Carthage has often been cited as the moment when Indo-Europeans (Aryans) came to dominate the Semitic peoples. Many Gnostic Jews even today express the desire to revenge the slaughter of the Carthaginians by destroying the West. It is out of fear of what might happen if the people of the United States ever learn the truth about September 11 that some who came out with accusations against Israel have been silenced. Israel is known to carry out illegal international assassination. They are not secretive about these acts because it works to silence opposition with fear. One of Israel’s concerns, although because of their power it is one that they are not too concerned about, is that the United States’ citizens will finally discover who is the true perpetrator of September 11, 2001. When discussing the claim that Israel was behind September 11 to an officer from the U.S. Navy as he was being shipped to the Middle East to fight in Iraq, surprisingly to me at the time he expressed sympathy with the idea, but he advised me to keep the idea to myself and to be extremely careful with whom I discussed it with in the future. Being ignorant of how the world worked, I asked the officer what I should be concerned about, after all, I claimed, what could they do about it anyway as I lived in a democratic country which respected freedom of speech. He just reasserted his warning to be careful and left. Make no mistake, to know and communicate the truth of September 11 is to truly risk one’s life and there are quite a few people who know the truth about September 11 but are rightly too afraid to communicate this truth. This is not a game. This is the real world we live in today. It is a world where speaking the truth about the most significant event to have taken place this century must be communicated with the greatest of care as there is a real danger to one’s life. This is the true state of “freedom” that we have in the West today. So many people talk about Russian and China, but we are at least equally suppressed and, perhaps of more concern, by a foreign power. We are systematically lied to over more things and refused access to knowledge and information necessary for knowing the truth to a much higher degree than either Russia or China. The reason why our overlords have been so effective is because they are anonymous. They come to you as a friend, as a fellow countryman, but have nothing but sinister intent towards you if you resist their interests. amongst us and if you do breach their constraints the punishment will not even seem to come from their hand. To properly appreciate the situation that we live in today in Western countries is to begin to move towards some basic understanding of our political realities. We are utterly suppressed. We are totally controlled. We do not live in a democracy and there is no such things as freedom. The only freedom we have is the freedom to destroy ourselves, the freedom

277 to undermine our culture and to destroy traditional norms. We have no freedom beyond the freedom to the chaotic.

The Cover-Up Not only were people who identify as Jews implicated in carrying out the attacks on September 11, but they appear far too frequently in the subsequent cover-up. This is not the place to go into detail about individuals’ actions in the years following the attacks, this task still remains to be done, it is not the place of a document aiming to reveal the movement behind these events to spend too much time on each individual activity. To just give a flavour of the extent of their interventions post-September 11,

•

Alvin K. Hellerstein: A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He has been involved in several high profile 9/11 cases. He is a known Zionist and supporter of AMIT, an organization for educating young Zionist Jews in the United States.160 As will be revealed later in this document, Jews around the world are ‘educated’ into this radical political movement through Jewish youth groups like AMIT. Once initially indoctrinated, sometimes against their parents’ wishes, they are then encouraged to spend time in Israel and do their mandatory service with the IDF. The IDF is one of the main instruments of Gnostic Judaism. Increasingly, it is understood to be a real ‘Jew’ is not to be an Orthodox Jew but to accept the Gnostic agenda; militant, nationalistic, supremist, Zionist, opposed to positive religions, reformist, neo-Hasidic etc., etc. Sadly, many Jews have been corrupted by this process of indoctrination, just like many Christians, as they no longer know what it means to be a “good” person, a good Jew or a good citizen or, indeed, a good anything and this is exactly what they hope with be achieved.

•

Michael B. Mukasey: Oversaw the litigation between Larry Silverstein and the insurance companies after 9/11. It was as a result of Mukasey’s judgement that Silverstein and Lowy were awarded insurance claims for each aircraft strike, as separate incidents, from some of their insurers. Mukasey also prevented a full inquiry into the ‘Dancing Israelis’ and played a significant role in their release. He strongly supported the introduction of the Patriots Act that greatly increases the power of the government to spy on its own population, increase government

160

Such organizations have functioned for years as a conduit for teaching Jewish Gnosticism. Just like Christian children need to be removed from the education and moral guidance of their parents so it is the case for Jewish children. They get a different message, being the chosen by God, a moral mission to redeem the world, and that redemptive process made explicit, but the aim is the same, destroy traditional religiosity in all its forms.

278 powers of detention without adequate overview and is known to personally supports torture. He is known to be a strong supporter of Zionism.

•

Kenneth Feinberg: set up the victim’s compensation fund ($7 billion) that was used to convince 97% of surviving victims to take the money on offer and drop demands for any further investigation. It was, in short, a fund at the expense of U.S. taxpayers to silence the demand for a more thorough investigation into what actually happened on September 11. Many families, who may have lost a large share of their family income and support, took the money and agreed to drop demands for a more thorough investigation. From the perspective of the families, this is certainly not a bad decision as it is extremely unlikely that there would ever be a truly independent and thorough investigation into events around September 11. As individuals, they are better off taking the money and remaining silent, moving on with their lives forever haunted by the death of somebody they loved and needed.

•

Sheila Feinberg: Is a known Zionist who was appointed ‘special mediator’ of the legal suits filed by the 3% of victims who did not accept Kenneth Feinberg’s payment. As might be expect, nothing has come of these remaining cases.

•

Stephen Cauffman: Was put in charge of investigation into the collapse of WTC 7. The unconvincing official position reached by Cauffman’s report was that standard office fires caused the collapse of building 7. As with his fellow conspirators, Cauffman is a well-known Zionist and extremely active in the American Jewish community. The investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, although researched for several years after the report on Buildings I and II were released, has found no surprising results. That somebody could investigate the unprecedented collapse of a high-rise building that collapsed at free fall speed into a pile of rubble no bigger than the buildings footprint without any other known cause except for fire is unbelievable.

From top to bottom, it seems that people who are active members of the Jewish community, are not Orthodox, and are known Zionists, seem to be positioned in the key places that would be required to silence questions, to reach safe conclusions, to encourage others to look anywhere else except at Israel and the American Jewish community. Just that these people would have known the names and addresses of any “troublemakers” is of concern could inform an interesting investigation. In the final analysis, Jews owned the buildings, they were the flight controllers, they were the investigators, they were the journalists, and they were the judges. The quick answer to Sabrosky question as to why the people of the United State do not know what really happened on September 11, 2001, is answered in a preliminary way that will be elaborated later this text, it is because everything that America hears is mediated by Jews.

279 Of course, with so many questions remaining outstanding in relation to September 11, 2001, people quickly demanded answers. In response, shortly after the attack, an organization emerged called the “9/11 Truth Movement” or “Truthers” for short. Their entire agenda can be seen as a strategy to ensure that people who rejected that Islamists were behind the attacks would look in just one direction: it was an “inside job”. Everything that the 9/11 Truth Movement has done since its formation is to ensure that people are not looking anywhere else except at either accepting the official story, Muslim terrorists, or it was the American government. This became just another front, like the Black Lives Matter movement, aimed at causing disruption within the United States, to encourage Americans to fight other Americans and to lose trust in their government. As publisher Kris Millegan wrote (2021), “I went to meetings [of the “9.11 Truth Movement”], only sadly to see them go up in flames of discord, driving interested people and real discussion away.” This was their task, to ensure that there would be no organized ongoing “movement” that wanted to properly investigate what actually happened.161 Three of the most prominent people in the 9/11 Truth Movement were Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas. It was Dylan Avery who was primarily responsible for creating the most influential and widely watched documentary on alternative theories to what actually happened on September 11 titled Loose Change: 9/11 an American Coup. Avery, Rowe and Bermas are all American Jews. Avery raised the funds for the documentary despite being only 18 at the time and having no experience. As with most causes, Gnostic Jews ensure that they control the entire “narrative”, both the fore and against if you like, ensuring that the truth can never get out. Another example is how there has emerged a right leaning movement, sometimes called the “new right”, against the excesses of globalization, political correctness and, initially at least, against the disproportionate power of Jews in the United States. Very quickly after this movement started a Jew, who proudly admits to being a Nietzschean162, named Paul Gottfried, used his money to quickly become the leader of the movement. All political movements need resources to survive so the people who control

161

I’ve seen this same thing happen more than once in Australia. The movement to support Julian Assange is one recent example. Jewish backed organization initially support the movement, organizing printed material, ensure numbers and arrange rallies. Then, when they have become the sole “organizers” they defuse the movement. Organize useless rallies in the middle of summer, arrange rallies in places that are difficult to get to, or ensure that speakers unrelated to the core topic present long rambling speeches that drive people away. It is funny how easily our society can be manipulated. I’ve seen truly mass movements collapse in weeks using these kinds of simple strategies. 162 The importance of observing that he is a Nietzschean will be made clear in the following volume but just by way of introduction, Nietzsche was adopted by the early Political Hasidic movement because he voiced Gnostic beliefs and yet, fortunately, was not a Jew. So, Gnostic Jews could openly advance their agenda as “Nietzschean’s” without have to link it in any way with Judaism in any form. The particular writing of Nietzsche’s that is enthusiastically promoted by the Jewish community was actually shaped while in association with his good friend at the time, the Jewish immoralist Paul Rèe.

280 resource allocation control the entire movement. Gnostic Jews took control of global banking in the 19th century and have determined where a large percentage of investment goes. They now control hedge funds etc., which allows them to determine the destination of even more money and are today putting much of it into China. It was through controlling money the Gottfried simply took over an entire grassroots conservative movement. Indeed, it was Gottfried who first coined the term “alt-right” to characterise this emergent movement. Needless to say, any talk of excessive Jewish power quickly disappeared from their narrative. Instead, Gottfried, who had his doctoral thesis supervised by influential Marxist, the German Jew Herbert Marcuse, rages against American technocrats who, he claims, are driving an agenda of multiculturalism and political correctness. The reason for his opposition, and this is extremely counterintuitive, is because these movements, according to Gottfried, multiculturalism and political correctness, are being driven by, you might have guessed it, Christianity. As Gottfried brazenly argues, “A Christian civilization created the moral and eschatological framework that leftists anti-Christians have taken over and adapted . . .” Just about every social justice movement can be directly traced back to Jewish origins and yet, despite this, it was Christianity that created the “moral framework” for multiculturalism and political correctness. As will be explored throughout this series, this is an absolutely outrageous claim in the extreme. He also argues that for a kind of social Darwinism where some “races” are accepted as being superior to others based on their intelligence or what he terms “race science”. Now it is well known that in some literature on race it is claimed that Jews are the superior race because of their superior intelligence but Gottfried is not explicit on this point. He does speak out against Jewish neoConservatives but not because they are Jews but because they are “. . .Jews and their grovelling or adulatory Christian assistants . . .” so his concerns are not anything to do with their Jewishness but just an observance that they were, like him, Jews, the problem is that they have “adulterous Christian assistants”. Indeed, when you dig down just a little, Gottfried seems to not support very much at all of any substance. As he wrote in 2009, To the extent that anything resembling the historic right can flourish in our predominantly postmodernity, multicultural and feminist society . . . racial nationalism, for better or worse, may be one of the few extant examples of a recognizably rightist mind-set. So, the movement which he funds simply cannot flourish in our “post-modern, multicultural and feminist” world unless it is informed by “racial nationalism”. But who is this “race” that science has proven is superior to every other race and can respond to the excesses of our “post-modern, multicultural and feminist” world? He does not seem to clearly say who is this super race for running the world, but it is most certainly not “whites”. As Gottfried observes, “Where I would draw the line personally is white

281 nationalists. They are not people I would want to include in my alliance.” So, the only possible expression of resistance to the apparent reality of multiculturalism etc., is “racial nationalism”, built on “race science”, but he is personally fundamentally opposed to . . . “white nationalists”. It is funny that a movement that was began by white Christians as a response to contemporary shifts in power and excessive power of Jews now identifies “white nationalism” as the one thing that it most certainly will not support. Again, Gottfried seems to be arguing, “look at everyone else, particularly white Christians, for why the world is how it is but do not ever look at Jews”. As will be discussed, the alt-right is not the movement that was co-opted to serve a new master. Indeed, if any movement emerges that is even slightly critical of Jews and their disproportionate power in the United States, it is quickly taken over, using Jewish money, and redirected until it is exhausted of meaning and collapses. Where, after all, is the altright today? This is the exact role of 9/11 “Truth Movement” or 9/11 Truthers in relation to the 9/11 attacks. They are always organized, always manage to have the numbers when it matters, and they get funding from somewhere so as to be able to dictate the narrative through things like documentaries and publications. In practice, this means that they do not only control the “established” narrative, as told in the main-stream media, but they also control the alternative narrative thereby ensuring that Israel or American Jewry do not feature. As Victor Thorn (2011) wrote, In essence, the ‘9/11 truth movement’ was created prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as a means of suppressing news relating to Israeli complicity. By 2002-2003, ‘truthers’ began appearing at rallies holding placards that read ‘9-11 was an inside job’. Initially, these signs provided hope for those who didn’t believe the government and mainstream media’s absurd cover stories. But then an awful realization emerged: The slogan ‘9-11 was an inside job’ was quite possibly the greatest example of Israeli propaganda ever devised. . . The mantra, 911 was an inside job’ is only partially true and is inherently damaging to the ‘truth movement’ because it shifts all attention away from Israel’s traitorous assault against America. As with many events that have happened over the 20th century, they are initiated and realized by Gnostic Jews, no true Orthodox Jew would ever commit such heinous acts, but then responsibility, as told in the history books, is passed on to white Christians. There was enough truth to the claim that it was indeed, in a sense, an “inside job”, after all many Jews in government were involved and they did indeed play an important role, but it was also wrong enough, excluding their shared identity and the role of Israel, that it ensured that the real perpetrators would never be caught. What is achieved is that there is enough truth so as to raise questions about the role of the United States government, most of whom are loyal patriots who would think of a terrorist attack beyond comprehension, tainting the image of “white America”, but

282 never truly finding the perpetrators. When it is shown that September 11 was not simply an “inside job” then the entire “truth” movement is discredited. Conclusion There is a great deal of evidence that indicates that it was people who identify as Jews are those who orchestrated the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They also covered up their involvement and made sure that no proper investigation took place. As Ahmed wrote, “A full-blown investigation into the facts surrounding the Israeli connection to 9/11 is of immense importance. For there can be little doubt that this brief document overview163 confirms an Israeli connection to 9/11.” (Ahmed 2001: 361) This claim seems shocking, particularly as we are continuously told not to accuse Jews of such things as they are, no matter the evidence, necessarily above suspicion, but, when everything is considered, as presented here, without any resources and just relying on material freely available in the public sphere, is quite persuasive. The ‘Dancing Israelis’, the fact that scientifically a building constructed like Building 7 simply cannot collapse as a result of a low intensity fire as theorised, the Nano-thermite proven to have been present amongst the buildings ruins, the traces of an unnamed explosive material, if it proved to be nano-thermite then that would be material evidence linking the van, the explosives, and the demolition, from inside the “Dancing Israelis” van, is all very strong evidence. This is all evidence that is not being proposed as a possibility but has been confirmed. The theory of remote-controlled planes and the overheard conversation at Chesed Cemetery are obviously weaker evidence, supposition and hear say, but still is interesting evidence supporting the basic thesis that Jews are implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Above this there are the reports produced before the event and the actions that followed this event and, to my mind, I have no doubt that Israel and Jewish Americans were behind the attack of the Twin Towers. That Bin Laden himself both claimed that September 11 was undertaken by Jewish agents who operate as a ‘government within a government’ might be dismissed as being motivated by malice or intended to misdirect the investigation, but, when coupled with knowledge of the historical activities of Gnostic Judaism, which will be revealed throughout the following volumes, there is an obvious pattern of false flag operations designed to manipulate public sentiment to achieve their outcomes. None other than former National Security advisor to Donald Trump, Mike Flynn, who was driven out of government by unnamed forces, claims that there is indeed a “unelected group within Washington effectively running the country without reference to voters”. Flynn said, “We have two separate governments. We have the one that actually gets elected and goes into office, and then you have a

163

Heis here talking about his own volume which is convincing.

283 government inside Washington, D.C. that operates under no rules, no authorities other than their own or who’s ever in charge.” (Flynn as seen on Carlson 2021) Even if Flynn knew who was really in charge, he could not say as he would at best have his life destroyed but, most likely, he would be dead within two years. Many senior figures have made the claim that there is a ‘government within a government’ or a ‘state within the state’ which really runs the United States. Former Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich said on the Larry King Show that he believed that the ‘deep state’, an increasingly common way of referring to unknown forces with their own agenda operating from with the United States government, was responsible for maintaining the conflict in Syria. He claimed that President Obama had actually tried to reach a peace agreement with Putin on the catastrophic Syria crisis but as the negotiations were unfolding somebody, not on the orders of the Obama government, ordered a missile strike. (Kucinich 2018) OF course, this unprovoked missile strike brought an end to the negotiations. It also seems important that the date of the event aligns with a biblical reference appears, when coupled with the other evidence, to be quite persuasive. Some evidence has not even been considered here. For example, on September 18th, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange claimed that somebody had actually profited from the Twin Towers terrorist attacks. They observed that there was an unusually high volume of activity in the three business days prior to September 11th which benefitted if the stock price of United Airlines and American Airlines fell. (Hufschmid 2002: 4) The $2.5 million in profits made from this activity has never been collected. The question, of course, is who were these investors? Obviously, it is evidence that somebody knew what was going to happen and when, but details of the transaction have never been made public. Surely if it turned out to be Muslim investors it would have made front page news as it would have supported the official narrative but, as it did not make the front page, it did not make any page, the identity of the investors remains mysterious, we must assume that it was not a Muslim investor. There is a limit to coincidence and that limit is well and truly exceeded in these cases. The question that emerges from what was revealed in this chapter is not just, why has action not been taken on this evidence that is in the possession of the CIA and the FBI but, more significantly, why has not the media been screaming about no action being taken? As Sabrosky rightly asked in 2010, “Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the U.S. Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath?” It is answering this question that will occupy the remainder of this volume. Why has the media failed to investigate or demand official investigation of the role of Israel and American Jewry played in the events on September 11, 2001?

284 September 11, 2001 was undeniably a defining moment in Western history. The disaster changed so much of the way we live. After September 11, internal surveillance was greatly increased. In the future, if there was social unrest, measures are already in place to not only deal with any disruptions, but the surveillance is such that it will stop any social unrest prior to it taking place. We are all under constant surveillance today. We are regularly searched at public events. We are listened to when we are in private. None of this is paranoia but is based on material that has been leaked by insiders. The capacity to spy on every aspect of our lives has never been so great. We communicate our every thought through the searches we do and the things we write. Our TVs and phones can be easily turned into surveillance devices and have been, regularly, in the past. Not only our every action but our every thought is increasingly being brought under surveillance. We have lost our privacy to the surveillance state, and this was achieved in the aftermath of September 11. Most people have not objected to this steady loss of privacy because they believe that the state operates in their best interests. They are unaware that those who control this technology despise everything in which they believe. If people became aware that those who control this technology are not only malicious but actively determined to destroy their world then this increased surveillance might be of great concern. Sept. 11 changed many things, destructive and illegal military action in the middle east is only the most obvious, but it is this loss of privacy that will, I fear, present as the greatest danger. Those in power, Gnostic Jews, will do everything they can to ensure that their activities remain secret. This volume is intended to reveal the truth.

285

Chapter Two: Jewish Overrepresentation in the United States A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through . . . all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor, he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague. Marcus Tullius Cicero “Israel has one secret weapon that not a lot of countries have. Israel is on the side of God, and we don’t underestimate that.” U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman on May 17th, 2019. “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell Introduction The question that was raised at the end of the previous chapter was why do we not know what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Why, in this so called “information age”164, when we have instant access to all kinds of information from around the world, is what is known about September 11 not broadly known by the vast majority of people? Most people have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of important facts relating to September 11, such as the “Dancing Israelis” or the conclusions of academic engineers in relation to the collapse of Building 7. Not only is much of the available evidence not widely known by the broader public but these aspects of September 11 have not even been “officially”

164

Which should really be known as the “disinformation age” as the instruments of information are being utilized, indeed were created, in order to intensify their narrative, make it pervasive, and to further silence opposing voices.

286 investigated. This failure to fully investigate September 11, would include the general silence in relation to the possible role of Israel and American Jews. The truth is, as investigator of Sept. 11 Philip Giraldi observed in 2015, “. . .the Israeli role, insofar as can be determined, was never seriously investigated at all and any conclusions, if there were any, were never included in the final report.” (Giraldi 2015) The limited scope of the investigation only creates suspicion from those who know about the Dancing Israelis and the number of Jews implicated by the evidence about the role of global Jewry. Looking back on how things have unfolded since September 11, with almost every nation who opposed Israel in the Middle East now ruined, the Israeli economy booming while still receiving massive levels of American “aide”, and now, especially after America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S.’s reputation tarnished, one does not need to look too far to find motives for explaining why Israel and American Jews sympathetic with Israel’s cause might commit the terrorist attack on September 11. Despite these obvious motives, no United States official has ever formally identified Israel as even being under suspicion for being involved in September 11, despite some damning evidence, no matter being thoroughly investigated. It will be argued in this chapter that the reason why neither Israel nor global Jewry were investigated as the potential perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attack was because Jews are so overrepresented in positions of power, wealth, and influence in the United States that they were able to use this power and influence to not only hide their involvement in the attack on September 11 but to ensure that the investigation reached the desired conclusions. In short, people who identify as Jews have installed themselves in positions of wealth, power, and influence in the United States to such a degree that they now effectively control the United States. The majority of the population of the United States has become enslaved by their Jewish masters and it is because of this amount of power that no proper investigation was carried out regarding September 11. As Jews are so astonishingly overrepresented in positions of wealth, power and influence in the United States, and nobody denies that this is the case, the question is, how did people who identify as Jews gain such a disproportionate amount of power that they can successfully commit the most devastating terrorist attack that the United States has ever endured, an attack requiring power within the military, government, law enforcement and media, without even being investigated? This level of control is astonishing, especially in today’s world of high technology and supposed public scrutiny, and yet this is exactly what this regime has managed to achieve. It will be argued that there are, broadly speaking, two interrelated answers as to how Jews are so extraordinarily overrepresented in positions of power, wealth and prestige in the United States. Firstly, Jews are extremely tribal and, therefore, they simply help each other rise into position of power. One interesting thing about Gnostic Jews in particular, is that for them

287 helping the people of Israel, any person who identifies in terms of being a Jew, is a deeply religious obligation that is considered to be as equally as important as obeying Torah and serving God. The centrality of serving Israel in the Gnostic Jewish tradition is important because this conclusion ties in with the second, and most important, reason why Jews are so overrepresented in positions of power in the United States, the collective identity of Gnostic Jews is understood to be synonymous with the immanent aspect of their God, the Shechinah. As those who are assigned to be active on behalf of their God, it is their religious responsibility to create the world, reshape reality, so that it becomes an expression of their theology and, therefore, their reality. The way that this is to be achieved is by changing the “culture” of the United States so that it worships their God. Once American culture has been changed so that it is no longer a Christian culture, but one reflective of the theological beliefs of Gnostic Jewry, then Gnostic Jews165 will thrive. They will thrive because the social ecology, the social “environment”, has become one that is harmonious with their beliefs. For example, if a person is “greedy” in a society where greed is considered a “sin” then such a person would be at best marginalized if not demonized in terms of that person being viewed as immoral. It is not simply that a greedy person would not be successful in a society that thought that greed was sinful, but an immoral person could not be successful. Whereas if that same greedy person lived in a society where being greedy had become not only tolerated but valorised as the most authentic expression of the human condition, after all being greedy is “natural”, then that person would thrive. Today, in the United States, and to a degree across the entire West, it is easier to live and be successful if one is a Gnostic Jew or at least adheres to the values of Gnostic Judaism than to adhere to the traditional beliefs of Christianity. As Ritterband observes, the United States has become a “. . .culturally neutral society, one in which the public arena is secular, allowing a space for Jews . . .” (Ritterband 1995: 379) This chapter will argue that the cultural “neutrality” of America is not simply the result of secularization, but that secularization is an expression of the humanism of Gnostic Judaism. It is by making everyone think like a Gnostic Jew that has allowed them not only a “space” to live without attracting critical attention but has allowed them to dominate the entire society. This chapter will begin by showing to what degree Jews are indeed overrepresented in positions of power and influence in the United States. There will be evidence given for the claim that Jews are grossly overrepresentation in other leadership positions, including, high finance, the legal profession, academia

165

Although Orthodox Jews also benefit from Gnostic Jewish control of the United States, they only benefit in the first sense, in being helped by the people of Israel, but not the in the second, more important sense, in that their values are affirmed by the changed culture of the United States. Orthodox Judaism and Christianity share many beliefs and therefore they, like Christians, are marginalized in a licentious society by at least as much, if not more, than Christians.

288 etc. (MacDonald 1998) If one controls the government, the media, and entertainment, then one can effectively not simply control the country but, more importantly, control what people think. It is controlling what people think that is the main strategy to enable Gnostic Jews to rule the world. Later in this volume, special attention will be given to how Gnostic Jews have managed to control academia and how through this control they have managed to shape the culture of the United States. As Lilienthal wrote when answering the question of how have Jews been able to realise their own political agenda in the United States? It is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has moulded this unprecedented power . . . The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles. . . The extent and depth to which organized Jewry reached – and reaches – in the U.S. is indeed awesome. . . Jews . . .have risen to places of prime importance in the business and financial world. . . Jewish wealth and acumen wield unprecedented power in the area of finance and investment banking, playing an important role in influencing U.S. policy toward the Middle East . . . In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social, entertainment, and art circles. (Lilienthal 1978: 206-228) These words were written in 1978, Gnostic Jewish power and control has been greatly extended since these words were written. Jewish overrepresentation is such that it would be more revealing to speak of “Jewish privilege” in the United States rather than the much more commonly discussed “white privilege”.166 Jewish Overrepresentation in United States Jews have achieved massive levels of overrepresentation in position of power, wealth, and influence in the United States. As Hollinger observes, “By almost any index, Jews are demographically overrepresented among the wealthiest, the most politically powerful, and the most intellectually accomplished of Americans”. (Hollinger 2004: 596) Nobody disagrees with this claim. This overrepresentation in business, government and academia, has allowed Jews to realize a great deal of power in the United States. As Whitman observes,

166

The claim that American Jews did indeed experience “Jewish privilege” in the United States was raised but the Jewish lobby quickly reacted and shut the entire discussion down as an example of “anti-Semitism”. All references to “Jewish privilege” are now automatically removed from online sites. You can claim has loud and as often as you like that white Americans have “white privilege”, a dubious claim indeed, but you are not allowed to make the much more convincing claim that Jews are privileged in the United States. To my mind the truth of Jewish privilege is verified in their ability to shut the claim down in a way white people simply cannot.

289 The Constitutional prohibition against a religious test for public office167 has permitted Jews to participate in the nation’s service to so complete an extent that, if constituents have sometimes had trouble seeing their officials, it may be because on Friday the senator left early.168 Politicians of Jewish birth have held, on one recent legislative session, as many as eight seats in the United States’ Senate and four times that number in the House of Representatives. In the past two decades or so, Jews have chaired the Council of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Security Council, and headed the Department of Defence as well as the American delegation to the United Nations. They have run the post office and the Department of Transportation and quarterbacked the negotiating team on arms control with the Soviet Union. Were it not for a scandal involving Abe Fortas, who had a knack for collecting checks the way other citizens collect stamps, a Jew would have become chief justice of the United States in 1968.169 (Whitman 1988/2015: 4) The political success of this particular minority group, which constitutes, as already observed, only about 2.5% of the United States’ population, was historically expressed by the fact that, “causes such as the defence of Israel and the emigration rights of Soviet Jews are by now almost as uncontroversial as farm subsidies and veteran’s benefits.” (Whitman (1988) 2015: 4) The causes for which American Jews fight for today may have changed but the power that this minority wields has only greatly increased. That Jews have this control over the United States is in no way a secret and when discussion are had freely many Americans express concern about this excessive power and control. As even President Netanyahu himself boasted on Israeli T.V. when talking to Israeli settlers, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.” Quite a claim to be made by a leader of an extremely small country clinging onto the edges of the Near East. The contemporary power of Jews to control the political landscape of the United States was shown when long serving career politician in the U.S. House of Representatives for Alabama, Earl Hilliard, voted against a bill to increase U.S. funding of the Israeli military in 2001. Although Hillard had been a comfortable winner in the past, his task became very much harder as a result of his electoral district being suddenly significantly altered as an act of “redistricting”. The redrawing of electorates has been a strategy

167

Article VI of the United States Constitution says, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Perhaps affirming the United States as a Christian society might be one of the first steps to limit the powers of those who hope to destroy the United States. 168 The suggestion, of course, is that they have left to attend their synagogue. 169 That is, if Abraham Fortas had successfully become the chief justice of the United States, they would have had a totally corrupt chief justice and not just a corrupt judge on the Supreme Court. Fortas was found guilty of having taken a considerable sum of money so that he would advocate on the behalf of Louis Wolfson to President Johnson. Wolfson was convicted of violating federal securities laws and was sentenced to prison.

290 that has been across the Western world to ensure politicians Jews want to see win elections are successful. As though responding to a call to some collective call to action, Jews across the United States poured money into the campaign coffers of Hilliard’s opponent, Artur Davis, who became an outspoken and unconditional supporter of Israel. In the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, a prominent Israeli newspaper, noted that amongst the names of campaign contributors to Davis’ campaign there were, . . .10 Cohens from New York and New Jersey, but before one gets to the Cohens, there were Abrams, Ackerman, Adler, Amir, Asher, Baruch, Basok, Berger, Berman, Bergman, Bernstein and Blumenthal. All from the East Coast, Chicago and Los Angeles. It’s highly unlikely any of them have ever visited Alabama . . . The point being made, of course, is that these people who were funding Davis to beat Hilliard were primarily Jews and that they were not funding Davis because they were interested in his political record in Alabama, they did not care one bit about Davis’ attitude on tax, employment, or health care, they were only interested in one issue and that one issue was helping Israel. When Jews identify a politician, like Hilliard, as having “a problem in his votes”, in not supporting Jewish concerns, as sometimes happens in Australia, then they simply ensure that they are removed one way or another. In the Presidential elections, in the 1990s, Jews were responsible for up to half the campaign funds of the Democratic party. (Goldberg 1996: xxii) Jews are able to pour so much money into influencing political outcomes because they are so overrepresented amongst the wealthiest of Americans. It is that they have wealth and that they are prepared to use that wealth strategically to influence power to serve their interests that partly explains the extraordinary, disproportionate power that Jews have over American politics. To briefly present just one example of what Jewish political power has realised in the United States one need look no further that the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. In 2004, during the Bush administration, the U.S. government, under pressure from the “Israel Lobby”, created the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. It was claimed that this institution was just one of a multi-tiered response to the attacks on the Twin Towers. Officially, the office was responsible for, “safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats”. The true reason for the organization, according to Giraldi, is “safeguarding Israel’s perceived interests”. Although this organization has chased financial organizations and charities that support Palestine, it, . . .has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation

291 financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons complex. (Giraldi 2018) The reason for this “blindness” is because its members are predominantly Jewish. The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated within the Treasury while coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government and pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC. Levey is a passionate supporter of Jewish issues and an advocate for Zionism. Levey was replaced by David Cohen. Cohen, like Levey, was also a well-known advocate for Jewish issues and a passionate Zionist. In turn, Cohen was succeeded by Adam Szubin in 2015 who was replaced by Sigal Pearl Mandelker. Mandelker is actually an Israeli citizen.170 All the heads of OTFI have been committed Jewish Zionist. All have been seen to work closely with the Israeli government and all travel regularly to Israel, despite being paid by the U.S. government by money from the people of the United States, to have high level meetings with Israeli government officials. The OTFI generates a list of names of people who face sanctions and enforcement options. This list includes Islamic charities and people critical of the Jewish state but does not list one single Jew. The OTFI is not unique. There are other institutions embedded within the United States government that are populated and ran by Jews for Jews. These Jewish controlled organization are the government within government. They pop-up throughout the larger U.S. government to serve a number of purposes. OTFI is just one example of many where Jews have directly interfered with or controlled the United States to further the interests of Israeli’s and Jews. These institutions are funded and supported by Americans but advance the interests of Jews.171 This is the extent of Jewish infiltration of the United States government, it is no longer about lobbying but about directly controlling the instruments of government to serve their purposes. One function that these Jewish controlled American institutions can be seen to do is to further the economic and strategic interests of Israel whatever even if it harms the interests of the United States. Jewish support of Israel was shown with the creation of the “US Israel Free Trade Area”. In the mid-1980s, a decade before the Chinese trade deal, the Israeli state was in real economic trouble. It had an annualized inflation rate of about 400 percent, a budget deficit of about 17 percent of GDP and a massive current

170

As in fact are all people who identify as Jews. All Jews are considered citizens of Israel. If a Jew is visiting Israel and war breaks out, then they are drafted into the army like any other Israeli citizen. This fact has political implications in places like Australia where you cannot be dual citizen of any other country and be a member of parliament. Although this is the case, many Jews have successfully been members of the Australian parliament. In fact, either this law must be changed allowing dual citizens or Jews should not be allowed to members of the Australian Parliament. 171 Once again, it would just be inaccurate to say “Israel” because they serve to benefit global Jewry.

292 account deficit which drove down Israel’s foreign reserves. (Bahar 2016) The greatest problem with Israel not economically performing was not simply what this meant for Israel and the people who lived in Israel but, more importantly, how this looked to the world. Jews were supposed to be the master race, the next evolutionary step in human development, the rightful leaders of the world, and yet their economy a joke. They were intentionally promoting themselves as being naturally more intelligent than other people and yet they were performing so poorly. How could Jews be expected to run the world when they struggled to run their own little country? Beyond the real crisis of the Israeli economy, the global optics did not look right. In response, Israel begged the Reagan administration for billions of dollars in emergency aid above and beyond the massive aid program that was already propping up the Israeli economy. The problems facing the allocation of even more funds to support Israel was that the public were beginning to ask why America was spending so much money propping up an advanced economy? The greatest barrier to further financial support for Israel was public antipathy. Not for the first time, some people in the United States had started to question the need for the massive levels of financial support being granted to this developed foreign state when states within the United States were in desperate need of housing and infrastructure. To overcome this barrier, the Israeli’s proposed to hide the aid by making a trade deal that greatly benefitted Israel. Such a trade deal would allow Israel to receive millions of dollars from the United States without it being labelled “aide”. Interestingly, the same strategy that would later be used to the benefit of China. Stanley Fischer wanted the US to unilaterally lower all of its tariffs on Israeli exports without the United States receiving anything in return. This would mean that it would be much cheaper for Israel to export their goods to the United States without having to lose anything in return to American businesses. Such a strategy would address the Israeli budget deficit, greatly improve the current accounts deficit and address inflationary pressure, without attracting too much public attention. US business groups, upon hearing of this “deal”, were horrified. It seemed that many American industries would face impossible competition from Israel without getting anything in return. American business interests began an organized effort to fight against the proposed free trade agreement with Israel. The fear was that Israel would get privileged access to US markets without American businesses getting the same access to Israeli markets. These were people from the Republican heartland who would suffer, and their concerns could not be easily dismissed by the Reagan administration. To persuade the US government not to go ahead with the FTA, US businesses made a formal submission identifying a number of key reasons why the U.S. should not sign the FTA. It is at this point where things go crazy. If Jewish lobby groups were going to address the concerns of the US business lobby, they needed to know exactly what was in the undisclosed submission. Somehow, it has never been revealed how, Dan Halpern, the Israeli Minister of Economics,

293 did manage to obtain a copy of the submission prior to its publication and quickly passed it onto the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). With this insider knowledge, AIPAC knew what they needed to respond too in order to allay the fears of politicians concerns about the negative effects on American businesses. When the FBI investigated the theft of government property, Dan Halpern was protected by diplomatic immunity from being investigated or being forced to reveal his sources. (Smith 2018) The FTA with Israel did proceed, and it has been amongst the worst trade deals that the United States has ever made. The only other catastrophic trade deal was the one made with China that effectively poured billions of U.S. dollars into the pockets of state ran Chinese businesses. The Israeli economy was turned around at the cost the people of America. They are so economically successful that in 2012, the science and technology advisor to the United States Secretary of State, Dr E. Williams Coglazier, claimed that the economic practices of Israel were now a “model for the world”. (Ordman 2012) The Israeli economy was doing so well that its practices were now understood to be those to direct the global economy. Now that is the optics that Israel wants. If Jews in the United States have been able to ensure the election of particular politicians to achieve their strategic and economic interests by establishing government organizations that appear to represent their interests and to shape American trade policy to benefit Israel and their allies like China, then how is this achieved? How do Jews have so much control that they can manipulate the American political system? The basic answer to this question is that Jews are massively overrepresented in positions of wealth, power, and influence in the United States. Perhaps the most informative, highly respected, recent research undertaken on Jewish overrepresentation in the United States was done by Richard Lynn in his 2011 research project, The Chosen People. Lynn found that Jews were indeed massively overrepresented in many sectors of American society. To present the results of his research in clear terms, Lynn used what he termed “achievement quotients” to quantify Jewish overrepresentation. An achievement quotient of 1 means that representation is proportionate to population. If men, for example, make up 50% of a population then an achievement quotient of 1 would be that they constitute 50% of a cohort. An achievement quotient of 2 would mean men constituted 100% of a cohort in being overrepresented by 2 x their population. For Jews, proportional representation would mean that they constitute approximately 2.5% of any cohort. If Jews were to have an achievement quotient of 3 then there is an overrepresentation of three times greater than their proportion of the population or 7.5% of a cohort. Just to give the following figures some context, an achievement quotient of 5 is massive and really would require an explanation. Anything higher than that would be indicative of a deliberate conspiracy. Lynn’s research found,

294

• •

•

Jews in the professions: There is a massive overrepresentation of Jews in the professions, with an achievement quotient of 5.8 for psychiatrists, 4.0 for dentists, 3.8 for mathematicians, 3.7 for doctors, 3.4 for writers, 3.3 for lawyers, and 1.7 for architects. Academia: Jewish overrepresentation becomes even more acute at elite universities. Jews in elite university faculties have an achievement quotient of 13.3 for law, 12.6 for sociology, 10.4 for economics, 9.6 for physics, 8.9 for political science, 8.1 for history, and 7.4 for philosophy. These statistics would suggest that although there is an overrepresentation of Jews in various professions, Jews seem to rise into academic positions disproportionally far higher than their representation in the professions. So, they constitute an achievement quotient of 3.3 as lawyers but have an achievement quotient of 13.3 in law departments at elite universities. This phenomenon was repeated across all professions researched. In short, the higher up the ladder of success one cares to look the greater the overrepresentation of Jews. These numbers might not look that significant but remember, if only white males filled every possible professional and academic post, that would require an achievement quotient of just 3.3. An achievement quotient of over 10 is absolutely extraordinary. Nobel Prize winners. Of the 200 American Nobel Prize winners, 62 (31%) were Jewish. Since Jews constitute about 2.5% of the American population, they have an achievement quotient as Nobel Prize winners over 10. Lynn was very conservative in his assessment and did not include Jews who resided in the United States but were not born in the United States such as Albert Einstein. Lynn noted that 33% of American Nobel Prize winners

in the second half of the twentieth century were Jewish. He said that many Jews only arrived in the U.S. between 1881 to 1924. Upon arriving, these immigrants earned their livings through skilled manual labour such as tailoring or Jewellery.172 Lynn believes that it took a generation for Jews to establish themselves and achieve a level of wealth where they could afford a good educations. What is extraordinary though, is that within a generation of arriving in the United States, Jews were dominant in many influential academic disciplines such as anthropology. It might also be the case that the traditional values of universities in the United States excluded Jews but as the culture of these institutions changed to be more harmonious with Jewish values then their perceived academic performance improved. •

•

172

Mathematics. Jews have particularly excelled in quantitative pursuits. Lynn found Jews realized an achievement quotient of 7.4 in mathematics faculties at elite universities. Again, this overrepresentation increased the higher up the ladder of success one cares to look. The Jewish achievement quotient is 10 for recipients of the annual William Lowell Putnam Competition, an elite competition intended to show excellence in mathematics. This overrepresentation only increases again in the award of the prestigious Fields Medal or Wolf Prize, awarded for academic excellence in mathematics, where Jews had an achievement quotient of 16. That is nearly half of those academics awarded the Fields Medal have been Jewish. Music. In the field of orchestral music, the Jewish achievement quotient is 7.2 for musical instrumentalists, 10.0 for virtuosi, 12.8 for conductors. Again, the higher up in the field of orchestral music one cares to look the greater the overrepresentation of Jews. Jews are

They were also massively overrepresented amongst organized crime gangs most especially “Murder Inc.”.

295

•

•

also massively overrepresented amongst composers, realizing an achievement quotient of 6.7. Pulitzer Prizes. Lynn reported that Jews have won 52% of the Pulitzer Prizes for non-fiction, 15% of the awards for fiction, 20% for poetry, and 34% for drama. Working with the figure of 2.5%, that means that Jews have received an achievement quotient in Pulitzer Prize awards of 26, 7.5, 10, and 17 respectively. These are massive numbers. Media. The American Broadcasting Company (ABC), the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) were all founded and ostensibly ran by Jews. In 1990, Jews were CEO's of all the top-10 entertainment companies. Lynn wrote, “The newspapers, too, have become largely owned by Jews.” The New York Times, Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, and U. S. News and World Report are owned and ran by Jews. (Lynn 2011)

What did Lynn make of this massive overrepresentation of Jews in areas of wealth, power, and influence? Was he concerned that people who potentially held very different values to mainstream Christian America were deeply ensconced in positions of power in such a way that they could shape American culture? Not at all. Lynn argued, and this would be necessary if he was to be published, that as Jews make such a positive contribution to so many areas of human achievement that they should actually be considered a blessing for the United States. Lynn argued that Jews contributed so many positives to the communities in which they lived that they should be considered a quantifiable good. (Lynn 2011) Lynn is certainly not alone in believing that Jews are an unconditional good for those amongst whom they live. American academic Oystein claimed, Historically, there is empirical evidence that every nation that has protected the rights of Jews living within its borders has prospered. In the Middle Ages, Spain and Portugal treated Jews within its border fairly. The Jews supported the building of these nations. Spain and Portugal became the most developed nations on earth. (2012) Oystein concludes from these two supposed examples, Spain and Portugal, that all countries benefit if they treat Jews well and allow them to thrive within their communities. What Actually is Overrepresentation? As with most of the extremely limited literature that actually explores Jewish overrepresentation in the United States, Lynn does not consider the question if people should be concerned that Jews are so overrepresented in positions of power, wealth, and influence in the United States. After all, the contemporary general attack against “white males” is justified on the grounds that they are disproportionately represented in position of wealth, power and influence and there should be more proportional representation that reflects the diversity of the population. Women, it is argued, make up around 50% of the population and yet are extremely underrepresented in positions of wealth, power, and

296 influence. So, why are not similar arguments being made against Jews? They are a population with much greater overrepresentation in the United States than white males and yet nobody ever suggests that Jewish overrepresentation is a concern.173 Indeed, American Jews are counted as white males when looking at proportional representation although they themselves clearly identify as a distinct cohort. That nobody is concerned with Jewish overrepresentation might be because, despite claims being enthusiastically raised against white males, overrepresentation is never unambiguous. For example, it might be argued that if Jewish interests are in perfect alignment with the rest of the population, as was historically assumed regarding white males, then it does not matter if Jews are “overrepresented” in position of wealth and power because such overrepresentation would become meaningless. Indeed, claiming overrepresentation would not even make sense under such conditions because white males would not constitute a distinct population. That is, if white males, in pursuing their own vision of what is “good”, had a set of values that were perfectly aligned with everyone else in a population, then it would not matter if white males were indeed “overrepresented” because they would not represent a distinct cohort. Under these conditions, they would not constitute a discrete “interest group”. In a sense, “white males” simply could not be overrepresented in a society where everyone held the same values because white males would be indistinguishable from everyone else unless one were considering arbitrary distinguishing features. White males would actually be the cohort which they represented therefore could not be viewed as overrepresented. It would be like saying your right hand is overrepresented in relation to your left hand. It is only by arguing that women have a distinctly different and shared understanding of the kind of society that they hope to realise that “proportional representation” of genders becomes an issue of concern at all. Should Americans be concerned with Jewish overrepresentation in positions of power, wealth, and influence in the United States? It has to first be asked do Jews advance their own distinct political agenda that is not perfectly harmonious with those amongst whom they live? Perhaps people are unconcerned with Jewish overrepresentation, unlike white men, because it is believed that Jews simply hold the same values as everyone else. They do not constitute a distinct cohort. For example, nobody asks if Jews are overrepresented in positions of wealth, power, and influence, in Israel because Jews are Israel. They do not form, it seems to be accepted, a specific interest group within Israel and therefore rightfully

173

Indeed, in many areas where there appears to be white male overrepresentation it is actually because Jews constitute a large proportion of that overrepresentation. When Jews are excluded from being counted as “white males”, as they themselves do not identify in these terms, then often the evidence for white male overrepresentation disappears. There is no better example of the apparent overrepresentation of white males which does not really exist than Hollywood.

297 fill just about all the positions of wealth and power in Israel. All the judges on the Israeli supreme court are Jewish, despite Muslims constituting a significant percentage of the population, but this is not a political concern. It was perhaps with this belief in mind that the American Jew Silverman claimed when answering the question if Jewish overrepresentation in the United States was a concern, “Not in principle, no. All people are deserving of the rewards of the energy they invest in achievement.” Putting aside whether Jewish success is simply the result of “energy” for the moment, the interesting thing about Silverman’s response is that he does not actually address the question. It is like answering concerns if white male overrepresentation is a problem by replying that everyone deserves to reap the rewards of their efforts. The moral argument that a person is justified in reaping the benefits of their efforts and the moral question if overrepresentation is a concern are two different concerns. The former is a question of merit, which is worthy of consideration but not being raised here, the latter, by contrast, is a question of power. It is like questioning disparity of wealth and answering that the wealthy work hard for their money, working hard may suggest that they are morally deserving of their wealth, but it does not answer the moral question of inequality. The point is, overrepresentation is not simply about a certain cohort being disproportionately presented in positions of power, but it is a question about a cohort being identified as such. For example, there are never any arguments today that people over six feet tall are overrepresented in positions of power, although this is probably true, but we are not concerned with this fact because height is not thought to significantly for determining interests. Today, many would believe that an executive board that had 50% representation of both men and women had proportionate representation because today gender is understood to be a significant indicator of interests. As long as all “interest groups”, understood as such, are proportionately represented then there is no overrepresentation. There is proportional representation. Understood in these terms, it really becomes a question about “insiders” and “outsiders”. Men and women, until recently, were thought to be “insiders” in relation to each other. Like people over 6 feet tall, it was believed that men and women shared the same aspirations and desired to realize a collective benefit therefore anyone from within this group was considered as being just parts of the whole. Gender is an example where a fracture in society has occurred, or been created, and today it is perceived that men and women do indeed have different aspirations and men serve their own interest, so women need their own representation to address this bias. It is because of this perception that women need to represent their own interests that gender has become significant in relation to considerations of power. Not that long ago, whether you were a Catholic or a Protestant was considered important for determining what kind of society you wanted to realize in European and European influenced countries. In Western,

298 Northern and some Central European countries, Protestants were considered “insiders” while Catholics were “outsiders”. This was reversed in some Central and Southern Europe states. What we see today, is that contemporary society are increasingly riven with fractures that are perceived to be significant and therefore potentially significant regarding the distribution of power. Jews are certainly not strangers to the question of whether they should be considered insiders or outsiders. Famously, Jews have fought for millennia to retain their own distinct identity and values because it was believed, as Jewish scholar Andrew Heinze observes, that there is “an essential cultural difference between Jews and Christians” (Heinze 2004: 73). It was that Jews did indeed prize their own unique Eastern cultural values that, according to Jonathan and Daniel Boyarin, “the diasporic genius of Jewishness, that genius that consists in the exercise and preservation of cultural power separate from the coercive power of the state.”174 (Boyarin & Boyarin 2002: vii) They viewed Christian “states” as being “coercive” because they were thought to try to influence Jews into becoming what Jews understood as being more “Christian”. Jews fought extremely hard, especially from the late 19th century, to retain their distinctness which they believed was superior. From first arriving in the United States, Jews felt divided loyalties between their obligations as Jews and their obligations to their newly adopted county, “Jews, like blacks, were especially prone to ponder the problem of a split ethnic American identity. Jews possessed a high degree of ethnic self-awareness . . . and they felt their marginality within Christian civilization.” (Heinze 2004: 30) For well over a century, Jews aspired “to create a moral space within European and American culture, from which to secure themselves as citizens and to purge the evils they associated with Christian civilization”. (Heinze 2004: 3) These different demands are nicely captured in a story told by Sigmund Frued, A Galatian Jew who was riding in a train had made himself very comfortable; he had unbuttoned his coat, and had put his feet on the seat, when a fashionably dressed gentleman came in. The Jew immediately put on his best behaviour and assumed a modest position. The stranger turned over the pages of a book, did some calculation, and pondered a moment and suddenly addressed the Jew, “I beg your pardon, how soon will we have Yom Kippur? “Aha!” said the Jew and put his feet back on the seat before he answered. (Freud as seen in Heinze 3004: 64)

174

This is, as with so much, a thorough misrepresentation of the past. According to Boyarin & Boyarin, it was extremely difficult, an act of genius, to fight against the coercive forces of Christianity and maintain their own identity. Nothing could be further from the truth. For centuries the local Christian aristocracy did not try to undermine Jewish identity but did everything that they could to ensure Jews adhered to the Jewish tradition. It was the local Christian authorities, sometimes at the request of local Jewish leaders, who were responsible for punishing Jews for breaking with their laws. Yes, sometimes there were attempts to convert the Jews en masse but this was an exception to the rule of general support for the sometimes quite disliked Jewish leadership.

299 The point is, of course, that the moral expectations of Western culture, to be a “gentleman”, were experienced as a burden that Jews were forced to express in Christian societies. This story shows that both the entrant to the train and the Galatian Jew were both putting on a kind of performance of being “Western” but, when that constraint was not in place, such as in the company of other Jews, then they could behave freely.175 Historically, this “out sidedness” was nurtured by Jews in order to maintain their own ethnic identity but, later, some accommodations were made so as to better enable Jews to change Western civilization to reflect their own “moral” position.176 What Judaism is has most definitely changed significantly over the centuries but the desire to remain a “people apart” has been a constant. Despite wanting to retain their own distinct ethnic identity, any attempt by Christian cultures to marginalize Jews, as a result of them wanting to remain be a “people apart”, has been met with quick accusations of “antiSemitism”. If Westerners treat Jews as Jews, holding distinct values, then they are portrayed, as the earlier quote from Freud evinces, as coercive. Even historical attempts to acknowledge that Jews want to retain their own distinct identities and values and that they historically did not want to assimilate the rest of society, which is a common theme in their literature, is today portrayed as proof of Christian prejudice. The position of Jews was always to both retain their own distinct values and identity while having no restriction placed on them holding positions of power within the societies in which they lived. With a little reflection this is a strange position to demand. As already observed, legitimate leaders are thought to hold the same values as those over whom they lead. It is when it is perceived a cohort’s values are not harmonious with those over whom they lead that they loose legitimacy as, it might be argued, has happened with “white males”. Jews, by contrast, have insisted on retaining a distinct identity with distinct values that are outspokenly opposed to Christianity and yet have, at the same time, insisted that they should not be prohibited from holding positions in universities or government. For example, if I were to argue that homosexuality was immoral, I would not be able to build an academic career today based on that argument as it would be seen as being radically inconsistent with the values of the society in which I live. Gnostic Jews, no Orthodox Jews, have argued for over 100 years, as will be shown later in this volume, that homosexuality is acceptable, normal and natural in Christian societies that opposed these views and

175

This also captures what has changed, to live as a Christian Westerner today is to be a foreigner in countries once considered your own. To dress neatly, to appreciate art, to find crassness repulsive, to embrace sexual restraint, would mean that you are now like the Jews on the train, an outsider. 176 The casualization in clothing, no longer adhering to the dictates of “good manners” and permitting swearing in places where such language would not have been permitted are all reflections of the influence of Jewish values on Western society. I knew a Jewish man who expressed almost no Jewish beliefs, but he liked to release loud expressions of flatulence in public, such as when having dinner, because he felt that it was a social norm that should no longer be maintained.

300 yet insisted that they were entitled to university posts and leadership roles. Indeed, any attempt to restrict Jewish access to roles of authority, as Jews, was called “anti-Semitism”. Gnostic Jews were not always allowed into leadership roles in the West. It was only with the French Revolution that some Jews really began to want to participate as equals in the political and social life of European countries. In response to this new relationship with Christendom, ever since the turn of the 19th century, “Slowly, often begrudgingly, states granted Jews civil and social equality . . .” This “equality”, understood in terms of not having any restrictions placed on them holding position of power, was initially granted on the condition that Jews accepted the values of European society. It was a kind of implicit social contract, assimilate into European society, learn European languages, dress as Europeans, publicly support European morality, and, in return, you can participate in the benefits of European civilization. This offer was enthusiastically embraced by Western European Jewry throughout the 19 th century until the 1880s. In the 1880s, Eastern European Jews moved into Western and Central Europe as a result of ethnic tension in the Russian Empire. These Eastern European Jews, many of whom had embraced Gnostic beliefs, and those who fell under their sway, insisted on maintaining the political and social equality that Western European Jews had achieved, full entitlement to positions of wealth, power, and influence within Western societies, but they were no longer prepared to assimilate. Assimilation was off the agenda. In short, Jews wanted a new contract and Europeans, despite quite some resistance, reluctantly agreed. The reason for this refusal to assimilate, as already briefly discussed and will be elaborated upon shortly, was because they believed that they were the real “insiders”, all along. They were the chosen of God, and therefore it was everyone else, no matter where Jews lived, no matter their relative numbers, no matter how recent their arrival, who were the real “insiders”. These Gnostic Jews believed that they should be on the Supreme Court, they should hold senior positions in government, and they should function as academics, because they were more than entitled to be leaders than anybody else. They were not only entitled but they were obliged, as Jews, to be leaders. They were rightfully leaders not because they held the same values as everyone else but the exact opposite, it was because they held opposing values, the values of Gnostic Jews, and those values were superior to everyone else’s and therefore they must be spread. As Simon observed, . . .a Jew as such has one great message and one only. . . Our message is a spiritual one and it concerns mankind. If we were to forgo the purpose for which alone, we exist as Jews, I for one could see no reason for maintaining the separateness. If the object of our distinctive existence is to be given up, the survival of the Jewish race would be hollow and useless. (Simon 1899: 393)

301 Jews had to assert their distinct identity because they had a special mission to “heal the world”. If not for this mission, Simon was observing in 1899, they would no longer need to retain their distinct identity. They would no longer have to remain a people apart. Many Jews across Europe, under the sway of these Eastern immigrants, embraced their theo-political mission as the chosen people of God to purge the evil from within Western civilization. The problem from a Western perspective was that Western civilization was what was being characterized as evil. According to Gnostic Jewry, Western civilization needed to be saved from itself. This was a breach of the agreement with Europeans and hatred of Jews began to rise across Europe after 1880s until the Second World War. Jews have long fought for their unique identity to be acknowledged while demanding that they get treated, at least initially, as equals. Ohana (2019) observes that thinkers like Brenner, Berdishevsky, Rosenzeig, Kurzweil, Scholem and Eldad, all exemplify a distinctly “Jewish way of thinking” that is not shared by gentiles.177 As the influential neo-Hasidic Jewish writer Abraham Heschel wrote in 1955, There is more than one way of thinking. Israel and Greece not only developed divergent doctrines; they operated within different categories. The Bible, like the philosophy of Aristotle, for example, contains more than a sum of doctrines; it represents a way of thinking, a specific context in which general concepts possess a particular significance, a standard of evaluation, a form of orientation; not only a mental fabric but also a certain disposition or manner of inter-weaving and interrelating intuitions and perceptions, a unique loom of thoughts. . . . Hebrew thinking operates within categories different from those of Plato and Aristotle, . . . [these] are not merely a matter of different ways of expression but of different ways of thinking. . . Geographically and historically, Jerusalem and Athens, the age of the prophets and the age of Pericles, are not too far removed from each other. Spiritually they are worlds apart. (Heschel 1955: 14-15) Because of the influence of Tanakh on Jewish culture, Jews simply think differently, according to Heschel, to Westerners. To be allowed to freely practice this different way of thinking has motivated Jews to initially demand respect for diversity and then to accept all diversity as beneficial. They found that it was very difficult to argue that Christians had to not only tolerate and respect the different way that Jews thought without arguing that respecting difference should be a general principle that applied to everyone and benefitted everyone. As will be elaborated upon later in this volume, Gnostic Jews argued that there was not just one universal value to which everyone should adhere, as Christianity taught, but, drawing on their own experience, there were numerous different ways of valuing, each with an equal standing. There was not just one “culture” towards which everyone tended as a common good but there were multiple

177

Which he contrasts with other Jewish thinkers who were influenced by Nietzsche but “did not deal with Jewish thought” such as Shaul Tchernichovsky and Jonathan Ratosh.

302 “cultures” and each one had at least an equal standing to Western culture if not, as with Judaism, were actually superior. For this reason, they fought for multiculturalism, fought for the “other” to be recognised and acknowledge to be at least equal to the West. As American Jew Mitchell Cohen expresses, “I want to live in an America of democratic citizenship, of social and economic democracy, of liberal tolerance, in a secular state that allows diverse cultures and religions to make of themselves what they will.” Although initially Jews fought for equality, this quickly actually turned into the argument that this Jewish way of thinking was intellectually and morally superior to the West. Ultimately, the Jewish project is not about diversity at all, diversity is just a means to the real end, the universal imposition of their values. As Dinnerstein observes, “It does not occur to him (Cohen) that Jewish values are not universal and that there are other valid perspectives . . .” Jews such as Cohen believe that their values are indeed universal as they are from God. Embracing this religious mission of conversion motivated Jews to leave the ghettos and enter into Western civilization. As Gutkind states of this realization, “This was “the leap from serfdom into freedom”. The genius of Israel had decided to be free. . .” (Gutkind 1952: 14) What Gutkind means is that it was only by appreciating the superiority of Jewish thought, and that that “genius” needed to be shared, that Jews decided to change the societies in which they lived so that they could be free. If Jews retained their own way of thinking, retained their own unique genius, then they would remain “. . . free from neurosis . . .” that affected Christian societies. (Gutkind 1952: 92) As Freud argued, Christian Western “thinking” retained their belief in morality and an experience of the “good” and therefore remained mired in neuroses of guilt and shame. None other than Albert Einstein, who was deliberately promoted as being the definition of a genius by a Jewish controlled media for well over half a century, insinuated that the German people, amongst whom he was raised, were “primitive and uneducated” in contrast, he infers, to the genius of the Jews. (Einstein 1918b: 156) Another Jewish luminary, of even more exaggerated importance, Sigmund Freud, genuinely believed, as expressed in private correspondence, “that Jews [were] intellectually and morally superior to others”. (Freud as seen in Yerushalmi 1991/2014: 339 emphasis added) Such sentiments were also promoted by one of the most influential Jewish thinkers of the 20th century, Ahad Ha’am, the “teacher of the Jews” who claimed, “almost all admit that the Jewish people have a genius for morality, in this respect they are superior to all the other nations.” (Ha’am as seen in Golomb 2004: 143) Indeed, as Bergman observes, a Jew’s, “feelings of inner dignity were sustained by a belief in his own spiritual superiority which a . . . ‘goy’ can in no way touch.” (Bergmann 1976: 124) Even Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Prime Minister of Great Britain in the middle of the 19th centuy, argued that Jews should be granted new rights not because they were merely equal to gentiles but because Jews were the, “most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times – the natural

303 equality of man.” (Disraeli as seen in Baron 1949: 196) Jews were a concrete, living example that some peoples, the Jews, were simply naturally superior to all others therefore equality for Man should not only not be sought but was, because of their exceptional talents, impossible. Such immodest and highly questionable conclusions have not been left in the past. Even contemporary Jewish writers affirm not only a difference between Jews and others but Jewish superiority. As was recently voiced in a Jewish Sermon in the United States, “Embracing your Jewishness as counterculture means, I think, putting your values first – especially when these are values at odds with how mainstream society operates. It also means thinking of ourselves as more than individuals but as part of a covenantal community bigger than us, a Jewish people with a unique purpose among the nations of the world.”178 (R. Bair 2016) Again, as Jewish scholar Lamm wrote in 1999, . . .even if you [Jews] engaged in doing business with pagans, you cannot offer an excuse for yourself by saying that it is impossible to serve God because of the grossness and corporeality that befall you as a result of your continual business dealings with them. . . our sages long ago revealed to us that Godliness may be found in all material things . . . because without the presence of His Godliness, they would have no life or existence whatsoever . . . It is only that this vitality and Godliness are there in diluted form, after many contractions, just sufficient to keep them alive and no more.179 (Lamm 1999: 29) This paragraph was written in a serious academic text late in the 20th century. Lamm is arguing that just like every other material thing, Gentiles too have some extremely limited Godliness otherwise associating with them could be used as an excuse by some Jews to be unholy. It is as though Lamm grants gentiles a limited soul to take away a potential Jewish excuse for being immoral. It is undeniably true, looking at the literature, that throughout history, and still the case today, Jews have openly expressed their belief that they are not only a separate people, a ‘chosen’ people by God, but a superior people in every way. As Jewish psychologist Sander L. Gilman recently succinctly claimed again in a peer reviewed academic journal, “Jews are smarter and morally better than everyone else.” (Gilman 2008: 41) This sense of<