Redefining Anti-Semitism

odal3

°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: The following article about redefining anti-Semitism, written in 2018, we regard as notable given the intervention by the current Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis in the November/December 2019 UK election campaign and which intervention lambastes the Labour party for its “anti-Semitism” and seems to imply that “a Labour victory in that campaign would be a catastrophe”. {1}

In other words, British Jews should support the Conservatives leader Boris Johnson whose Jewish ancestry {2} has, apparently, never been mentioned by the mainstream Media during this 2019 UK election campaign.

Is this intervention by the current Chief Rabbi one more example of the “social engineering” mentioned in the following article?

We believe it is, and which “social engineering” Myatt – in an appendix to his Mythos of Vindex {3} – described as “the manipulation and control of people by abstract social/political ideas. Our modern lifeless, multi-racial societies are the direct product of decades of social engineering, of social/political ideas and abstract doctrines made law.”

The modern re-definition of so-called “anti-Semitism” certainly seems to be an “abstract social/political idea”.

RDM Crew
2019

{1} https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/26/british-jews-corbyn-emigrate
{2} https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/boris-johnson-his-jewish-credentials/
{3} https://regardingdavidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/myatt-mythos-of-vindex-v1.pdf

°°°°°°°

Redefining Anti-Semitism
A Tale For Our Times

The current political row about so-called “anti-Semitism” in the British Labour party is a relevant tale of our times for several reasons.

I. It is a relevant tale, firstly, because the term “anti-Semitism” is a fairly recent invention, dating from the 1870’s but only becoming common in English due to the anti-German propaganda that proliferated before and during the Second World War. {1} As defined in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary (Second edition, 1989) it means “hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people, and the theory, action, or practice resulting from this.”

II. It is a relevant tale, secondly, because it reveals how influential and powerful certain Jewish advocacy groups are since they have for years lobbied the British government – and police forces and other official bodies – to accept the new definition of “anti-Semitism” invented by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

The IHRA’s definition is: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

However, as well of this definition, the IHRA helpfully provide examples of what according to their definition constitute the “crime” of “anti-Semitism”. Among their examples are the following:

° Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

° Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

° Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

° Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Since this IHRA definition – and its examples – define things which it advocates and supporters consider to be “wrong”, morally reprehensible, it should be obvious that it enshrines an ideology; that is, it is a scheme of ideas relating to ethics, politics and society, and forms the basis of action and policy.

Furthermore, since this ideology, enshrined in the IHRA definition and its examples, is now increasingly being used by police forces, councils, and other official bodies, to determine if a “hate crime” has been committed, it is clear that there is a movement, not yet written in law but continually agitated for, to make things such as a “certain perception of Jews”, “holocaust denial” and criticism of Zionists and of the Zionist entity itself, punishable crimes in the modern West.

That this ideology – whose advocates and supporters seek to criminalise “a certain perception” that some other people do not like or approve of – is an assault on freedom of expression and freedom of belief should be obvious. That this assault is still not obvious to many is tribute to just how effective the propaganda of the Zionist lobbies and of “holocaust remembrance” lobbies is and has been, for such propaganda – repeated almost every day, every week, every year, since 1945 – is that “anti-Semitism led to the horrors, the inhumanity, of the holocaust and such horrors must never be allowed to happen again.”

Yet if – as those who write and speak in favour of historical revisionism claim and believe – the holocaust did not happen as portrayed in the holocaust literature then persecuting and criminalizing those who question or doubt it is repressive and intolerant. This intolerance was summed up following the criminal conviction in May 2018 in a British court of law of a singer – Alison Chabloz – just for singing songs questioning the veracity of the holocaust, with the leader of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism declaring that “in Britain Holocaust denial […] will not be tolerated.”

In other words, advocates and supporters of a particular ideology demand that their zealous intolerance becomes official policy and is enshrined in the law of the land, just as they rejoice when someone is convicted in a court of law on the basis of the intolerant ideology they advocate and support.

It really does seem as if we in the West have not learned much from the religious intolerance of former centuries when those who did not believe in certain things – and who perhaps had “a certain perception” that differed from what was then the accepted, the non-heretical, norm – were persecuted and criminalized.

III. It is a relevant tale, thirdly, because it reveals just how intertwined the modern legend of the holocaust is (i) with re-defining “anti-Semitism”, (ii) with intolerant attempts to criminalize “a certain perception”, (iii) with support for and the survival of the Zionist entity that currently occupies Palestine, and (iv) with the religious belief that the Jews were and are the “chosen people of God” and that therefore they have a God-given right and duty to create and then to live in the Zionist entity. Hence, of course, the Zionist “law of return”.

For without the legend of the holocaust the Zionist entity would either not exist or would not be supported as it is and has been – economically, financially, militarily, propagandistically and otherwise – by the wealthy nations of the modern West.

It should therefore come as no surprise that, in an unguarded moment, the then Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Dr. Jakobovits, declared in 1982 that “The Jews were chosen to act as pathfinders for the world, and Israel has a special place as an instrument to effect the Jew’s social engineering upon the world.” {2}

Where by the term “social engineering” he meant and implied both (i) government and State efforts (through laws, propaganda and other means) to influence the attitudes and ideas of people and the structure of society, and (ii) efforts by the Media and special interest groups to bring about certain changes in society.

For re-defining the term “anti-Semitism”, criminalizing questioning or doubting the legend of the holocaust, and – among things – demanding that a certain ideology becomes official policy and is enshrined in the law of the land, most certainly amounts to social engineering.

Haereticus
23 July 2018 ev

{1} An example of such propaganda occurred in The Economist magazine dated 24th August 1935: “The Nazi Party stalwarts […] have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant crusade.”

{2} The Guardian newspaper (London), 7th August 1982.

°°°°°°°


Being Human: A Learning from Aliens

Blue Marble Earth Mosaic

°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: As with Myatt’s article An Alien View of Planet Earth {1} this almost two decades old article by Myatt may have some relevance in regard to his more recent philosophy of pathei mathos. We have corrected a few obvious typos in the original article.

RDM Crew
May 2019

{1} qv. https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/2019/05/29/an-alien-view-of-planet-earth/

°°°°°°°

Being Human: A Learning from Aliens

A Cosmic Ethics

Considering the vastness of the Cosmos – millions upon millions of galaxies containing billions upon billions of stars – it is highly likely that intelligent life exists on other planets orbiting other stars. It is also possible that in our own galaxy there are living beings who are more evolved, more intelligent, more powerful, than we are.

Thus, to consider our own human species as the most intelligent, the most advanced, the most powerful, species in the cosmos is not only extremely arrogant, it is also highly irrational, given this vastness of the cosmos and the fact that we have only very recently – in cosmic terms – evolved from more primitive life here on this planet we call Earth.

The time has come for us to use the cosmos – its vastness, the possibility of it being teeming with other, alien, life – as the measure of our own human ethics. That is, to base our ethics upon what actually exists, and not on what we believe, or would like to believe, exists or has happened, and certainly not on our limited, inward, Earth-only, view of life.

Hitherto, our ethics, our morality, have for the most part (the last few thousand years at least) been based upon the concept of God and on revelation. For instance, upon the belief that we humans have been created by an all-powerful deity who either considers us special (He gave His son to redeem us: Christianity), or who has created us and placed us on this planet to test us, so that we can enter Paradise (Islam).

The ethics based on these theocentric concepts is fundamentally homocentric: that is, based on the belief or assumption that the Earth is some kind of gift from God, with us as special, as masters of this world, and thus entitled to use the resources of this planet, including its other life, to aid us. That is, such religious morality affirms it is acceptable for us to breed and kill animals, and other living beings, for food, even though to survive it is often not necessary for us to kill and eat these living things. Such morality also affirms that it often is acceptable for us to kill other human beings, or imprison them, if they have transgressed some “law” and been found “guilty” in some Court of Law according to some “evidence” which has been produced in that Court.

But this is all very inhuman and inhumane; all very uncivilized. That is, it is unfair, illogical, and irrational, when viewed in the greater Cosmic Perspective.

It is these things because we have hitherto viewed them in limited terms, often in very limited, unfair, Earth-only, terms. We must evolve our ethics away from this small, arrogant, unfair, homocentric view toward a view based upon the reality of the cosmos: upon its vastness, with our own species occupying a planet which orbits an ordinary star somewhere on the edge of an ordinary galaxy surrounded by millions upon millions of other star-bearing galaxies.

The Alien Analogy

The best analogy to explain the fundamental difference between the new, cosmic, ethics which we must now accept, and the old, homocentric, ethics, is that of a race of aliens visiting then invading this planet of ours. These aliens – we shall call them Phurads – have superior weapons and technology which make it easy for them to conquer the Earth.

In this analogy, the Phurads have a religion which makes it acceptable for them to herd together “lesser beings” and keep them for food. Thus, we humans find ourselves being hunted by these Phurads for food, as many human beings are captured, and held captive in huge buildings, for the purpose of producing offspring which are then fattened to be eaten.

Further, some humans are taken away, to other planets inhabited by the Phurad, and kept in cages: to be displayed like we humans once displayed wild animals in cages for “entertainment”. In addition, some humans are taken to laboratories where they are kept sedated, and studied by Phurad scientists. Occasionally, it is judged acceptable for a few of these human specimens to be used in “scientific experiments”. Some of these experiments seem quite harmless, to these scientists (such as tagging a few human beings and releasing them back “into the wild” so that their behaviour can be studied) while other experiments are deemed necessary “to further the scientific understanding of the Phurad”. Thus, some humans are used in medical trials, because their blood, or organs, may hold cures for diseases which harm or kill the Phurad, and the suffering and death of several hundred humans (or several thousands over years) is considered morally justified since it may lead to medical breakthroughs, and save the lives of many Phurads.

We humans, of course, take a rather dim view of all these things. What gives the Phurad the right to kill us, eat us, hold us in degrading captivity, experiment on us?

The fact that the morality of the Phurads, based on their religion and philosophy, allows them to do such inhuman things to us is irrelevant to us.

What are we to do? Suffer, and die, in silence? Accept our inferior status? Or do we strive for our freedom and to be treated as equals? But what could we do if the power of the Phurads is such that we have no hope of freedom? Would we still rebel, and rather be killed than suffer the indignity of being kept confined for food? Would we bite the hand that feeds us? Or would we just fall down on our knees and pray for God – or some race of aliens more powerful than the Phurad – to liberate us?

The Human Analogy

We are treating the life on this planet of ours as the Phurads in the above analogy treated humans.

What gives us the right to do this? What gives us the right to breed animals for food? What gives us the right to inflict pain on animals in the name of “science”?

What gives us the right to inflict pain and suffering and death on our fellow human beings?

Are the animals that we breed and hold captive to slaughter for food silently praying to some god? Hoping for liberation from the human monsters who have such power over them? Such an idea, of course, is anthropomorphism, and the fact – known or assumed from our science – that such animals, on our planet at least, do not think, does not make this particular analogy any less valid, in cosmic terms.

That is, the fact that such an animal as a lamb does not and cannot think, in human terms, and so cannot “pray to or even believe in a god”, does not mean that we should not treat that animal in a fair, a just, a rational, and civilized way. Is it entitled to live out its life in freedom? Do we really need to fatten it and then kill and eat it?

Would it be right to sedate it, and then experiment on it because such an experiment might lead to some cure for some human disease?

What is right? What is just? What criteria are we to use to judge such things?

The Cosmic Answer

To live – or strive to live – in a civilized way, in a human way, we have to have ethics: a morality of some kind. That is, we have to have some criteria of judgement, for otherwise there is barbarism, repression, injustice, and a savage, irrational, way of living.

What is the cosmic criteria: what is the ethical standard which the greater, the higher, perspective of the cosmos gives us?

It is the criteria of reason, of fairness, of tolerance: the standard of the honourable thinking being. It is the standard of the living being who is aware, in a rational way, of their own place in the vastness of the cosmos: who is aware of the other life on the planet which is their origin and their home; who is aware of how they themselves have evolved from Nature, how they depend upon Nature.

In brief, it is the criteria of the nexus: of ourselves as living, organic, links between the past and the future of the living being which is this planet. It is the criteria of respect for other living beings, both on this Earth, and in the cosmos.

It is the belief that there should not be any such thing as “ownership” or mastery of any piece of this planet, or other planets, by any one individual or grouping of individuals, since what matters is not ownership, but the well-being of the planet, or planets, the well-being of the living beings which depend upon this planet, and which depend on other planets in the cosmos.

Above all, the cosmic ethic is the belief that every living thing has a “soul”, an essence, a life-energy, which is important for the well-being of the whole, with no one being, or one species of being, of lessor worth than others, and that if it is truely necessary for us to kill another living being, however small, to survive – or even if we kill such a being by accident – then we should respect that being, and indeed lament its death. The way of the cosmos, the cosmic belief, is the belief that we should strive to find ways of living, of surviving, that do not involve killing or harming other living beings.

The Cosmic Challenge

The challenge now is to accept this higher, more civilized, cosmic ethics as the foundation for our personal lives, and strive to create new societies, new ways of living, based upon these ethics.

David Myatt
JD 2451872.315
(23rd November 2000, 1933 UT)

°°°°°°°

Article source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040419194953/http://www.geocities.com/dwmyatt/human1.html

°°°°°°°

Image credit:
NASA, Blue Marble Earth Mosaic

°°°°°°°


An Alien View of Planet Earth

Earth From Space

°°°°°°°

Editorial Note: This historically interesting article was first published in 2001 on a now long defunct website devoted to promoting David Myatt’s “Folk Culture” philosophy. It also appeared on a Myatt “fan website” an archive version of which website exists and which archive version was used as our source. The article is historically interesting for two reasons. First, it seems that his “Folk Culture” philosophy became part of Myatt’s strategy to bring radical Muslims and National Socialist inclined nationalists together {1}; and second, that the numinous intuitions behind that “Folk Culture” philosophy were as we now understand {2} a precursor to Myatt’s ‘numinous way’, morphed as that ‘numinous way’ later was into his post-2012 philosophy of pathei mathos.

It should be noted that all the examples of human behaviour recounted in the article occurred in real life and were documented in mainstream media sources.

We have corrected a few typos in the archive text, altered the typographical layout, and converted the Julian date used by Myatt to the Gregorian date.

RDM Crew
May 2019

{1} https://web.archive.org/web/20040419195004/http://www.geocities.com/dwmyatt/myatt_islam.html
{2} https://regardingdavidmyatt.wordpress.com/the-development-of-the-numinous-way/

°°°°°°°

An Alien View of Planet Earth

What opinion would an alien – a space-traveller from a distant starsystem – form of the peoples of Earth were this alien to land here, and travel from country to country? This alien is a shapeshifter, and so is capable of assuming any form, including human form. Thus can this alien watch and observe, without being seen.

Let us assume that this alien is highly intelligent, and that, like all the sentient beings on the alien home-world, this alien is rational and civilized: that is, polite, well-mannered, fair, honourable, self-disciplined, and possessed of a scientific-like curiosity.

During the travels of this alien, the following are among the many, many things observed:

* In a city, a gang of youths drag a young girl off a bus while other passengers, including men, look mutely on and do nothing, despite her pleas. The gang take her to an alley where she is gang raped.

* A fireman, risking his own life, enters a blazing building to rescue an unconscious man.

* In one family home, a large quantity of left-over food is thrown away, while on almost the opposite side of the world, a mother gives her starving children what little food she has, going hungry herself so that her children may eat.

* A man stuffs three newly born kittens into a plastic bag which he firmly ties closed, then throws into the nearby canal.

* Outside a noisy party in a house, a young man is attacked by four other men, who, having pushed him to the ground, repeatedly kick his head until he is dead. They then run off, laughing.

* A man driving a motor-car fast on a narrow unlit country road hits a pedestrian who is hurled several feet into the air and who lands on the road, critically injured. The car driver carries on as if nothing had happened.

* A woman, arguing with her husband in their home, suddenly grabs a large kitchen knife and stabs her husband to death.

* A young man, walking home from work over a river bridge, sees someone struggling in the water below, and without hesitation dives in to pull the person to safety.

* A truck load of cattle arrive at a slaughter-house, where each one is killed, strung up on large hooks, and butchered, with various bits of their bodies thrown into various bins.

* A truck load of chickens arrive at another slaughter house where each one is killed, strung up onto a conveyor belt which takes them to an assembly line where their heads are cut off, one after the other, by rotating blades.

* Outside a small mud hut, a family sit silently on the parched drought-striken land, having eaten nothing for days.

* In a city at night in winter, a very well-dressed and corpulent man in an expensive car drives past a railway viaduct which shelters several homeless people huddled up against the cold. Nearby, two other homeless people lie stupefied on the ground, one stupefied from drugs, the other from alcohol.

* An elderly infirm man, sitting in his damp apartment, surrounded by mementoes from his past including several war medals gained for gallantry, is repeatedly punched by an intruder who wants to know where the man has hidden his savings.

* A group of men dig with their bare hands for a whole day without rest in order to find and free someone trapped under rubble following an earthquake, while others generously give what little money they have to help others who have nothing. Nearby, a young man, thinking himself unseen, steals some goods from what once was a shop.

* A young woman, recently qualified as a Nurse, sits – restraining her tears – by the bedside of an elderly lady terminally ill with cancer, holding the old lady’s hand while listening to stories of things that happened a long time ago…..

For a while, all these impressions perplex our alien. There is kindness; terror; brutality; compassion; indifference; hatred. And many other things. The alien briefly wonders if human beings, as a species, are divided in themselves, like the werewolves of human myth were divided, becoming savage, killing, beasts on certain nights, and yet at other times appearing quite normal, quite human.

But, slowly, the alien begins to understand the human condition. There is a covering, a very thin covering, of civilization, as there are some people who do use their will to control themselves and so live their lives by reason and some code of ethics. Thus it is that these humans strive to do, to enjoin others to do, good deeds, as they strive to restrain themselves and others from doing what is bad. But there are other human beings, many other human beings, who cannot or who will not control themselves, and who live according to their emotions, their instincts, just as the thin covering of civilization can be easily broken by some natural event, some great surge of emotion, some sudden occurrence.

The alien understands the struggle there has been on the planet the humans call Earth for civilization: the slow ascent up from their primitive, savage, animal ancestry, and how this ascent is of the proverbial two steps forward, one and three-quarters steps back, kind, and sometimes even of the one step forward, two steps backwards kind.

The alien understands how tenuous is the human hold on civilization, on reason, and how so few humans truely live rational, moral, lives where they strive to control themselves – and succeed in controlling themselves – by using their will. For the alien has found:

* people addicted to drugs, pleasure

* people immoral – no self-control and no ethics to guide them

* people live for the most part based on their feelings, their emotions, and not based on reason and self-control

* people squabbling like undisciplined, emotive, children, and injuring and killing each other for very little reason

* people keeping and slaughtering animals wholesale for food when there is no longer a need for many of them to do this

* massive, polluted, teeming cities which remind the alien of termite mounds

* the Earth itself ravaged, exploited, and polluted because of the irrational, destructive, desire people have for luxury, for convenience: putting their own temporary personal needs before the planet itself.

The conclusion the alien reaches is that human beings resemble an infection which has spread over the Earth, making the Earth ill, and decimating the other living beings which live on the Earth.

The conclusion is that the majority of the peoples of Earth are essentially barbarians – in effect, still primitive animals, driven by animal desires and feeling. Even though many of these barbarians live in what seem to be well-functioning, prosperous, cities and towns, surrounded by material goods, they are nonetheless still barbarians by nature, and often by intent.

The alien further concludes, that there is a good probability that in a few centuries time, the covering of human “civilization” will vanish, with a widespread return to a savage barbarism, and with humans themselves becoming extinct in a few tens of thousands of years.

So it is that the alien departs from our solar system, leaving space-markers advising other star-travellers to avoid the homeworld of the savages who roam the planet those humans call Earth.

David Myatt
2nd of February 2001, 12:50 UT

°°°°°°°

Article Source:
http://www.webcitation.org/78ilw2FWV

°°°°°°°

Related archive article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040419194953/http://www.geocities.com/dwmyatt/human1.html

°°°°°°°°°

Image credit:
NASA/NOAA NGDC.
Composite view of planet Earth at Night,
acquired by the Suomi NPP satellite
in 9 days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.