Letters To This Site. Peter Myers, updated March 17, 2006. My comments within quoted text are shown {thus].
You are at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/letters.html.
Now in reverse order, with the most recent letters at the top; date in yy mm dd format. Newer items have sublinks.
(19) Debate with Israel Shamir, Phil Eversoul & Eric Walberg over Lenin's Jewish Identity
(19) Debate with Israel Shamir, Phil Eversoul & Eric Walberg over Lenin's Jewish Identity
(19.1) Did Lenin consider himself Jewish?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:48:33 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
Dear Shamir,
The following article is typical of many that assert that Lenin was one-fourth Jewish, inasmuch as his maternal Grandfather, named Blank, was Jewish.
Beyond this, do you have any problem with the proposition that the Bolshevik revolution was of Jewish origin, that most of the leading Bolsheviks were Jews, and that these Jews were Lenin's associates and comrades in the revolution that they made?
Is is also not true that Lenin spoke Yiddish and had a Jewish wife? And so, was Lenin not accepted as one of the mishpoche?
Surely you don't think that Russians assassinated the Czar and his family? Would it not have to be the true makers of the Bolshevik revolution who would do such a thing?
Phil
http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Vladimir_Lenin.html
The Religious Affiliation of Communist Leader of Russia
Lenin: Lenin's maternal grandfather was a Jew. Lenin's Jewish ancestry is discussed in detail in Oxford University historian Robert Service's biography Lenin (Harvard University Press, 2000). See also: "Lenin: Jewish roots of a revolutionary," by Zev Ben-Shlomo, Jewish Chronicle, London, April 21, 1995 (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/11/JConLenin210495.html):
[Lenin] was the great-grandson of Moishe Itskovich Blank and the grandson of Srul Moishevich Blank. At his baptism, Blank changed his name and patro-nymic to Aleksandr Dmitrievich...
Lenin's Jewish origin on his maternal grandfather's side became, after his death, a matter of controversy between Lenin's sisters and Stalin. In a letter to Stalin, Anna, Lenin's elder sister, wrote: "It is probably no secret for you that the research on our grandfather shows that he came from a poor Jewish family, that he was, as his baptismal certificate says, the son of a 'Zhitomir burgher, Moishe Blank' and this fact could serve in combating anti-Semitism."
Furthermore, she claimed, that Lenin's Jewish origins were "further confirmation of the exceptional abilities of the Semitic tribe... Lenin always valued the Jews highly." Stalin replied: "Not one word about it."
----- Webpage created 12 July 2005. Last modified 12 July 2005.
Israel Shamir wrote:
> I have never heard of Lunachev, I doubt one would be expelled for
such
> claims - I have never heard of anybody who was. Lenin was not a Jew.
> There were some claims that his great-grandfather was a baptised Jew,
> but they were never substantiated, and produced in the anticommunist
> circles of perestroyka days. Even if it were true factually, Lenin
> never considered himself a Jew, never referred to himself as one,
> never was referred as one even in the days of revolution and civil
> war. So unless one is a rabid racist (Jewish or anti-Jewish), one
may
> dismiss these rumours.
> As for Khruschov, I have heard this nonsense before - but Kh was not
> some mystic figure but a well known Ukrainian moujik, of no Jewish
> descent anybody knows of. So I dismiss these rumours as well.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> From: Phil Eversoul <mailto:Philev@e-znet.com>
> To: Israel Shamir <mailto:info@israelshamir.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Calling a Jew a Jew
> > Israel,
> > There's certainly been a lot of research into the Jewish components
of Lenin's lineage. It seems he had Jewish blood on his mother's or grandmother's
side, but I don't recall exactly. He was apparently either 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish.
Certainly you've seen some of this research? As for Krushchov, I don't
know of any facts one way or the other. I've heard the "Perlmutter"
story before. But more important, have you ever heard of this fellow Boris
Lunachev? A google search didn't turn up anything except Marrs' own statements.
And do you think it's plausible that he could have been expelled from the
USSR for digging into its Jewish origins? Again, if you don't have time
or interest in this, I understand. Phil
> > Israel Shamir wrote:
> >> Well, Phil, Lenin was not a Jew, and neither was Khruschov.
This is a matter of fact, not of opinion. What else can I say?
----- Original Message -----
>> From: Phil Eversoul <mailto:Philev@e-znet.com>
>> To: Israel Shamir <mailto:info@israelshamir.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Calling a Jew a Jew
>> Adam, (I believe you now use this name, according to one of your
email addresses, so I hope I am addressing you properly), You're certainly
entitled to your opinion, but you've given me nothing to consider as an
alternative. Am I supposed to accept your diktat? I realize you're very
busy and don't want to take the time to go any further into something that
you view with obvious disdain, but I wanted to let you know that >>
you've not given me anything to form another view. Phil
>> >> Israel Shamir wrote: I do not care who said it to whom,
whether a Lunachev I have never heard of, or Marrs who is a man of certain
views. As I have said, this is silliness or paranoia.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Phil Eversoul <mailto:Philev@e-znet.com>
>>> To: Israel Shamir <mailto:info@israelshamir.net>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:59 AM >>> Subject:
Re: Calling a Jew a Jew
>>> Well, it purports to be direct testimony from Lunachev. You
don't believe Lunachev said this to Marrs? Phil
>>> Israel Shamir wrote:
>>>> This is silly: "Karl Marx was a Jew and so was Comrade
Lenin." Comrade Stalin was an avid reader of the Jewish Talmud, and
Comrade Kruschchev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."
This is silliness or paranoia.
(19.2) Did Lenin consider himself Jewish? - reply to Shamir
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:06:01 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
Do you agree with Shamir about Lenin's non-Jewishness?
{Reply - Peter M.}
Phil,
No, I do not agree with Shamir.
My position is at lenin-trotsky.html.
I explain there that the issue is not descent but identity.
Lenin had multiple lines of descent, but chose to identify with the Jewish line.
The key information there comes from Volkogonov, a solid source. Shamir made some frivolous remark about him inventing the material he presents on Lenin's Jewish identity.
Phil, you made an error in quoting Texe Marrs, a sloppy researcher prone to overstatement.
He, I believe, made the statement "Comrade Kruschchev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."
Kruschchev was a peasant type. It's very unlikely that he was a Jew.
The overstatement gives Shamir a loophole through which to escape. In denying, and poking fun at, the overstated part, he bundles the genuine evidence with it and tosses the lot out.
Thus the danger of overstatement.
Shamir is aware of Volkogonov's statements about Lenin. In an earlier email he wrote:
{start Shamir email} [shamireaders] Marxists and the Jewish Lobby - II - SniegoskiÕs reply Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:55:38 -0000 From: "ish314" <shamir@home.se>
Stephen Sniegoski replies to Shamir's Marxists and the Lobby
and Shamir's Response (at the bottom)
----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Sniegoski Friends, Shamir: Marxists and the Israeli Lobby
... [It now appears that Lenin was partly Jewish. See Dmitri Volkogonov, "Lenin: A New Biography," 1994] ...
-- Shamir replies:
... Vladimir Lenin was a Russian Orthodox nobleman by birth and a revolutionary by profession. There are unsubstantiated claims (by anti-Communist Volkogonov who admired Yeltsyn, Reagan and the state of Israel; he published an apocryphal `letter of Lenin's sister' which he found at the bottom of his typewriter) that Lenin's great- grandparent was a Jew before he was baptised. It is at best irrelevant, as Lenin never referred to it, and he exhibited no crypto-Jewish behaviour. At worst, it is an unpleasant racist observation. Practically all upper class families in Europe from Spain to Poland and the US were and are intermarried with Jews. It means nothing. Even the convinced racist Adolf Hitler recognised this fact and had a lot of descendents of Jews in his party and in his army.
{end Shamir email}
Shamir is aware that Volkogonov's biography of Lenin contains solid evidence on Lenin's Jewish identity.
Above, Shamir pokes fun at Volkogonov, and calls him an "anti-Communist".
But Pavel Sudoplatov, Stalin's spymaster, attests that Volkogonov is a reputable historian, in his book SPECIAL TASKS (LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY, London 1994).
On p. 428, Sudoplatov introduces Volkogonov as "Colonel General Dmitri Volkogonov, who was writing biographies of Stalin and Trotsky ... "
In Footnote 10 on p. 428, Sudoplatov writes of him:
"Volkogonov was deputy chief of the Main Political Administration of the Soviet army, in charge of psychological warfare against the American armed forces in the 1970s and 1980s. He became director of the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defense in 1986." sudoplat.html.
So, far from being an "anti-Communist", Volkogonov was a senior figure in the Soviet administration, as well as Director of Military History. His words on Lenin's Jewish identity - his identification with his minority Jewish ancestry rather than his majority Russian one - are derived from Soviet archives.
(19.3) Shamir's Reply on Lenin
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:31:34 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
Certainly there can be no question that Lenin identified as a Jew, and of course his lineage was complex. The real point is that Lenin HAD to operate in a Jewish milieu because the Bolshevik revolution, and the revolutionary ferment in general, was led and caused mostly by Jews. Not to mention that the Mensheviks were entirely Jews. Certainly the leader of the Bolshevik revolution (which was actually a putsch or a coup d'etat by a small group of anti-democratic conspirators) could not have been other than a Jew by identification, even if he presented himself to the world as a Russian.
In other words, the USSR had a Jewish origin, not a Russian origin, even if later on it become less Jewish in nature for various reasons. The main reason for this, as I see it, is that Stalin had to resort to Christianity and nationalism to give the Russians a reason to fight Hitler. They would not fight for Marxist socialism. So it was Hitler who played a large role, unwittingly, in restoring Christianity and nationalism to the USSR.
(19.4) Shamir replies on Lenin
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:02:03 +0700 From: "Israel Shamir" <info@israelshamir.net>
I really could not care less whether you think Lenin a Jew or not. There are guys who describe Hitler and whoever you wish as a Jew. This is the oldest hat in history. So I write just in order to disabuse you if you wish to be disabused. Lenin was not a Jew, in no way, neither by blood nor by identification. After the revolution and during the civil war, there were many strong anti-Jewish voices in Russia. None ever made this claim.
Volkogonov is far from being a solid source - this is a man who turned after Gorbachev into a anticommunist propaganda boss, though he obtained his titles and prestige preaching communism. I know his book, I am familiar with his claims, they were all debunked in the Russian nationalist press, including Zavtra and Duel, which are neither pro-Communist, nor pro-Jewish. The reference to "clever Russians of Jewish origin" does not sound so complimentary in Russian. However, Lenin was not hostile to Jews, though he fought their nationalism every time it was needed - he excluded Bund, he sent out Evsekcia, he denied the very existence of Jewish people etc. But again - you may think what you wish.
{Reply - Peter M.}
Israel,
Not all persons who identify as Jews are in one camp. The atheistic ones have different values from the observant ones.
Lenin himself was shot by a Jewish woman.
The point about Lenin's identifying himself as Jewish is that the regime was Jewish in its early leadership. Volkogonov was shocked to discover the real Lenin in the Soviet archives, which only became available after the fall of the USSR.
But the early regime later changed; that's why so many Jews fled the USSR.
When Lenin died, power passed to a triumvirate - Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin - of which Stalin was the only non-Jew.
Do you dispute that?
The Jewishness of the early regime accounts for the ferocity of its Cultural Revolution against everything that went before - because of long-standing Jewish resentment of Christianity.
You have pointed out that In the West today, Jews are once again in the vanguard of our Cultural Revolution - a much milder one than occurred in the USSR. And the victims include yourself - an ex-Jew or renegade Jew - and myself, forced to seek refuge in the Bush.
The change in the USSR happened through Stalin, whose attack on "Trotsky" meant the replacement (over time) of Jewish Communism with Russian, much as Paul's Hellenistic Christianity succeeded James' Jewish Christianity.
As Phil pointed out, Hitler contributed too; his harping on Jewish domination drove the Soviets to take steps to disprove it.
The creation of Israel was a third cause, giving Jews in the USSR a rival allegiance; when they were seen as siding with Israel, the administration quarantined them from sensitive posts.
(19.5) Lenin, Texe Marrs & Shamir
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:05:48 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
Peter, you wrote:
"Phil, you made an error in quoting Texe Marrs, a sloppy researcher prone to overstatement.
"He, I believe, made the statement "Comrade Kruschchev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."
"Krushchev was a peasant type. It's very unlikely that he was a Jew.
"The overstatement gives Shamir a loophole through which to escape. In denying, and poking fun at, the overstated part, he bundles the genuine evidence with it and tosses the lot out.
"Thus the danger of overstatement."
I am sorry for the tardiness of this reply, but I've not been entirely well in the past few days, and I've had to do a lot of sleeping.
You didn't quite grasp the situation of the above. It was not Marrs who made the statement about Krushchev, but Lunachev, with Marrs reporting it. According to Marrs, Lunachev said:
"Yes, " Lunachev replied. "I have recently been studying the field of race and biology. I have discovered that the great Karl Marx was a Jew and so was Comrade Lenin. Comrade Stalin was an avid reader of the Jewish Talmud, and Comrade Kruschchev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew. "
"I believe that facts of racial history need to be reported to the Soviet people and to the world," said Lunachev, "so everyone will recognize that the government of the USSR is not, as some have alleged, anti-semitic."
This is why I could not separate, without distortion, the references to Marx, Lenin, and Krushchev. They were all part of the same short paragraph.
Now, I can certainly see where Marrs can be sloppy as a researcher and somewhat boastful. But I do not think he would fabricate the existence of Boris Lunachev, or fabricate the story of his expulsion from the USSR for bringing up the Jewish origins of the USSR, or fabricate the quotes that he attributed to Lunachev.
Marrs is reporting a private interview he had with Lunachev about the reasons for Lunachev's expulsion from the USSR, and so Marrs is the only source for what Lunachev said. Lunachev was supposed to have been a brilliant academician and scholar, and I am therefore assuming that his researching in the Jewish origins and proclivities of Soviet rulers had merit.
Reply (Peter M):
Because you are not quoting Lunachev directly, you are really quoting Marrs.
His report about Lunachev may or may not be true, but it is anecdotal in nature, i.e. not documented with references, in contrast to Volkogonov's statements (his reputation backed by Sudoplatov). Marrs' statements are about events 16 years ago, and memory is not always reliable.
A search in Google (all languages) for Boris Lunachev (not in quotes) only gave a handful of hits, all of which seem to use Texe Marrs as a source.
i.e. there is not any independent evidence even for the existence of Boris Lunachev.
If you want to debate with Shamir, you must not let him score easy points.
Here is one of the sites mirroring Texe Marrs's article about Lunachev: http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bush-jew.htm.
This is the original (but I cannot read it): http://www.texemarrs.com/george_w_bush_zionist_double_agent.htm.
(19.6) Did Lenin consider himself a Jew? - From Eric Walberg
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:42:38 +0500 From: "Eric Walberg" <eric@albatros.uz>
Lunachev is a nonstarter and Volkogonov is not a pristine source. Shamir is right here. My personal experience living in the (ex)SU as a foreigner is valuable.
Eric
Peter states
"Lenin had multiple lines of descent, but chose to identify with the Jewish line."
but Israel has it right
"... Vladimir Lenin was a Russian Orthodox nobleman by birth and a revolutionary by profession. There are unsubstantiated claims (by anti-Communist Volkogonov who admired Yeltsyn, Reagan and the state of Israel; he published an apocryphal `letter of Lenin's sister' which he found at the bottom of his typewriter) that Lenin's great- grandparent was a Jew before he was baptised. It is at best irrelevant, ..."
I LOVE internet 'quotes' of mysterious letters. Even better is Stalin's ominous response "Not one word about it." This is an excerpt from a grade B Hollowood potboiler.
I have always known that Lenin's maternal grandfather was Blank, a typical Jewish German name. This was never a secret. So I suspect all educated Soviets also knew this connection. But as we all know, only the maternal line counts, and that ended with his great-grandmother (or great-great-grandmother or... who knows when the last female in the lineage was?).
No doubt he admired Jewish smarts and revolutionary fervor, and we must condemn Lenin for allowing his overly eager Jewish acolytes like Sverdlov to push for assassinating the Tzar and family. But he also no doubt indulged in auntie-semitic slurs against his sometime ally Trotsky (let's 'find' some juicy internet quotes). Show me a quote where Lenin says something like Yevtushenko's "As long as there's an anti-semite alive, I'm a Jew!" in his Babi Yar poem (Yev was most definitely NOT a Jew).
Besides, for better or worse, Stalin was Lenin's closer and more trusted *follower* until it was too late to do anything about his rapid consolidation of political power. So Lenin may have preferred Trotsky in his dying days, but he still couldn't bring himself to hand over power to him, and Stalin maintained his grip.
Volkogonov has an anti-commie ax to grind and is far from neutral in his writings. I'm not convinced Sudoplatov isn't a forgery, but even so, could find no statement supporting Peter's claim that Lenin identified with his Jewish 'roots'. In any case, I often use the saying 'We're ALL Jews now'. Maybe Lenin did too, but that doesn't mean he meant it more than as a provocative turn of phrase or as a way to fit in with his many very Jewish comrades. I suspect 'Lunachev' is a zio-inspired internet parody (the man from the moon). Anyway I have far too much experience with Soviet emigres to believe anything except from a tiny handful. In fact Shamir is the only one that comes to mind!
(19.7) Did Lenin consider himself a Jew? - From Israel Shamir
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:03:26 +0300 From: "Israel Shamir" <shamir@home.se>
Peter,
None of what you say in this letter amounts to a proof (or even a hint) that Lenin was a Jew. There were indeed many people of Jewish origin in the early Soviet leadership, but Lenin was not one of them. The revolution and the civil war were fought along many thousand-miles long frontlines, with participation of millions of people. Jews played a role in it, but not to such an extent as they sometimes are prone to claim. Saying that Lenin has got to be a Jew, if Trotsky and Zinoviev were Jews, is a non-seguitur, taking your case a bridge too far.
More important point: you stress Volkogonov's "Communist and Soviet background" and his credentials. The perestroika and the following destruction of the SU was caused by massive treason of guys like the named V. They earned their position by Talmudic studies of Lenin's books, by brown-nosing Stalin, and when they were ordered by Gorbachev to spit on their erstwhile idols they did it immediately. Alas, Mr V was not a man of integrity; there is nothing he said I would believe, even if he were to say that sun sets in the West.
As for Phil's remark re Hitler's harping: in my view, it was not his harping that made an effect, but his successful de-Jewification of Germany in 1936. Until it happened, Stalin and Mussolini did not believe it possible. After Hitler succeeded (and without excesses - Kristalhacht came much later), Italy (read Esau's Tears) and Russia went into their own de-Jewification programmes. Similar process had a chance in America, but for assassination of Hugh Long, and in England, where aristocracy entertained an idea of comeback - read Diana Cooper's biography.
Reply (Peter M.):
Israel, You write, "Saying that Lenin has got to be a Jew, if Trotsky and Zinoviev were Jews, is a non-seguitur"
But that's not MY argument; it's Phil's. I have never put that argument, so you can't shoot me down by ridiculing it.
And you have not replied to my challenge: When Lenin died, power passed to a triumvirate - Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin - of which Stalin was the only non-Jew. Do you deny this?
Henri Beraud's book The Truth About Moscow, published in English in 1926, describes the USSR in 1925, 18 months after Lenin's death, but before Stalin's rise to power.
The triumvirate are ruling: Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin. But Kamenev is regarded as the leader, and Stalin (the only non-Jew) is barely mentioned.
The New Economic Policy is in force, the earlier attempt at a communist economy having been abandoned in the wake of the Kronstadt uprising and massacre.
Here's a quote from it:
{p. 248} And now I will relate a little story.
Monsieur Trotsky was speaking at Kiev. After his speech anyone might ask a question. An astonishing thing happened - there was actually one man, only one, who did so, a workman called Efimoff. This worker came on to the platform with a stick in his hand:
'Comrades,' said he, 'you all see this stick. It will explain the history of the Russian Revolution. Before the Revolution the country was governed by aristocrats, whom the handle of this stick represents. This ferrule here is the convicts. The middle of the stick is the workers and peasants.'
He stopped speaking and turned the stick upside down: 'Comrades, the Revolution took place. The aristos are at the bottom, the convicts are at the top, while you have not changed places.'
The worker Efimoff of Kiev was arrested the following week.
{endquote}
More at soviet-union-early.html.
(19.8) Did Lenin consider himself a Jew? - from Phil Eversoul
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:36:32 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
Peter,
You wrote:
"Reply (Peter M.):
"Israel, You write, "Saying that Lenin has got to be a Jew, if Trotsky and Zinoviev were Jews, is a non-sequitur" (spelling corrected).
"But that's not MY argument; it's Phil's. I have never put that argument, so you can't shoot me down by ridiculing it."
Let's be clear here, please. My argument is based on your own non-genetic or non-lineal definition of a Jew. Namely, one who identifies as a Jew. I agree with you that Lenin identified himself as a Jew.
{There's a difference between us. You used the heading, in the subject line, "More on: was Lenin a Jew". I changed it to "Did Lenin consider himself a Jew?". The same happened a few days ago, when I forwarded one of your posts.}
So, my argument is that ONLY someone who identified himself as a Jew would have been entrusted to lead a Jewish revolution, which the Bolshevik revolution was.
{What then of Clinton, a non-Jew at the head of a Jewish-dominated cabinet? By your logic, Clinton must be a Jew. You are wrong; Jews often want a non-Jew at the helm, with them operating as back-seat drivers. Sometimes, however, the non-Jewish driver takes things into his own hands. Stalin was the exemplar}
Also please note: by "Bolshevik revolution" I am not referring to ALL the social ferment and upheaval that followed from the collapse of the Czarist regime. Clearly there was a general social trend away from monarchy and towards some form of parliamentarianism, or "Duma-ism." What I mean by "Bolshevik revolution" is the putsch or coup d'etat engineered by Lenin's small conspiratorial band of professional revolutionaries.
Let me also say, to balance the blame, that the Czar was largely responsible for his own downfall and the end of the reign of the Romanovs. What he should have done years ago was to forge an alliance with the other monarchies, those of Germany and Austria-Hungary. If he had done that, WWI would never have happened, at least in the form that it did. It was a major blunder for Nicholas, who headed a monarchy, to form an illusory alliance with Masonic-led France, which was determined to destroy all monarchies. WWI was initiated by France, led by Poincare, who used the assassination of the Archduke (by the Masonic Black Hand of Serbia), plus Austria-Hungary's response, plus the Russian response (with French encouragement) to "protect" Serbia, to start the war.
Let it also be noted that Stolypin, the Russian minister, was assassinated by the revolutionaries a few years before 1917 because he was very successful in initiating those liberal social reforms which would have precluded the need for a "revolution."
(19.9) Did Lenin consider himself a Jew?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:59:38 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
Phil wrote:
"So, my argument is that ONLY someone who identified himself as a Jew would have been entrusted to lead a Jewish revolution, which the Bolshevik revolution was."
Peter replied:
"{What then of Clinton, a non-Jew at the head of a Jewish-dominated cabinet? By your logic, Clinton must be a Jew. You are wrong; Jews often want a non-Jew at the helm, with them operating as back-seat drivers. Sometimes, however, the non-Jewish driver takes things into his own hands. Stalin was the exemplar}"
The answer is simple. Clinton was not leading a Jewish revolution. Clinton's role was not critical to Jewish plans in the way Lenin's was.
Certainly, Jews often use front men to disguise their power. Perhaps we ought to make a distinction between those who identify themselves as Jews and those who identify themselves with the Jewish cause (usually various kinds of Masons) and who are useful as front men. Lenin was both, while Clinton was only the latter.
You also wrote:
" {There's a difference between us. You used the heading, in the subject line, 'More on: was Lenin a Jew". I changed it to "Did Lenin consider himself a Jew? '. The same happened a few days ago, when I forwarded one of your posts.}"
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I thought that you and I agreed that Lenin identified himself as Jew. Are you now saying something different?
Reply (Peter M.):
I'm saying that your terminology suggests unalterable inheritance, and mine alterable identifcation.
(18) Discussion between Phil Eversoul and myself, about the collapse of Christianity
How and why, and what it portends for Western Civilization.
The timestamps indicate the sequence, except that my time is Australian Eastern (Summer), while Phil's is U.S. West Coast.
In each email, a statement by the other party is indicated by "> ".
Judaism, Aryanism, Christianity
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:31:10 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
... My name is Philip Podolner Eversoul. Call me Phil. "Podolner" is my family name; I believe it comes from the area known as Podolia, where my father's family came from. I'm a third generation American. My mother's parents came from an area near Pinsk, in a shtetl called "Motele" or "Motel." It happen to be the town where Chaim Weizmann was born.
About 28 years ago I took the name "Eversoul" as a sign of my spiritual rebirth, as a son of God through the spirit that Jesus bestowed on us after he departed. Now, I'm not Christian. The spiritual text that I've used most for my guidance is called the Urantia Book, or more properly, the Urantia Papers, aka the Fifth Epochal Revelation. Have any of you read it? The main point I want to make here is that the God of Jesus is the loving Father of Heaven, and NOT the Talmudic-rabbinic Jehovah. Jehovah, imo, is a bloodthirsty genocidal demon-god more accurately known as Moloch. This Jehovah is not worthy of respect by any decent person, and yet he is, officially, the god of the Jews. Jehovah is the core of Judaism.
Christianity is the attempt to harmonize the mission of Jesus with Jehovah, i.e., to combine the rabbinic version of the Old Testament with the apostolic version of the New Testament. The truth is that Jesus and Jehovah are absolutely incompatible, and therefore Christianity is based on a profound error. This error finds its highest expression in Paul's doctrine of the atonement. This error also makes Christianity inherently unstable and contradictory, and under the assaults, through the centuries, of the Jewish-Masonic alliance, Christianity has collapsed as a world power.
You could ask, is it good or bad that Christianity has collapsed, and the answer is another question: what has it been replaced with? Anything better? I don't think so. The Urantia Papers, imo, are supposed to be the new revelation of the better and higher way, but they have been suppressed. That is a story I can't get into now.
I'm telling you all this because I'm trying to explain, as briefly as I can, that I'm a follower of Jesus according to the teachings of the Urantia Papers and that I'm not a Christian. And why do I feel the need to tell you this? It is because I was born and raised as a Stalinist communist, like many other Jews in America. I was saturated with the atheist-materialist viewpoint of Marxism. Both sides of my family were pro-Bolshevik. When I got to college I started my spiritual path out of this darkness.
Many years later, at this point in my life, I find myself in support of white nationalism, largely because of what I learned about America from the Christian Patriot movement. America was intended to be a country for white people, and I think that was a good idea. At this time, however, America no longer exists; it died when Roosevelt's Fabian socialist revolution took over. We have experienced 67 years of increasing socialism-communism in this country, sponsored by international corporate capitalism. (Socialism and communism have always been fully subsidized subsidiaries of International Finance Capitalism).
So where does this put me? In a very strange and difficult position. I'm a recovering Jew, so to speak, now a follower of Jesus, supporting a white nationalism in a country that used to be based on white nationalism but that no longer exists. I sometimes wonder that if, by a miracle, America were to be resurrected, would it accept me? Probably, but a new understanding would have to be worked out. America was based on Christianity (God-given rights, etc), but Christianity, for the most part, has died -- it is certainly no longer a dominant power. Hence, for America to resurrect itself, it has to come to a new and better understanding of God. America was a nation conceived under the recognition of God and in obedience to the laws of God. A nation like America could not exist except in relation to God -- that's where common law rights come from, in part. Now that America is dead and Christianity is dead as a general cultural power, (the Jewish-Masonic alliance having succeeded in replacing them), a new and better relationship of man to God must be achieved before any improvement can be expected.
Imo, nationalism and racialism have a valid place in this new future relationship of man to God. We are indeed, spiritually, all equal as sons of God IN POTENTIAL (but not in actuality), but we are also physical, emotional, and mental creatures with great differences, much of it genetic. Therefore, the different types of humanity deserve different (and more or less separate) homelands or nations. Just because we live in different homes does not mean that we cannot or should not be friendly to each other in the spirit of God's universality. Good fences make good neighbors.
I wanted you to know these things about me because you deserve to know where I'm coming from.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:04:08 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
{this one is out of order; it comes after the next one; but logically, it belongs here}
Phil,
"Aryan Christianity" was the combination of Aryan racialism with a Christian consciousness; it developed in the wake of the Viking (=Norman) invasion of Europe.
The Vikings settled down as the Normans (the aristocracy, First Estate), but adopted the Christian religion; the Church, blessing the Normans, became the Second Estate. This union launched the Crusades, and later the "white Christian" destruction of New World cultures. Part of the change was the overturning of Augustine's Pacifism, by Aquinas' Just War theology.
Both Aryanism and Judaism are particularist; Christianity, like Buddhism, is universalist. In our time, the contradictions between Particularisms and Universalisms are becoming obvious. I, for example, grew up "white Christian (Catholic)", and could not see the contradiction. Now I can; once the Devil was removed as a transcendental evil, I could see the human evil.
We're all guilty of it ... but what can we do? We have to live in the real world.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:40:12 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com
{here, Phil replies to a reply from me. I do not have a copy of the latter}
> I agree with you - Christianity was really a new religion; it's incompatible with Judaism, it's more like Buddhism. But not only "Jewish Christianity" has "died"; "Aryan Christianity" has died too - that was the hybrid formed after the Vikings brought Aryanism back to Europe.
I'm not familiar with "Aryan Christianity." It is, I imagine, something different from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. Did Aryan Christianity recognize Jesus in any way?
> Strangely, in some ways Christianity as a universal ethic is not dying, but being realized. That's why we can now see that "Aryan Christianity" was a contradiction. Now the Aryan Christians are having terrible trouble articulating their worldview, blending Aryan racialism with an Old Testament consciousness borrowed from the Jews.
Yes, I imagine they would have such trouble. There need to be a general understanding that the Books of Moses were not written by Moses ( who lived in the 1400s BC according to my information) but by the Jewish priesthood (between 600 to 450 BC, roughly) for the racial-political purpose of creating Judaism as we know it today. Then we would realize that they are not holy scripture. Jesus called "the Law" the works of men.
> Now some questions ... 1. What do you make of (1) the Trotsky-Stalin divide
Trotsky was the heir apparent, so to speak, but Stalin outmaneuvered him. The real question in my mind is why Stalin, a non-Jew whose "anti-semitism" seems well established, wanted to rise to the top of a Jewish organization called communism.
I think Stalin was just as much dedicated to Marxism-Leninism as Trotsky. Their differences were tactical, about whether to launch a total world revolution now or later. Stalin proved his dedication to communism by preparing a massive invasion of Europe to be launched in July of 1941. Hitler beat him to the punch, in a preemptive strike, by just a few weeks. If Hitler hadn't done this, the Red Army would have rolled over all of Europe in 1941. See Suvorov's "Icebreaker."
> (2) the Israel-Soviet divide? It seems that Trotskyist groups are largely Jewish-dominated; why then did some Jews continue to support the USSR, after 1936 etc? In what ways did the rivalry between Moscow and Jerusalem split Jews and weaken Communism?
Stalin didn't mind Jews as long as they were thoroughly assimilationist. He didn't like Jews who wanted to be Jews. Jewish support, for the most part, for the Bolshevik Revolution was based on the assumption that it would allow them to remain Jews, i.e., to maintain a Jewish subculture. Certainly Trotskyist Jews withdrew their support for Stalinism, but non-Trotskyist Jews (like my father) supported Stalin all the way. For non-Trotskyist Jews, the Soviet Union was still the hope of mankind, the workers' paradise. Stalin was still god.
You ask, "In what ways did the rivalry between Moscow and Jerusalem split Jews and weaken Communism?"
What a great question, Peter. This is a vast subject with many aspects and ramifications, but I'll give you my view. The most important way in which this rivalry weakened communism is that it started the Cold War. The Cold War was absolutely NOT started by the American right wing or by anti-communist groups in America. The right wing has had no dominant political power in America since Roosevelt began another wave of socialist revolution. All American presidents since Roosevelt have been part of the same socialist program. After World War II, the American right wing did NOT regain power. Therefore, it was not the American right wing that initiated the Cold War.
The Cold War was initiated, I believe, by the Jewish International Nation Network (what I call the JINN), using its power in America to cause America to oppose the Soviet Union. Why? Because Stalin was getting too "anti-semitic." There was the Jewish Doctors Plot, the suppression of Jewish community, and most of all, there were rumors that Stalin was going to deport all the Jews to Siberia. All of this is in "Stalin's War Against the Jews," by Louis Rapoport. Stalin was no longer "good for the Jews." Hence the Cold War.
{The Doctors' Plot was in 1953. But the turning point was the proposal by the Jewish Antifascist Committe for a Jewish republic in the Crimea, a homeland for Jews from all over the world. Lozovsky and Mikhoels were shot for this; another proponent, Molotov's wife, was spared. Jews were the only nationality in the USSR with a home-base outside the USSR, and their international network made them uncontrollable. Mikhoels was the brother of one of the Kremlin doctors later accused in the Doctors' Plot. The Baruch Plan of 1946 probably exacerbated the falling-out.}
> 2. The Urantia Papers sounds very "New Age"; can you supply some URLs for investigating this matter?
Certainly: http://www.google.com/search?q=URANTIA
This google page will give you many options. If you find it overwhelming, let me know.
And yes, the Urantia Papers (generally known, less accurately, as the Urantia Book) have often been "marketed" within the New Age culture. I always thought this was a mistake because I never wanted the Urantia Book associated with that New Age stuff.
Btw, I think most of the New Age movement is Jewish-sponsored or Jewish-supported.
> 3. What, do you think, are the New World Order's goals, and what are the obstacles to those goals?
Another great question. To answer than, we need to ask, what groups are the leaders of the New World Order. If we know what they are, we should be able to determine their goals. The usual suspects are two: Jewry and Masonry. If you have ever read John Coleman's "The Committee of 300," you can see that he believes that it is the Brits who control everything. Coleman doesn't say so explicitly, but it seems obvious to me that these high-ranking British elite are also high-degree Masons. You should know that international Masonry is very powerful. In his book "Freemasonry and the Vatican," Leon de Poncins showed that a secret meeting of Freemasons in Paris in 1917 drew up the program for the Treaty of Versailles of 1919.
International Jewry (or the JINN, as I prefer), has always been the main suspect, and for good reasons. Perhaps you have read Michael Higger's "The Jewish Utopia," written in 1932, which outlines the Jewish plan for absolute world control. It is based on a vast research into rabbinic sources. In his book, Higger states that Jerusalem will be the world capital, the Jewish power will rule the world, and all gentiles must serve this Jewish power, through observance of Noahide laws. No "idolatrous" religions will be permitted, and that means that Christianity will be abolished.
The Jewish plan for world control, with or without the scheme in "The Jewish Utopia," derives from Deuteronomy and related books in the Old Testament, especially the Books of Moses. There is really nothing that the Jewish power is doing in the world that is not predicated on the core of Jewish culture, which is Jehovah and the Books of Moses. This means that Jehovah has promised the Jews that they will rule the world if they obey him. In achieving this goal, the Jewish people decided that they themselves would act as the collective messiah. Hence communism.
How can we tell who is ruling the world? Normally, the conqueror imposes his religion on the conquered. What is the dominant religion in the world today? I submit that it is the Religion of the Holocaust. I submit that in this way we can tell who rules the world.
There has always been a debate about whether the Jewish Power or the Masonic Power has the upper hand in the New World Order. I believe it is the Jewish Power; I believe the Jewish Power is the senior partner. We don't see the worship of Isis and Osiris, or of Nimrod, or of Baphomet imposed on the world. Instead we see the Religion of the Holocaust imposed on the world. As I see it, the Masonic Power (on the upper levels) is composed of those gentiles who hate Jesus, Christians, and Christianity, as much as the Jewish Power does. Recall that high-degree Masonry is largely based on the Cabala and uses the Jewish calendar. Hence these two Powers work together.
You ask what obstacles they face. Certainly the Internet comes to mind. But more than that, this seemingly huge power, the alliance of Jewry and Masonry, is in opposition to God and the Universe. Eventually it must fail because it is not based on truth. Other than that, the NWO has no problems.
> 4. What part would the rebuilt Third Temple of Solomon play?
Well, it would obviously be a symbol of global Jewish power.
> Which factions of the NWO are oriented to it, which oppose it, and which don't care?
Certainly Masonry would support it. The Temple of Solomon has always been a big deal in Masonry. This is another example of Masonry's Jewish roots.
> What effect might the rebuilding of the Third Temple have on Christianity? (e.g. make it more Jewish, or less Jewish).
Certainly Christian Zionists would totally approve. Christianity, as a world power, has already succumbed to Judaism. It has been beaten, except for the diehard fundamentalists. The reigning doctrine is that Christianity is the ultimate cause of the Holocaust, and because Christianity, in general, has agreed with it or acquiesced in it, Christianity, in general, has become the lapdog of Judaism. "Mainstream" Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, lost all its spiritual power by agreeing that no one, particularly Jews, need Jesus to find salvation. In other words, Christianity has been stripped of Jesus in the "ecumenical" movement. Judaism cannot tolerate Jesus, so Jesus has been removed as an essential factor.
I hope I answered your questions sufficiently. If not, let me know.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:05:40 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
Phil,
You seem to be saying something like this:
1. The Cold War has been won by Zionism, in conjunction with its allies (Fabian Socialists, Masons etc.).
2. Communism and Zionism were meant to co-exist, with Jews running both. The Zionists had to help Stalin against Hitler, but later Stalin got out of hand (refused to accept subordination) and became the New Hitler.
3. The Cold War became a struggle between Communism and Zionism, but each side was also co-operating against Aryanist forces (the WASP establishment in the West; apartheid regimes in the Third World).
Q1: suppose Trotsky, not Stalin, had won power and installed his successors. Would Communism then have fitted in with Zionism better, as intended? Might the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government have been accepted by a Trotskyist USSR?
After Roosevelt's election, H. G. Wells (an advocate of World Government and an admirer of Lenin) had interviews with both him and Stalin. Wells' one-hour discussion (debate) with Stalin has been published, and it shows that Stalin was no fool, contrary to Trotskyist propaganda. Anyone who could debate H. G. Wells for one hour would be no fool. I think that Wells was sounding out the prospects for World Government, back then (about 1934).
Q2. Could the Great Depression have been engineered to remove the incumbent Republican administration and install a Jewish-dominated one (Roosevelt's)?
(In posing this question, it might seem that I oppose the New Deal. On the contrary, I grew up in postwar Australia under New Deal-type conditions - it was a golden age. The weakness of the New Deal was its borrowing of money from private bankers).
Q3. Consider the equation Stalin=Hitler, which it seems Zionists adopted. Who else thought like that? Hayek, Popper and their Mont Pelerin Society, which spawned all the think-tanks which in recent decades have undone the "New Deal" in the West. Popper, a Jewish philosopher, against Marx, another Jewish philosopher.
You argue that the New Deal entrenched Jewish Power in the U.S.; yet Jewish Power has survived the dismantling of the New Deal.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:21:06 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com
> You seem to be saying something like this: 1. The Cold War has been won by Zionism, in conjunction with its allies (Fabian Socialists, Masons etc.).
Not merely the Cold War, but the world itself - for the moment. My view is that the Jewish International Nation Network is the dominant force in the New World Order Alliance and that this is proved by the imposition of the Religion of the Holocaust upon the world. This is the signature of the conqueror.
> 2. Communism and Zionism were meant to co-exist, with Jews running both. The Zionists had to help Stalin against Hitler, but later Stalin got out of hand (refused to accept subordination) and became the New Hitler.
Yes. Hence the Cold War.
> 3. The Cold War became a struggle between Communism and Zionism,
Yes, well said, (I hadn't thought of that formulation before) but of course it wasn't advertised that way. It was billed as the struggle of the Free World against communism.
> but each side was also co-operating against Aryanist forces (the WASP establishment in the West; apartheid regimes in the Third World).
Yes, again very well said. The communist forces won most of the victories against the "Free World." The American right wing was turned into hamburger meat in Vietnam.
> Q1: suppose Trotsky, not Stalin, had won power and installed his successors. Would Communism then have fitted in with Zionism better, as intended?
Excellent question. Of course, I can only make a guess. I think the main reason that there was so much friction between communism and Zionism was because Jewish communists were assimilationist minded and didn't - consciously - want to be Jews any longer. I recall my father once saying, "I am not a Jew." At the time, that remark puzzled me; I didn't know why he would say that. In the conflict between the Zionists and the communists, the Zionists really had the better argument because communism was run by Jews (and Judaized gentiles) and certainly not by the workers. Hence communist Jews were suffering from self-deception about their Jewishness (and the essential Jewishness of communism). The Zionists had no such self-deception. Trotsky was a very self-deceived Jew, the archetypal Jewish internationalist-secularist-assimilationist. Therefore, I can only assume that Trotsky would have had just as much trouble with Zionism as Stalin did. As I said last time, the Jewish communists just didn't grasp that communism was b.s. intended for the goyim, not for themselves. Jewish communists bought the b.s., and I think this was largely due to their ignorance of how the Soviet Union itself was built with Western capital, technology, and engineering.
> Might the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government have been accepted by a Trotskyist USSR?
I think it would have depended on whether Trotsky would have had a better relationship with the Zionists than Stalin had, and it doesn't seem likely. Baruch, I believe, was a Zionist. On the other hand, Trotsky didn't believe in socialism in one country. If he had attained power, I wonder if he would have concluded, as Stalin did, that socialism needed a breathing spell to gather its resources before assaulting the world. If he had not thought so, it seems likely he would have destroyed the Soviet Union by overreaching. Nevertheless, on the assumption that Trotsky would not have destroyed the Soviet Union through overreaching, we know that he was more of an internationalist than Stalin, and the idea of the internationalist Baruch Plan would have been more in keeping with his own outlook.
> After Roosevelt's election, H. G. Wells (an advocate of World Government and an admirer of Lenin) had interviews with both him and Stalin. > Wells' one-hour discussion (debate) with Stalin has been published, and it shows that Stalin was no fool, contrary to Trotskyist propaganda. > Anyone who could debate H. G. Wells for one hour would be no fool. I think that Wells was sounding out the prospects for World Government, back then (about 1934).
No doubt. I'm not familiar with this interview. However, world government was always an essential feature of the communist agenda, and I see Stalin as a loyal communist. He was simply more cautious than Trotsky about the timetable.
> Q2. Could the Great Depression have been engineered to remove the incumbent Republican administration and install a Jewish-dominated one (Roosevelt's)?
Absolutely. This is a historical fact that has been extensively written about. The only thing necessary to have prevented the Great Depression was the extension of credit to the nation. This was the very purpose of the so-called Federal Reserve. But it refused to extend the necessary credit. Surely you know that the Federal Reserve was created by Paul Warburg, a close associate of the Rothschilds.
> (In posing this question, it might seem that I oppose the New Deal. On the contrary, I grew up in postwar Australia under New Deal-type conditions - it was a golden age. The weakness of the New Deal was its borrowing of money (from private bankers).
Yes, it created an interest-bearing currency. What happened in America was that, in the 1930s, America went bankrupt, by arrangement, and had to turn its gold reserves over to England and France. What that meant is that America NO LONGER HAD ANY MONEY OF ITS OWN. America became a nation in receivership. To this very day, the American people, as a whole, HAVE NO MONEY. This is because the money they use was loaned to them - at interest - by a private, for-profit corporation called the Federal Reserve, whose stock is owned by international bankers. A nation in receivership can no longer be considered a sovereign nation. This is why America lost the last of its original constitutional structure. The collateral for the Federal Reserve's loan of currency to the American people is: all the property, all the income, all the labor of the American people. This collateral is assured through the social security system, which enrolls all Americans in the income tax extortion and enslavement system. I can only suppose that your Australian New Deal was similar to this, although I'm not familiar with the specific Australian facts.
Roosevelt's New Deal did not solve the economic problems of the American people. It was only World War II that did that. By contrast, Hitler's economic program put all the German people to work and created a labor shortage - without going to war and without building a war economy (Yes, he built up the German military, but that is different from creating an economy that is dependent on war, as Stalin's economy was). It was Britain, the Soviet Union, and America that were building war economies - in concert - with the intention of going to war against the Axis. The reason for this is that the Allied Powers, having been taken over by the Jewish-Masonic international Power, were committed to waging a Holy War against white nationalism. Hitler was "evil" because he was proving that white nationalism could be very successful.
> Q3. Consider the equation Stalin=Hitler, which it seems Zionists adopted. Who else thought like that? Hayek, Popper and their Mont Pelerin Society, which spawned all the think-tanks which in recent decades have undone the "New Deal" in the West. Popper, a Jewish philosopher, against Marx, another Jewish philosopher.
I suppose this is the "neo-con" movement. The "New Deal" may have become ideologically discredited to some extent, but it still prospers, stronger than ever in America. The last time I looked, Bill Clinton had a one-year trillion dollar budget. It is true that free-market economic theory is very respectable these days, but don't you think it has a valid place?
> You argue that the New Deal entrenched Jewish Power in the U.S.; yet Jewish Power has survived the dismantling of the New Deal.
What dismantling? I am unaware of it. Bill Clinton is directly in the heritage of Roosevelt.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:17:10 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
On Lenin:
Soon after the Versailles Conference, Lenin wrote, in September 1920,
"... somewhere in the proximity of Warsaw lies the center of the entire current system of international imperialism ... because Poland, as a buffer between Russia and Germany ... is the linchpin of the whole Treaty of Versailles. The modern imperialist world rests on the Treaty of Versailles ... Poland is such a powerful element in this Versailles peace that by extracting this element we break up the entire Versailles peace. We had tasked ourselves with occupying Warsaw; the task changed and it turned out that what was being decided was not the fate of Warsaw but the fate of the Treaty of Versailles"
- from Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive, pp. 100-101.
By "extracting" Poland, Lenin was referring to the USSR's attack on Poland in 1920, which - had it succeeded - would have seen Poland affiliated with the USSR and the Red Army giving support to the German Communists trying to overthrow the Government there.
The Treaty of Versailles was the work of the Zionist-Fabian Socialist forces, but they did not get their way completely; as E. J. Dillon noted, the Anglo-Saxons were dominated by Jews; but the Anglo-Saxons dominated the other camps, so Aryanism still shared power with Zionism.
Was Lenin opposing Zionism-Fabianism, or just the Aryanism still present in the Versailles system?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:26:07 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
> You seem to concur with me, that we've got Zionism because we didn't get Communism. Zionism is the price for the defeat of Communism.
I think we got both, although by 1989 Soviet communism did die and Zionism is still here. For the entire period of the Cold War, communism continued to win almost all the battles, which in itself is highly suspicious. As Gary Allen ("None Dare Call It Conspiracy") once said, you would have thought that by the law of averages the West would have won half the time. But it didn't. Soviet communism continued to grow.
As of today, you could say that Zionism is the price for the defeat of communism. But various forms of strong socialism still continue to dominate Western countries, not to mention Australia, where you are. Also, Chinese communism seems to be continuing to grow.
I think Zionism and communism were meant to complement each other in the Jewish plan, but it didn't work out too well because too many Jewish communists believed in assimilation. I believe the original idea was: communism for the goyim (but led by Jews), and Zionism for the Jews. Apparently many communist Jews didn't get it. They didn't realize, in their naiveté, that communism was b.s. for the goyim. They believed the b.s.
> In other words, the usual interpretation of the Cold War is quite wrong.
I agree. I found the Cold War exceedingly difficult to understand, and I still find many puzzling things about it. The mystery was that it was both a mock conflict and a serious conflict. If it had not been a mock conflict, the West would have won far more often than it did. If it had not been a serious conflict, the East-West tensions would not have been so great. Witness the October Missile Crisis of 1962. Here's my theory about it: The Soviet Union, by pre-arrangement with the West, sent missiles to Cuba. This was supposed to neutralize America and force a deal with the Soviet Union to preserve "peace." Kennedy was supposed to let this happen, but he didn't. Apparently he defied his orders. He actually fought for American national security, i.e., a nationalist purpose in direct conflict with a communist purpose. What could be worse than that? He was a traitor. I think this is the reason he was assassinated. Of course, there could have been other reasons as well.
One must remember that from the very beginning, the industrial-military power of the Soviet Union was 75% made in the USA, the rest in other western nations. The Soviet Union always was entirely a scarecrow built by international capitalism. (This did not mean that the Soviet Union was not dangerous). See "National Suicide," by Anthony Sutton. In Vietnam, American troops were shot to pieces by military equipment made in the Soviet Union in plants designed by Western technology. The Ho Chi Minh trail was filled with Ford trucks sending equipment to the communists. America's defeat in Vietnam was made in the USA, in more ways than one. Among other things, it was a way to destroy and discredit the American right that sincerely wanted to fight communism but was led into the Vietnam ambush. American defeat in Vietnam was planned in Washington, DC.
{There is an irony here. The Soviet Union won Vietnam, but lost China. After the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese Government had to choose between its two backers. It chose the USSR, renewing a defence treaty with it which excluded China. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia elicited China's invasion of Vietnam, in 1979, in response. The US warned the USSR not to intervene, and it did not, failing to honour its treaty with Vietnam. The American support must have moved Deng more to the American camp; I read that, during the 1980s, China allowed the CIA into China to monitor Soviet nuclear tests. Lee Kuan Yew disclosed Deng's thinking: "LEE KUAN YEW: ... So when I met Deng Xiaoping, when he came here in '78 in November, just before the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, to try and prepare the ground for us to support him against the Vietnamese ... He spent about two hours recounting why we must all get together and fight this Cuba of the Russian Bear. There's a Cuba in Southeast Asia, the Vietnamese, who will eat us all up." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_leekuanyew.html}
> From the point of view of the Zionists, there was no difference between Hitler and Stalin. I only came to see this within the last 2 years.
Well, Stalin was idolized and deified by the world Jewish media - until he was seen as bad for the Jews.
> Stalin, himself, came to realize this. What a shock!
That would be the period in which he realized he was in a deadly conflict with the Zionists. That made the Cold War "real."
> Our understanding of Stalin is especially erroneous. Please don't think I'm making him out to be a hero; far from it; but we've got him wrong. Please check this article at my website: stalin.html
I did. I have a few questions. You wrote:
"7. Soon after the Conference, Lenin wrote, in September 1920, "... somewhere in the proximity of Warsaw lies the center of the entire current system of international imperialism ... <snip> . Lenin's opposition shows that the Internationalist forces were in two opposed camps, whereas The Protocols of Zion implies that they are all in one camp."
My question is, Lenin's opposition to what? {to the carve-up of the world by the Versailles powers}
You wrote:
"8. Pavel Sudoplatov, Stalin's spymaster, made startling disclosures in his 1994 memoirs, Special Tasks. He notes the importance of Jewish support for the USSR during World War II: "During World War II, more than ninety percent of the lonely soldiers spread throughout Western Europe who sent us crucial information that enabled us to beat back the German invasion were Jews whose hatred of Hitler spurred them to risk their lives and families" (p. 4). He says that the Soviet atomic program depended on assistance from Western scientists such as Robert Oppenheimer and Neils Bohr (both Jewish), and backed this up with further information in a later edition of the book. But since Baruch and Lilienthal were Jews on the American side, pushing for World Government on American terms before the USSR got the bomb, it looks as if Jews were divided over that too.
I'm wondering if you have heard the story of Major George Jordan from 1943. He found out that Roosevelt, using Harry Hopkins, was sending all the secrets of the Manhattan Project (for the atomic bomb) to Stalin. All the blueprints and all the materiel necessary for building the atomic bomb were being shipped to Siberia via Great Falls, Montana. On Roosevelt's orders. How's that for proof that on the highest level American and Soviet foreign policy were the same, and that therefore there had to be a secret international method of coordination, a secret level of power. I believe that's where people like Averell Harriman fit into the picture, as well as Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, and their friends. Harriman was a Skull and Bones man. Have you read Sutton's book on Skull and Bones? During World War II, Harriman went to Moscow to "advise" Stalin.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:32:43 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com
In Leon DeGrelle's book, "Hitler--Born At Versailles," I learned that the Versailles Allies were very supportive of Lenin's communism. For example, when the Soviet Republic of Bavaria was formed in 1919, they offered to recognize it and exempt it from German reparations. (How's that for showing your hand!!) They also put up innumerable roadblocks to the Russian anti-communist generals fighting the communists in 1919-1920. So I have to think that Lenin saw the Versailles Allies as essentially a friendly force. This fits perfectly with the idea that the NWO is a capitalist-communist synthesis.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:04:48 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com
> 1. Do you think Judaism is primarily racial, or primarily religious? If the latter, why can it also be seen as the former?
Hi Peter,
I think that the best answer was given by Joseph Klausner, who said that Judaism is a religion about a certain people, the people of Israel (even if they aren't, as we know, really lineal descendants of the House of Israel). Now, most of these people today are not religious at all, but Judaism does not stand simply as a religion, but as a certain group. The cultural-ethnic-genetic tie is in modern times much stronger than any religious tie, for most people who consider themselves to be Jews. However, if the so-called "religious fundamentalists" such as the Gush Emunim continue to gain control of modern Israel, the definition of a Jew will shift to a more religious definition, in Talmudic-Cabalistic terms.
One of the interesting characteristics of Judaism is that Jews do not define themselves by doctrine or dogma, at least not nearly as much as Christians have. There is no one orthodox theology that all Jews must accept; a Jew can choose among the opinions of any respected rabbi. This is because Judaism is much more ethnically based than Christianity. In Judaism, it is much more important to be a Jew than to believe a certain doctrine. Also, in Judaism, if one is religiously inclined, observance or practice is much more important than doctrine. As Fackenheim said, there is indeed an orthopraxis but not a theological orthodoxy.
> 2. You write, "Communism was meant to be b.s. for non-Jews", but that some Jewish Communists were assimilationist.
It seems that most Jewish communists were assimilationist, at least in theory. However, I have not done a study of that particular point. Many Jews were self-deceived on this point. They thought they were assimilationist but they actually lived, for the most part, among Jews. I think this is a big reason for the conflict between Jewish communists and Jewish Zionists. The Zionists were not self-deceived about their Jewishness. In my own upbringing, I simply thought I was an American; I didn't think of myself as Jewish even though I had communist beliefs.
> (a) Marx was a Jew; was Engels?
So I've read. {I do not think so}
> (b) Do you think Marx & Engels were anti-goy conspirators (zionists), or was their movement later taken over by anti-goy conspirators?
You come up with great questions, Peter. I don't know enough about what Marx or Engels personally thought about that point. I'm familiar with their theories and public writings to a certain extent, which don't address the question you ask. I have read David McCaulden's "Exiles from History," which is a brief psychohistory of the Jews and of Marx. McCaulden wrote: (p.9)
"Perhaps the most profound summary of all was provided by Karl Marx himself, a short time before his death of bronchitis, at the age of 64, in 1883. In a rare moment of candor, he had told his octoroon son-in-law Paul LaFargue: 'Ce qu'il y a certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.' -- 'One thing I am certain of; that is that I myself am not a Marxist.'
"What better summary could there be of a man who was tormented through his life by hypocrisy. On the one hand he despised workers, Slavs, Negroes, and proletarians generally. Yet at the same time he wrote about the eventual takeover by the working class. He loathed Jews and Jewish characteristics, yet he knew deep down that he himself was a Jew through and through, and that that could never change. ... He sought refuge with his WASP aristocratic wife Jenny von Westphalen and with the Germanic Friedrich Engels, but nowhere could he escape the eternal truth of his own origins. He was rebelling against himself. He was caught up in an eternal Jewish struggle -- the underlying self-hate, and the overlay of compensatory arrogance and 'assimilation.' "
So, if Marx really loathed proletarians personally, did he really believe that they were destined by history to rule the world? I don't know, but if I were to guess, I'd have to say that he really didn't believe his own theory -- at least, not on a literal, superficial level. He may have realized that his writing was only a propaganda tool by higher-level Judaist planners.
One has to take into consideration the fact that Marx was strongly influenced by Moses Hess, who was both a socialist and a Zionist.
Now, if Marx himself said on his deathbed that he was not a Marxist, then that suggests that his writings had a deeper, underlying purpose. Zionists such as Hess would have shown him that deeper purpose. Yet Marx hated his Jewishness, even though he could not really deny it.
> (c) You seem to imply that the assimilationist Jews became the supporters of Stalin;
Yes. It is also interesting that Stalin, although a Georgian, identified himself as a Russian. He certainly didn't identify himself as a Jew, even though he ruled a Jewish state that gradually became more Russian.
> those who supported a separate Jewish secular subculture stayed with Trotsky;
This may be so. I haven't read anything yet specifically on that point, but it seems logical.
> the religious separatists identified as Zionists, but were able to do so as Communists in the USSR, until Stalin forced a choice upon them.
Yes. Rapoport's "Stalin's War Against the Jews" supports this. Again, this seems logical.
> (d) "b.s. for non-Jews" - what does this mean? Perhaps like Feminism today - a false utopia masking a kind of slavery? as Gershon Shalom tells goys they will be better off when ruled by Jews?
In my mind, communism had three main purposes: to destroy Christianity, to destroy nationalism (particularly Christian nationalism), and to destroy the family. These were the tree main pillars of white civilization (faith, nation, and family) that had to come down before Jews could rule. They are also the natural and essential barriers against totalitarian global government.
> (e) How does Feminism fit into the picture?
Its purpose is to destroy the family by destroying relationships between men and women.
> 3. I erred in describing 1950s Australia as "New Deal". It was not a welfare state - there was no welfare; but it had a full-employment policy, and was quite socialist, in terms of government ownership of the telephone monopoly, the overseas airline, one of the 2 domestic airlines, the main shipping line, the railways, a major bank plus the reserve bank, the universities etc. In those days, the Australian currency was higher than the US currency. It was a wonderful economy to live in, a paradise by comparison with today.
I see. What I don't know is whether Australia in those days had interest-bearing currency. If it did, then it was economically ruled by the international bankers, just as the USA was and still is. When a nation has its own sovereignty, it issues its own currency, and it does not charge itself interest for doing so. There would be no point to that. When a nation does not issue its own currency, it has lost the most important foundation of its sovereignty, as the Rothschilds well know.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 21:56:51 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
1. You're right about governments paying interest on the currency they issue ... this point is made in the Protocols of Zion. Do you believe that document is genuine?
2. Communism, and National Socialism, escaped this trick. My theory is that the capture of a country's currency is the Zionists' main trick, and that Communism showed how to escape it (it issued its currency in the way the Protocols advises). In other words, there are lessons to learn from Communism.
3. Do you agree that Jews lost control of the USSR ... i.e. they were unable to dominate the Russians - and for that reason, mounted the emigration campaign?
4. What about Gorbachev? Would you agree that he's really a Fabian?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 21:56:14 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
> Phil, Yes, in the 1950s the Australian government was paying interest on its currency, but it kept the real interest rate very low, around 1-2%. The trans-Australia railway was built (earlier in the century), I believe, by the government issuing its own currency without interest (as Lincoln did during the Civil War). In 1953 the Federal Government here passed Double Taxation legislation. This allows mulninational cvompanies to pay tax offshore, in tax havens. It's a major reason for the foreign debt of the U.S. & Australia.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:01:03 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com
> 1. You're right about governments paying interest on the currency they issue ... this point is made in the Protocols of Zion. Do you believe that document is genuine?
Hi Peter,
Well, well. This is the hottest hot potato, isn't it. I've done a certain amount of study on this subject and I still have more to learn about it. I have L. Fry's book, "Waters Flowing Eastward," which is a study of this question, but I haven't read most of it yet.
First, to answer your question directly, we have to split it into two parts: authorship and contents. From all I know so far, the authorship is not proven or in doubt, or (from the Jewish side) it is denounced. As far as the contents go, they have proven to be quite accurate and predictive, in my opinion. So that's my own bottom line: authorship in doubt, contents good.
Hans Schmidt, who wrote "End Games/End Times," a year or two ago, has a very interesting theory. He believes that while the content is true, the Russian secret police did write it from notes that they had kept over many years of surveillance of revolutionary Jews. Schmidt does not believe that there was any such secret conclave at Basel in 1897 that would have or could have produced such a document. He finds the Protocols inconsistent what what Jews would have said at a secret world-revolutionary meeting. He believes that the Russian secret police had the book published in order to warn the world of what they had learned of Jewish world-revolutionary intentions and doctrines.
Norman Rockwell, the American Nazi leader and author of "White Power," wrote (in 1967):
"The Jews howl bitterly that these documents are a 'forgery.' But this is as irrelevant as claiming that a man did not commit a murder with one particular knife -- but another knife altogether. It matters not which knife was used. The fact is that somebody did a murder. The Protocols, long before World War I or II, set forth with horrible clarity exactly what some group would bring about in the ways of world wars, inflations, depressions, and moral subversions -- how they would do it, and to whom they would do it.
"And sixty years later, not one word has failed of fulfillment exactly as set forth in the Protocols. If they are 'forged' then it was done by a genius who knew exactly what the Jews of the world would do for sixty years, with not partial, but perfect accuracy. The Protocols alone, of all knowledge on this earth, give one the power to predict historical events successfully, as I have been able to do since studying them. And a theory which enables scientific, calculated prediction is not the mark of a fraud, but always the mark of a realistic theory." (p. 244).
Douglas Reed, in his "Controversy of Zion," (1955) wrote:
"...in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Relations at Moscow, published a book, of which the British Museum in London has a copy bearing its date-stamp, August 10, 1906. Great interest would attach to anything that could be elicited about Nilus and his book, which has never been translated; the mystery with which he and it have been surrounded impedes research. One chapter was translated into English in 1920. This calls for mention here because the original publication occurred in 1905, although the violent uproar only began when it appeared in English in 1920.
"This one chapter was published in England and America as 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'; I cannot learn whether this was the original chapter heading or whether it was provided during translation. No proof is given that the document is what it purports to be, a minute of a secret meeting of Jewish 'Elders.' In that respect, therefore, it is valueless.
"In every other respect it is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt's papers. Many other documents in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all of them. The other were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counterforce."
A different story is given in the publisher's forward to L. Fry's "Waters Flowing Eastward" (1953):
"In 1937 a Russian ex-officer of the Czarist Intelligence Service asked to see a friend of ours. The Russian ex-officer was accompanied, on the occasion of the meeting, by a man well and favourably known to our friend. The ex-officer informed our friend and his wife that, in 1897, he had been called from Washington, where he was working for the Czarist government, and sent to Basle, Switzerland, where the first Zionist Congress was being held that year. He was given a small detachment of picked secret service men. While the Jews were in secret conclave, his men staged a sham fire and dashed into the room shouting Fire! Fire! In the ensuing confusion he made his way quickly to the President's or Lecturer's table and took possession of all the papers that were on it. These papers contained the originals of the Protocols.
"This Russian officer escaped out of Russia in 1917 and lived mostly in Paris. he was an old man in 1937. Needless to say our friend's veracity and reliability are unquestioned." 2. Communism, and National Socialism, escaped this trick. My theory is that the capture of a country's currency is the Zionists' main trick, and that Communism showed how to escape it (it issued its currency in the way the Protocols advises). In other words, there are lessons to learn from Communism.
To me, the lesson is: don't finance your government with foreign loans, issue your own national non-interest-bearing currency, and if at all possible, keep a supply of gold and silver as backing for the paper. The value of fiat currency always moves towards zero.
> 3. Do you agree that Jews lost control of the USSR ... i.e. they were unable to dominate the Russians - and for that reason, mounted the emigration campaign?
As far as I know, Stalin had no trouble with Jews who believed in assimilation and who were therefore willing to accept Russian-communist culture. Stalin did indeed have trouble with Jews who wanted to remain Jews and to preserve a separate Jewish community. So, yes, the specifically separate Jewish community gradually lost control of the USSR, because such a community could become defined as nothing other than Zionist, especially after 1948. Zionist Israel gave Jews an identity, if they wanted it, separate from Russian communism. Naturally, then, Zionism within the USSR was a separate political power, and that was something that Stalin -- and communist doctrine -- could not tolerate.
> 4. What about Gorbachev? Would you agree that he's really a Fabian?
I don't know about the "Fabian" part, I plead ignorance, but he certainly became an instant favorite with the NWO elite, who financed his foundation in San Francisco. In his own book, Gorbachev described himself as a Leninist. See "The Perestroika Deception," by Golitsyn. The main point of this book is that the collapse of Soviet communism is a deception designed to lull people into a false sense of security.
(17) Discussion with Phil Eversoul - Judaism has no dogmas?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:14:18 +1000 From: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>
Phil,
In one of your postings, you said that Judaism had no dogmas.
What about the Holocaust. Isn't this the new Credo?
Isn't Holocaust-denial (or relativization) akin to denial of the Crucifixion (or the divinity of Jesus, or other heresies)?
Political Correctness is Confessional, just like the Nicene Creed.
The idea that Jews are constantly being persecuted by Goys ("the Nations") is surely a dogma in Judaism ... the basis of many of its Holy Days. Could a Jew deny this, and still be accepted as a Jew?
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 04:26:48 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul <Philev@e-znet.com>
> In one of your postings, you said that Judaism had no dogmas.
No, not exactly. What I said was:
"One of the interesting characteristics of Judaism is that Jews do not define themselves by doctrine or dogma, at least not nearly as much as Christians have. There is no one orthodox theology that all Jews must accept; a Jew can choose among the opinions of any respected rabbi. This is because Judaism is much more ethnically based than Christianity. In Judaism, it is much more important to be a Jew than to believe a certain doctrine. Also, in Judaism, if one is religiously inclined, observance or practice is much more important than doctrine. As Fackenheim said, there is indeed an orthopraxis but not a theological orthodoxy."
> What about the Holocaust. Isn't this the new Credo?
Yes, it is. However, if you have ever looked at the Jewish press, you will see that there is a great deal of latitude for debate on almost anything. Jews don't mind criticizing each other within a Jewish forum. What they don't like is when gentiles do the same thing to them from outside the Jewish context; that is anti-semitism. Jews have almost complete freedom of the press - for themselves, but at the same time, Zionism does insist on being their dominant worldview. As we all know, they do their best to see to it that gentiles don't have the same freedom.
> Isn't Holocaust-denial (or relativization) akin to denial of the Crucifixion (or the divinity of Jesus, or other heresies)?
Yes, it is. However, in his latest book "The Holocaust Industry" (which you can get from the IHR) Norman Finkelstein (a Jew) criticizes Jewish commercial exploitation of the Holocaust as well as mystification of it so that there can be no rational discussion about it. What he says is that the historical "Nazi holocaust" (which he believes in) has been transformed into a huge and crass commercial enterprise trademarked "The Holocaust." Finkelstein was outraged by Bronfman's extortion of Swiss money.
> Political Correctness is Confessional, just like the Nicene Creed.
Let me put it this way: as I see it, Jews have more latitude in their theological doctrines than Christians because historically Christianity has always depended more on "correct" doctrine to determine who is in and who is out. In Judaism, simply being ethnically a Jew has weight in the Jewish community. What you think is LESS important than your Jewishness, but sure, a Jew can go too far.
The key word you use is "akin." Quite similar, but not quite the same thing. Judaism has always tolerated a certain amount of variety of opinion within the Jewish community without resorting to expulsion or excommunication.
Christianity always had the tendency to crystallize an article of faith into a set of words, as the Nicene Creed, and then require everyone to "confess" to belief in precisely those those words, on pain of excommunication. Judaism has never operated like that. Theological flexibility has helped Judaism to survive.
(16) Discussion with Samantha, about whether marriage will survive
Samantha (not her real name) is aged about 45;. She feels that the Little Red Schoolbook had a big influence on her life, and (by implication) helped free women from Marriage.
The Little Red Schoolbook, full of anarchistic and rebellious advice to children, was published in 1972. I have a copy, and Samantha first contacted me because she found a reference to it on my website. She read it when she was 13, and wants to read it again. I helped her to obtain a copy at http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch?tn=little+red+school+book
The publication details are:
The Little Red Schoolbook, by Soren Hansen and Jesper Jensen, translated from Danish by Berit Thornberry; published by Alison Taylor of Wellington, New Zealand, in association with Brolga Books, Adelaide, 1972.
(Samantha) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:49:21 +1100 From: Samantha
I am researching women's sexuality ..., and had vague recollections of the book from reading it in the early 70's - an important time both globally and personally.
(Samantha) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 06:50:32 +1100 From: Samantha
> How do you feel The Little Red Schoolbook affected women's sexuality? > Do you feel that it was constructive, destructive, or both?
I'd need to read the Little Red Schoolbook again before commenting, as I have not read it since I was 13, and do not know any other women who have read it. ... Personally I found it very informative, even enlightening at the time. In general I think information is a good thing, and I think the information on sex available for young people (well for any people actually) is generally lacking.
(Peter) Young people like freedom, especially in regard to sex, but family life is much less stable now than it used to be. In the past, one would search for a life-long mate, and generally stay with that person. Divorce was difficult. Children had stability; children had, not only two parents, but grandparents as well. Now, many children have only one parent. Many others, whose parents are divorced, find that grandparents have been drawn into the maelstrom of conflict betweeen the parents. We need to find a way to give people a certain amount of freedom, while preserving reasonably stable family structures.
(Samantha) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:08:37 +1100 From: Samantha
I would argue with you about sex being better now. My research indicates that over 50% of women do not regularly experience an orgasm during sex, and the biggest reason stated for this is their partner's lack of technique, effort or understanding. It's a sad state of affairs when most women still report faking it from time to time.
I think a child's relationship with his or her mother is the most important in their life. I think women are generally better nurturers than men and as they are paid less than men it makes more sense for them to look after the kids after a split. The way property is divided depends on who has the main care of kids and what assets each brought into the marriage etc, as well as their contributions during the marriage. For example, commonly if there are 2 kids involved the custodial parent might get 65% of the assets, rather than 50% if there were no kids. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect men to support their kids until they are self-sufficient, irregardless of whether they live with them or not. This hopfeully acts as a disincentive for men to go around creating kids irresponsibly and expecting the mothers or society to pick up the tab. The amount of maintenance paid is capped and the men paying it are better off financially than they would have been if they were still living with the kids anyway.
It is a very difficult job to look after kids (especially while trying to earn money) and paying maintenance is a lot cheaper than paying a nanny to do it.
I think the reality is that men still think that they own their wife and kids and that they expect certain things while paying to support them (eg to see their kids every day, to have sex with their wives) so that is why they resent paying maintenance so much. I think they need to focus more on the welfare of the kids than on their own egos and finances.
You are right that more women than men are initiating breakups. But this decision is not made lightly, and is generally made after years of trying to make things better. Men seem to see this as nagging and ignore it and so eventually the woman has to leave to make them pay attention, and then the man says oh what happened, why me? I have seen this time and time again.
I doubt marriage will survive now that women are not so financially dependent on men and now that men do not need marriage to get regular sex. Probably women should share houses and the men can come and visit if they behave themselves. I don't think kids will suffer as a result. Time to smash the nuclear family fantasy and its unrealistic expectations.
(Peter) <creating kids irresponsibly>
But weÕre talking about having kids within a marriage. YouÕre saying that the woman should be able to kick the man out of it, get the kids, then get the house because sheÕs got the kids, then the man still has to fork out until 18 (or 24 perhaps). Seems a rip-off to me.
<women are generally better nurturers>
Traditionally, perhaps; but Feminism is breaking all the traditions, and changing the character of women. Women may be better with very young children; for older children, not necessarily so.
(Samantha) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:48:30 +1100 From: Samantha
Well men are only kicked out if they are not pulling their weight in the relationship. Noone would throw something away if it was an asset. The kids are still the men's responsibility. They should know that when they create them. Not like a dog you can just hand in at a refuge when you tire of it. Yes, Howard thinks parents should support their kids until they turn 25 now. But in many societies parents support their kids until the kids can support themsleves and then the kids support their parents. Encouraging this is probably a more effective way of keeping families together than trying to keep the tradition of marriage alive.
Research shows that after a split when the wife gets the kids and the father pays maintenance it is the husband who is better off financially within 5 years, depsite the property settlement and paying maintenance. Men imagine they could bring up kids while unfair on the kids. The labour market is set up for most people to work fulltime, with the primary carers of kids working part-time, if at all. Very few part-time jobs around, other than very low paid ones favouring youngsters. I searched for years and gave up. If I had worked fulltime my kids would have had to give up sport, music, dancing, drama etc etc and spend 10 hours a day in the care of strangers. It would have been easier (less tiring and stressful) for me to work fulltime but I think this would have been a cop out. Fortunately my ex can see that having his kids brought up, fed, clothed, housed, educated etc (by a person who is loving, dedicated and highly educated) for only a few hundred dollars a week is a bargain. He gets his kids delivered for a visit each week - healthy, well-behaved, well-cared for etc and he just has fun with them and then hands them back. (Leaving him free to work, socialise etc unencumbered by children.) He could not possibly do this and work fulltime and there is no one else that would do the job for the money he pays me. Women sacrifice career, social life, financial independence, romance etc to bring up their kids and men are still complaining about a few measly dollars!!
(Peter) The generation of women now aged in their 40s & 50s got away with exploiting men in this way, because the Divorce laws are based on pre-Feminist practices.
But young men are aware of how women are exploiting men through having children and then leaving, getting the house and maintenance payments for years. I have heard them talking about it.
If you were a young man, and you knew about it, would you go ahead and have children? Surely it would make you reluctant, even within a marriage.
This must be contributing to the plummeting birth rate among white women. Non-white women, on the other hand, being less Feminist and more old-fashioned (and religious, dare I say), are having more children, and white men are increasingly looking to marry them.
If the Feminist exploitation of men continues, the perpetrators will breed themselves out of existence.
The countries whose economies are booming - the ones running up big Current Account surpluses, and to which we are increasingly in debt - are not the Feminist West, nor the Patriarchial Islamic or Catholic ones, but those of Confucian East Asia, where family life is reasonably stable, and where the common good more often prevails over internal civil wars (class war, sex war etc).
(Peter) Divorce and Male Suicide
On Tuesday 24 June 2003, the northbound lanes of Commonwealth Avenue bridge in Canberra were blocked off by police for at least half an hour, about 4pm.
Even the pedestrian walkway was blocked (on the western side), with police officers at each end.
The police told the public that there had been an accident. As I rode my bicycle up the pedestrian walkway on the eastern side, I noted that there were at least 6 police cars, including some which had "come the wrong way", to converge at a point near the middle of the bridge in a commando-style operation.
I asked one officer if there had been a collision. "Yes, there was a pedestrian involved," he said.
A walker told me that police had said there was a fatality. Yet I noted no ambulances, no towtrucks, no damaged cars, no glass on the road, no-one cleaning up. There was a car from WIN news, yet no mention of the above incident on the 6pm TV news.
Next day, I rang WIN, where the woman at the news desk told me that there had been a suicide. Someone had run out in front of the traffic. Suicides are not reported, she said, through an unwritten law. To do so is considered irresponsible journalism, because it could show others how to take their lives.
A couple of months later, I was at a garage sale in Canberra, one Saturday, at which a large collection of non-fiction books was for sale. I spent quite a while browsing, and bought some. On subsequent Saturdays I called in again and was able to buy some more.
Asking about the collection, I found - not at first, but after a number of discussions - that it had belonged to her ex-husband. She had the child and the house, and he had committed suicide.
To judge from his books, he had a fine mind, ranging over many interests. She told me that he had been a scientist at the CSIRO.
The Age, of Melbourne, ran a series on male suicide: Monday: http://www.theage.com.au/text/2003/08/18/ Tuesday: http://www.theage.com.au/text/2003/08/19/ Wednesday: http://www.theage.com.au/text/2003/08/20/
The two reports below are from this series. The second examines the role of the Family Court in male suicide.
A lost generation
The Age, Melbourne, August 18 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/17/1061059714585.htm
An alarming number of men aged 25 to 54 are choosing death as a solution to crises in their lives. Julie-Anne Davies and Steve Waldon examine this unfolding Australian tragedy. ...
In 2001, more men - 1935 to be exact - killed themselves than the total number of people who died on the nation's roads.
And every year, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, four times the number of men commit suicide than do women. ...
The cold, hard truth is that men aged between 25 and 44 account for almost 50 per cent of all suicide deaths in Australia, followed closely by men who are aged either 45 to 54 or more than 75 years old.
So why is this happening? Why are so many men choosing to end their lives by their own hand? ...
Family Court probes suicides
The Age, Melbourne, August 19 2003
By Julie-Anne Davies, Steve Waldon
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/18/1061059778239.htm
The Family Court of Australia is investigating the extent to which its decisions are contributing to male suicides.
A committee headed by Justice Mark Le Poer Trench will seek to compile hard figures to match anecdotal evidence that men are killing themselves because of court decisions.
Justice Le Poer Trench said the court accepted that it needed to work harder to identify men with the potential to harm themselves or others.
"There is no doubt there have been suicides attached to Family Court decisions, but we have no idea how extensive the problem is," he told The Age.
Little research has been conducted in the area, but the most recent, published in the Journal of Family Studies seven years ago, found that separated men were six times more likely to commit suicide than married men. ...
(Samantha) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:28:33 +1100 From: Samantha
Peter, I think you are very confused and for some reason very anti-women. If men commit suicide after marriage breakups it is because they are not emotionally stable enough to handle it, and it adds to the argument that kids are better off with their mothers. Maybe if they had imagined what life would be like without their wife and kids and been better husbands and fathers while they had the chance then they could have avoided their unhappy situation. And of course the kids should stay in the family home, their home. Having to move house is surely not a reason to commit suicide. Anyone who claims to care about their kids and then tops themselves either has a severe mental illness or does not really care about their kids, but just the fact that they have lost "ownership".
Men need to get it into their heads that when they impregnate a woman, that woman and the child are going to need support for many many years, irregardless of whether the man is living with them or not. Who do they expect to pick up the tab? Why should they expect to get kids for free? Kids are an expensive luxury, not an accessory. The mistake that women have made is letting men tell them that they are supposed to bung their babies into childcare and get back to work ASAP after the birth of a child, and creating a myth that it is easy and cheap to bring up kids - just get strangers in govt-subsidised child care centres to do it for you. We are now seeing what this does to kids with the huge rise in youth problems such as drugs etc. People need to remember that while it is fine for women to have careers, a couple having two incomes should not be taken for granted, as this is very difficult to do while bringing up kids. Men need to have a reality check and see the price they are paying for expecting their wives to work while they have children.
I don't see how it is exploiting men to expect them to take responsibility for their own kids and the mother of the kids! And it is certainly not profitable for women to have kids with someone with a plan to leave and get maintenance. Maintenance is capped so even if one's husband had an extremely high income the amount the woman gets is not enough to actually live on or raise the kids on. The highest amount of maintenance payable is less than the salary of a nanny. So a woman is expected to feed, clothe, house and educate the kids AND be the nanny for less than a nanny's salary. Who's getting exploited here??
In most less developed countries the accepted practice after divorce (which is rising steeply in these countires too) is that the kids stay with the mother and the father leaves their lives and sees them perhaps once every few years, if at all. I would hardly hold this up as a model to emulate, although I must say the kids seem to accept the situation quite readily.
Peter, I really don't have the time or energy to continue to read and reply to your emails. I am trying to make a living out of writing, because, believe me, even on the maximum amount of maintenance it is not possible to make ends meet without finding additional income. Perhaps I should take up with one of the wealthy men that buzz around, but frankly it is not worth putting up with their lousy attitudes and lousy sex for any amount of money.
(Peter) <very anti-women.>
Only anti-Feminist. I love feminine women.
<Men need to get it into their heads that when they impregnate a woman, that woman and the child are going to need support for many many years, irregardless of whether the man is living with them or not. >
Marriage involves an exchange of services between man and woman. Feminism demands that the woman be able to cease her part of the exchange, while forcing the man to continue his.
<The mistake that women have made is letting men tell them that they are supposed to bung their babies into childcare and get back to work ASAP after the birth of a child, and creating a myth that it is easy and cheap to bring up kids - just get strangers in govt-subsidised child care centres>
But this idea was introduced by the Feminists.
(Samantha) I think Feminism had its positives and negatives and I'm glad the movement happened as it made a lot of people think and challenge old ideas. But some of the new ideas are as bad if not worse than the old ones. I think some people have lost sight of the what I think is a fact that having a loving family is the best thing you can have and what life is all about. Probably there is too much emphasis on the acheivements of the individual and also not enough importance placed on bringing up kids and running a household. So people get distracted focussing on work and material things and don't look after the most important thing - their relationship and their kids. I think women are often as guilty of this as men. By the time it has all fallen apart it is generally too late to pick up the pieces, and a very sad situation has been created, especially for the kids involved. I don't know the answers but I don't think it is fair to blame Feminism entirely. There definitely needed to be a shakeup.
(15) Diffusion, Aryan Invasion of India ... "What are your credentials?"
Recently I had some emails from an academic who opposes the Diffusion theory and the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory, as the Hindu Nationalists of the BJP call it), asking what my credentials are.
Diffusion is "out of fashion" in academia. In putting the case, I let credible experts speak for themselves. Readers take their word, not mine: Cyrus Gordon at gordon.html, Thor Heyerdahl and Cyrus Gordon at before-columbus.html.
Part of Diffusion theory is the Aryan Invasion (of India, Western Europe, and parts of the Middle East).
I let Joseph Needham and David Anthony put the evidence for it, at needham-anthony.html, Marija Gimbutas, A. L. Basham and Martin Bernal, at gimbutas.html, and Jared Diamond at diamond.html.
Frederick Engels argued for the Aryan Invasion of Europe in his paper On the Early History of the Germans (1882; published in Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Volume 26, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1990).
After World War II, anyone arguing for the Aryan Invasion of Europe was smeared as a Nazi; even the Marxist prehistorian V. Gordon Childe went silent. Colin Renfrew wrote that, after Hitler's use of the Aryan theme, "Childe subsequently avoided all mention of his book The Aryans, although in fact it offered no evidence in favour of the delusion of racial superiority and was very careful to distinguish between language and culture and supposed racial classifications" (Archaeology and Language, p. 4).
At the same time, Indologists had no problem with the Aryan Invasion of India. In the 1950s & 60s, academics generally adhered to it - e.g. Stuart Piggot in Prehistoric India to 1000 B.C., and A. L. Basham in The Wonder That Was India.
A. L. Basham wrote, "The invaders of India called themselves Aryas, a word generally anglicized into Aryans. The name was also used by the ancient Persians, and survives in the word Iran, while Eire, the name of the most westerly land reached by Indo-European peoples in ancient times, is also cognate." (The Wonder That Was India, Grove Press, New York, 1959, p. 28).
Some of the scholars supporting Diffusion and the Aryan Invasion are Jewish; e.g. Gordon, Diamond, and Bernal; Heyerdahl, Needham, Basham and Anthony are not. I note this, because anti-Diffusion theory is heavily ideological.
Cyrus Gordon showed that the earliest stories about Abraham include themes found only in Aryan epics:
Cyrus H. Gordon, Before the Bible: the Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilisations (Collins, London, 1962).
{p. 26} The elite charioteer officers, who bear the Indo-European name of maryannu, soon became a new aristocracy throughout the entire area, including Egypt. With them appears also a new type of royal epic, which we may call the Indo-European War Epic. Embedded in it is a motif that has become commonplace in world literature: the Helen of Troy theme, whereby a hero loses his destined bride and must wage a war to win her back. Greek and Indic epic illustrate this theme {The Indian one is the Ramayana}, and it is from the Iliad that it has become popular in the modern West. However, it is completely absent from the romantic literatures of early Mesopotamia and Egypt, and it appears in the Semitic World only in the wake of the Indo-Europeans with their maryannu aristocracy. The Helen of Troy theme first appears at Ugarit of the Amarna Age, in a community where the Indo-European elements are present, including a firmly entrenched organisation of maryannu. As we shall note later, the theme permeates the early traditions of Israel, particularly the saga of Abraham.
{p. 132} The destined bride of
{p. 133} Abraham was twice wrested from him, once by the King of Egypt and once by the King of Philistine Gerar. (The latter king, or one of his subjects, also came close to wresting Rebecca from Isaac.) But the hero Abraham retrieved the destined mother of his royal line, both times. In other words, the Helen of Troy motif permeates the Patriarchal Narratives of Genesis, but no one noticed it because ingrained attitudes kept our Greek and Hebrew heritages in water-tight compartments. {end}
Gordon thus demolishes the antithesis between "Aryan" and "Jewish": gordon.html.
Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu Nationalist; with the rise of the BJP, there has been a concerted campaign against the Aryan Invasion of India.
The BJP online bookshop: http://www.bjp.org/today/bookshop.htm.
Voice of India online bookshop: http://voi.org/books/.
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:59:04 -0500 From: "Don Smithers"
As I and a friend of mine, an archaeologist and retired professor of physics from Hunter College in New York, have wondered: what is your background? what are your credentials? -- in other words, where are you coming from to suggest that "...the sustained attack on the positions of the early 20th-century archaeologists Oscar Montelius and Gordon Childe launched by Colin Renfrew and his colleagues has not merely been a complete waste of time but has been positively harmful to our understanding of the origins of Greek civilization." ???
On what basis do you say this? Do you know something we do not, nor Koenraad Elst, among an host of others?
Please elucidate.
Sincerely,
Prof. DL Smithers
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:04:15 -0500 From: "Don Smithers"
First, you did not answer my question about your position -- where you are coming from and what your academic credentials are.
Second, you misunderstand my position, or certainly have jumped to conclusions. I, for one, do not refute not, apparently, disagree with your notions, nor those of Needham and Anthony {needham-anthony.html}. My query is: why do you defend them? Where are you coming from? What is your evidence? To agree with a position requires as much evidence as to disagree - do you not agree? Seeing that you are one of those rare individuals who has taken the trouble to defend the diffusionist position, it would be useful if you defended it with cannon and shot, not mere words. Taking an academic position generally supposes an academic background. What is yours? Surely you have more than mere gut feelings and opinions to lend your support to this interesting problem crossing over several disciplines, otherwise, why would you go to the trouble for so much flow of net mail. My interest is quite practical, though touching on several aspects of the archaeological-anthropological debate: I am looking for a variety of evidence to support a wor
At any rate, it would be of some interest to discover your academic-research credentials. Your perfunctory dismissal of Koenraad Elst is not only uncharitable, but silly -- especially in light of the highly thoughtful and constructive book he has written. Have you read it? It is on the internet, though I prefer having my own copy (published in New Delhi in 1999). If you are going to dismiss the long and hard work of others, you might be rather more detailed in your rejections. Do you not think you owe that, at least?
Do you have a curriculm vitae available? What have you published?
I look forward to your reply and the possibility of a lively exchange of views.
REPLY
Don,
I do put details of my life on my website, but not all in one place, in linear style like a resume; instead, I make readers work for it.
One reason I do not tout credentials, is that I think that the argument from Authority is weaker than the argument from Reason and Evidence.
As you know, fashions change - even in academia.
Credentials are a form of Licensing.
In tertiary studies, I followed 3 directions: in a Catholic seminary, I completed the "Philosophy" stage (the first 3 years).
Later, I did a B.A. Hons (Social Anthropology) at Sydney University, with a major in Philosophy as well.
Later, I did a B. Sc. (Information Science) at the University of Tasmania, in Hobart, with a major in Physics as well.
Of these courses, I think that the seminary course was on a par with the Sydney University course. Each was biased of course, but the intellectual worth was about the same.
So, for example, I had two different studies of the Presocratic Philosophers - one in the seminary, one at Sydney University. And in the wake of my recent work on Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies (popper-vs-toynbee.html), I have noted Popper's focus on Heraclitus; then noted Hegel's fixation on Heraclitus ; and recently, am preparing my own study on Heraclitus, which will encompass widely differing viewpoints e.g. of John Burnet, Kirk & Raven, & Lawrence H. Mills.
Any Classics expert would be jolted by the inclusion of Lawrence H. Mills, because he was an Avesta scholar. He recognised influences within Heraclitus' ideas, from the Zoroastrian religion, which was the religion of the First Persian Empire. Heraclitus lived at Ephesus, at the edge between that empire and the Greek world.
Heraclitus was not a Zoroastrian; Ruhi Muhsen Afnan noted the influence, but depicted the Greeks as passive receipients of Zoroastrian ideas. Rather, the Greeks regarded Zoroastrianism as a stimulant: they took elements of it and wove it into their own ideas, just as intellectuals of the West selectively adopted some Marxist ideas during the Cold War.
I am thinking that Heraclitus was more of a Taoist than a Zoroastrian; the difference is whether one emphasis complementarity (complementary polarity) or antagonism (antagonistic polarity).
There are substantial differences between the translations of the fragments of Heraclitus that have come down to us. Some translators deny that Heraclitus used the concept Logos, long before other Greeks. However, I think that even the "sceptic" translations show that he did use the concept, even if not the word itself.
The Logos of Heraclitus is analogous to the Nous of Anaxagoras and the Tao of Taoism.
Lawrence H. Mills pointed out analogies between the Greek Logos and the Zoroastrian Amesha-Spentas of the Zend Avesta.
Logos means Reason, Nous (Mind), Thought, and shows up in the word "Word", where the Gospel of St. John proclaims Jesus the "Word" of God.
In Heraclitus, my two different studies - seminary and university - thus come to fruitition, decades later. I will be weaving all these themes together in my study of Heraclitus.
Popper's focus on Heraclitus is as an opponent; Hegel's as a supporter. Both adopted the antagonistic interpretation of polarity in Heraclitus, erroneously in my view.
Hegel not only adopted the antagonistic interpretation of Heraclitus, but combined it with a belief in "progress" (linear development) and teleology (convergence towards a goal) absent from Heraclitus' own writings.
Popper smears Heraclitus, blaming him for the use made of him by Hegel 2300 years later; and Popper blames Hegel for the totalitarianism of the USSR of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Working backwards, Popper castigates not only Heraclitus but Plato too, because Hegel was a Platonist.
On my fridge I have a little article about academia: "The Ph.D. involves learning more and more about less and less, until one knows almost everything about nearly nothing".
The reference is to Qualifications of Australian Academics, by Dr Don Anderson and Mr. Robert Arthur of ANU, and Dr Terry Stokes, of Monash University.
Arnold J. Toynbee argued that over-specialisation endangers our civilisation. He wrote in A Study of History VOLUME XII RECONSIDERATIONS (Oxford University Press, London 1961):
{p. 130} What is needed now is a ruthless demolition squad, armed with the inteilectual equivalent of atomic artillery, to batter the traditional interdisciplinary dividing walls down to the ground. This would restore the natural unity of the field that has been cut up, for so long, by these encroaching enclosures. No doubt, at all times and in all intellectual situations, the huge field of human studies needs to be parcelled out for operational purposes. But the partitions should be provisional only, and they should be demarcated by transferable hurdles, not by embedded stone walls.
{p. 633} On the question of specialization I do not dispute the argument
that, in the present-day world, the accumulated and still fast accumulating
store of knowledge is so great by comparison with the capacity of one mind
in one lifetime that specialization has become an indispensable intellectual
tool. But being indispensable is not the same thing as being self-sufficient;
and the target of my criticism is an apparent unwillingness to recognize
that specialization alone is not enough to give us the knowledge and understanding
that we are seeking.
The further that specialization is carried, the more of the meaning
of the phenomena is left unplumbed in the unexplored gaps between
the specialistsÕ deep but narrowly constricted borings. This
method leaves critical questions not only unanswered but unasked. And
they will remain unasked if the microscopic approach is not supplemented
by a panoramic one. Without
{p. 634} a combination of the two, there can be no stereoscopoic vision.
{endquote} toynbee.html.
I had one very unusual teacher in the seminary - Bede Heather, who later became Bishop of Parramatta. Of each 50-minute lecture, he would spend 20 minutes presenting one side of a case (as made by one author), then 20 minutes presenting a contrary case on the same topic (as made by another author), then a summing up and reconsideration, in which he would give his own view.
I found it most stimulating, and have endeavoured to use this method in my own project.
As for my studies, you might say "Big Deal - Generalists don't count in Academia".
But who is to say? Go back to Plato's academy: who licensed Plato himself? Did he have a Ph. D.? From which university?
Who licensed Heraclitus? What are his credentials?
Who licensed Anaxagoras? Or Confucius, or Lao-Tsu, or Socrates, or Zarathustra, or Jesus?
Plenty of licensed people will be forgotten soon after their death.
Even in the field of science, there are un-licensed people regarded as experts; Richard Leakey is one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/rleakey.html.
And then there are the licensed people who forever remain heretics, excluded by the orthodox. Thor Heyerdahl, Fred Hoyle; Cyrus Gordon was on the fringe for endorsing trans-Atlantic crossings before Columbus (gordon.html).
So, I don't tout credentials. I only ask that my case be weighed on its merits. Even then, people won't all agree on that.
I was dux of my high school/college in Sydney, a school with an excellent academic record - two years before me, one student had gained 1st place in Maths1 and 1st in Maths2, at the NSW Leaving Certificate. I was a maths wizard too, but I insisted on devoting a lot of time to History as well, contrary to my Maths teacher's wishes. In the 1965 Leaving Certificate, I gained a "maximum pass" and came 42nd in NSW overall; I was 102nd in Maths1 and 17th in Maths2.
I don't object to Koenraad Elst's case against the Aryan Invasion of India being on the internet, accessible world-wide; but I have placed the contrary case on my site.
Aryan Invasion of India
Mark XX, denying the Aryan invasion of India and destruction of Harappa, wrote to me,
<<The Rig Veda "boasts" of its heroes destroying some cities, which are not named. ... Nothing in this warrants identification of the destroyed cities with the Indus-Sarasvati Valley Civilization.
<<In any case, that civilization is now known to have declined (and its population shifted eastwards) due to climatic change (desertification, including the drying up of the Sarasvati)>>
To reply, I scanned in a few pages from the Rig Veda, so you one read it direct - no need to take my word for it.
They are from the 1896 translation of the Rig Veda by T. H. Griffith:
Rig Veda 6.27.5 (Book 6, Hymn 27, Verse 5) names the city of Harappa (calling it Hariyupiya).
The site of the ruined city was not discovered until the 1920s, near a village bearing that name still. Yet in this 1896 translation of the Rig Veda, a major battle is described there, a devastating Aryan victory: rig-veda6.27.jpg
This proves that "metaphorical" interpretations of the Rig Veda are false, and that "natural causes" i.e. "ecological change" is not the reason for the fall of the Harappan civilization.
The ecological change was in fact caused by the Aryans' destruction of the dams & irrigation system.
Rig Veda 1.100 and 1.101 (Book 1, Hymns 100 & 101) are hymns describing the Aryans as "fair-complexioned" and the Harappans as "the dusky brood": rig-veda1.100-101.jpg
Rig Veda 9. 41 (Book 9, Hymn 41) describes the defeated as people of "black skin": rig-veda9.41.jpg
Rig Veda 1.32 (Book 1, Hymn 32) boasts of the cruelty of the Aryan attackers: rig-veda1.32.jpg
The Rig Veda describes a brutal Race-war. It's pretty sickening. How could we regard it as Sacred Literature? Then again, the Bible is very similar: guthridge.html
It seems that the Biblical invasions may not have occurred as the Bible says. That is, that the Torah - the books atributed to Moses - is a later concoction of scribes & theologians, principally Ezra, synthesising earlier written and oral sources: bible.html
This was possible, because the people who constructed it were scribes, i.e. proficient in reading and writing. That facilitated a cut-and-paste job, whereas the Rig Veda was an Oral composition, passed down exactly, without alteration, although extra parts were added over time.
The lack of writ
