eleutheromaniac

Setup: This is the opening of an essay I've been working on. I am currently doing research for it, and this is only the first draft. I would like to know what your feelings are about it, and I would especially like to have insight from Jewish posters, as I am not Jewish myself. I know this theory was expressed to a certain degree in Nietzsche's work, but here I would like to more clearly cultivate it (Nietzsche was, of course, misinterpretated by the Nazis dur to his sometimes esoteric manner of writing) as well as express my own veiwpoints.




As we enter into the 21st century, a supposedly more enlightened generation is still ensconced with the narrow-mindedness so prevalent in our forebears. In times of peace, educated souls can look upon these “idiosyncrasies of the degenerate” with a kind of amusement. However, in times of crises, such as the ones which seem almost assured to lie ahead for a generation which will be the first since the Great Depression to have a lower standard of living than the generation that proceeded it, even the intelligentsia can become enamoured with such troglodytic half-thoughts. And one that always seems to lead the pack in such times are those relating to anti-Semitism. Before the coming onslaught, before rationality is a fondly forgotten attribute of a lost generation, it is important that we do what we can in the short time we have now to eradicate such ancestral leanings from our society, lest the mistakes of the past revisit themselves tenfold. It was with this thought in mind that the following essay was written . . .


From the time Judeo-Christian theology came to the western world, ie Rome, anti-Semitism has seemed to follow proportionately. Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them? The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt. This is especially true when one compares the Jewish culture to the hedonist cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome and to a lesser extent Egypt.

When the Roman Empire conquered the lands of Israel, the Jewish culture over several generations began to introduce itself to Europe in the form of Christianity. Originally, because Judeo-Christian beliefs were so in contrast with the pagan/hedonistic lifestyles of the Romans, this movement faced violent opposition and Christians and Jews both were violently persecuted. The question then becomes why it was that Christianity eventually gained acceptance, but anti-Semitism remains strong even to this day? And why is it that the Christians, whom understood persecution and could empathise with the Jewish plight, continued the Anti-Semitic tradition?

To answer these questions one must look at what happened to Rome as Christian theology began to overtake pagan ritual, this of course being the decline of the Roman Empire, and the eventual emergence of two separate empires: the Byzantine Empire in the west, and the Holy Roman Empire in the East. Both empires adopted Christianity, though the Holy Roman Empire eventually became the central province in Catholicism, and the home of the Papacy.

As Rome declined, Christianity grew in proportion. There are no coincidences in the course of history, and one must simply contrast the goal of Rome, that is to spread civilisation and to make progress in all of life’s endeavours, and the mission of Christianity, which is to concentrate energies towards the afterlife, sacrificing the pleasures of this world. (GIVE EXAMPLE HERE) As the Christian epidemic continued (and based on the results, what else could one refer to it as?), roads and other modes of transportation deteriorated. The architecture, art, philosophy, scientific learning and culture of old Rome was sacrificed to build lavish churches and other shrines to the Christian sky-god. This is how, over time, the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire. Rome and its territories, even the barbarian hordes, had almost fully accepted Christians and their teachings. Yet anti-Semitism only grew. It seems confounding, and yet, it is completely in line with human nature, because along with Christianity, the Jews also brought with them the concept of guilt, that is the concept of feeling bad about something that makes one feel good. A concept previously foreign to Rome and its territories. In fact, it is concept almost uniquely and strangely Semitic. This isn’t to say other cultures were completely unfamiliar with guilt, but only for doing something that in some way harmed someone or something else, a completely linear and rational response. But to feel guilty about doing something pleasurable, that in no way harmed anyone else, and in fact may give pleasure to others as well as to oneself: this was unheard of, particularly in Rome.

Most people would theorise that Anti-Semitism is routed in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Matthew, wherein the Jews are said to be solely responsible for the death of Christ. However, this is not the origin, but is rather systemic of anti-Semitism.

When the fathers of Roman Catholicism were taking religious texts to place in the bible, they elected which articles would be excluded, among these were at least three known Gospels of Christ. The reasoning behind the exclusions of these Gospels, which, in most bibles, are still excluded to this day, vary from things such as “dark imagery” that the assemblage didn’t want associated with the New Testament, to the date when the text had been written, being that it was too far removed from the actual event to be taken at face value. Keeping in mind that the Gospel according to Matthew was written over ninety years after the death of Christ, whereas the other Gospels were written no more than seventy years AD, some as early as 40 or 50 AD. This alone would have been reason enough to exclude Matthew’s Gospel, especially when one considers the discrepancies, rather near contradictions, between Matthew’s and the other Gospels. Most notably among these discrepancies is the fact that Matthew’s Gospel explicitly places upon the Jews the responsibility for Jesus’s death; whereas the other Gospels make it clear that all man, Romans, Jews and even Jesus’s own disciples, were in some way responsible for Jesus’s death, and were subsequently forgiven by Jesus for this and all sins prior. Thereby, in addition to being more out-of-date, fundamentally anti-Semitic and used to insight hatred, something which is most antithetical to the Christian doctrine “Love thy neighbour”, Matthew’s Gospel also contradicts one of the major edicts of the Roman Catholic Church; “Jesus died for our sins.”, for how could Jesus forgive those who were not responsible for the ultimate sin of killing the Son of God? Other texts, it should be noted, were excluded from the Bible for far lesser reasons. In fact, the only reason to include Matthew in the New Testament is precisely that it offers an interpretation different from the other Gospels, an interpretation that could be used to insight hatred toward the Jews. “The Jews killed Christ” has long been the rallying call of anti-Semites for generations, and one must assume that those who had been charged with the great responsibility of crafting the New Testament must surely have been able to foresee such an outcome. In other words, anti-Semitism had to have been already prevalent in at least some levels of the new Christian empire for Matthew’s Gospel not to have been considered for exclusion. And if this be the case, than the New Testament could not, therefore, be the origin.

When one thinks of Ancient Rome and Greece, perhaps first is the culture, civilisation, philosophy, art and technology that they developed and spread throughout the world. But closely second was their hedonistic appetites. Roman and Greek life was centred around enjoying everything this world had to offer: their gods were the gods of wine, love, virility, and strength; the Jewish god is the god of Guilt. Considering then this contrast, one can now begin to understand why Romans, even after converting to Christianity, rather especially after converting to Christianity, had such contempt for the Jews. A culture that was once carefree had now been gilded in the cage of Judeo-Christian doctrine. A culture whose people formerly enjoyed orgies, homosexuality, incest, great gluttonous feasts, warring and fighting, now could not so much as think of such things without feeling pangs of guilt and embarrassment. The “pleasures” of life were taken from them, and who was to blame? After all, their new and omnipotent, all-knowing God could not be at fault, nor their lord and saviour Jesus Christ and his followers. But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them. The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed. It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.

As Roman society continued to deteriorate, Rome and its territories gradually fell into what has become known as the Dark Ages. It is during this bleak period that Christianity is at its peak in Europe, and not coincidentally so too was anti-Semitism.

__________________
Augmented Reality

Airborneguy

I will try to help you later, no time to read this now.

__________________

eleutheromaniac

What's going on? I've never had to wait this long to get a reply. I guess I'll take my own advice and ask some specific questions.

Is it interesting?
Was it convincing?
Any weak points in the arguement?

__________________
Augmented Reality

thelatemitchellwarren

Definitely interesting as controversial subject
matter always grabs attention. Definitely
well written and with an impressive
vocabulary.

I'm not sure if you want to actually debate
this subject or if you simply want a review
of your work. And your theory on why the
Romans' hedonistic lifestyle conflicted with
the Jews' god-yielding mission was surely
interesting.

But I would venture more into the biblical
line of thinking. I don't believe anti-semitism
started with just the book of Matthew, as
opposed to the entire New Testament as
well as the old Testament in harmony
together.

I believe the bible as a whole makes it clear
that the Jewish religion/nation rejected
Christ. If you want to debate it later, just
say so. If not, I'll presume you were just
looking for fair criticism.

I believe that's where it started though your
theories were certainly sound. And also
the peer pressure, mob mentality of
humankind in general--which is pounce on
a victim in numbers. And the Jews have had
so much persecution already, the fact that
it continues to this day is almost a scientific
thesis on peer pressure and how man can
jump on the bandwagon of any violent
crusade.

But Eleuth, as you might or might not already
know, you're a very gifted writer and one of
the better ones I've encountered as of late.

__________________
"...And God created Mitchell Warren. And God came to regret that he created Mitchell on the earth."
http://www.thelatemitchellwarren.com

eleutheromaniac

"I'm not sure if you want to actually debate
this subject or if you simply want a review
of your work."

Since when am I not up for a good debate?
(RE: 'Prologue of new book' in critique forum)

"I believe the bible as a whole makes it clear
that the Jewish religion/nation rejected
Christ."

This essay is still incomplete, and I mean to prove that anti-Semitism proceeded biblical texts.

I may or may not extend this into a far-reaching book entitled; "Jew, Blacks, Gypsies and Homosexuals: Easy Targets". Or more controversially; "Kikes, Niggers, Pikeys and Fags: Easy to Hate". (I imagine that will raise some eyebrows) I want to show why Hitler and other hatemongers/warmongers, including religious organisations, single these people out. (They're large enough to be a good target, and they live virtually all over the world; yet they are small and isolated enough in the places where they live to be unable to defend themselves against a mass onslaught. Making them the perfect foil to unite the majority).

But before that, this essay (and three others, one for each group) will first establish why the majority so easily turns against these people. As I don't believe that people are lemmings who will simply follow the instructions of their leaders, I have to first establish that the majority WANTS to hate these people; leaders then simply cultivate and take advantage of this desire. My goal with this book will be to reveal the very roots of hatred, opening the way for others to attack these roots. That's why I need this argument to be a strong as possible, because it will be attacked by the people who rely most on hatred. I also need it to be as interesting as possible, because if people don't read it, then what's the point?

"But Eleuth, as you might or might not already
know, you're a very gifted writer and one of
the better ones I've encountered as of late."

Thanks, but I think I'm going to have to get a lot better to sucessfully get my point across with this book.

__________________
Augmented Reality

thelatemitchellwarren

lol if you have the balls and the audacious
publisher needed to actually name your
book Kikes, "Niggers, Pikeys and Fags:
Easy to Hate", Ill probably buy a copy.

I'll post more on the subject later.

__________________
"...And God created Mitchell Warren. And God came to regret that he created Mitchell on the earth."
http://www.thelatemitchellwarren.com

eleutheromaniac

"lol if you have the balls and the audacious
publisher needed"

Yes and yes. But I also intend to preface this with a Lenny Bruce bit that will be on the back cover. Do you know the one I'm talking about?

__________________
Augmented Reality

Airborneguy

I have to agree with mitchell (since I am not wasting time on other parts of the forum, I finally had time to read this!). It is a GREAT piece of writing, I can tell you that, but I don't believe that this is the proper forum to debate it's merits. I believe anti-semitism originates a little further up in the timeline and is based on a totally different reason. Great writing, good topic, and I give you even more credit if you are not Jewish for speaking on something like this, Jews tend to believe this is only their realm and should not be touched by anyone else.

__________________

thelatemitchellwarren

Yes, I vaguely recall one of the back covers
of Lenny Bruce's books about Christ
and Hoffa both hiring convicts, or something
to that effect? A sarcastic sentiment would
be a good idea.

I agree that it's really not the right place
to debate this--at least not my side of the
argument.

You may be right, that anti-semitism
developed well after ancient Jewish
and Christian times, and I'll await the
thesis, whenever it comes out. (Though
I do believe personally, it started way
back when as I was once involved in
a similar thread regarding The Passion
Of The Christ)

However, I would disagree that it was
just the book of Matthew that could
hypothetically create anti-semitism.
The entire bible, both old & new testament
clearly paints the Jewish nation in a
negative light. (not individual people,
since even the apostles were Jewish, but
the established Jewish system)

I also must contest the idea of people not
being lemmings. ) A lot of very
unprovoked, sadistic, animalistic attacks on
people by people have happened, and for
no other reason than just mob mentality.
People who take part in murder, gang-rape
or beatings on helpless individuals have no
political reasoning behind their actions.
They're resorting back to animalistic
instinct--and sometimesy manipulated by
others who have an evil agenda.

I would venture to say, that people who
really are violently anti-semitic (though
they might lazily use the old cliche, that
the Jews rejected Jesus) really don't know
why they hate Jews so much except that
it makes them feel all warm and evil
inside. By the same logic, why do KKK
members hate blacks? For political
idealogies or psychological differences?
No, I would have to believe its just
because they can, they want to, a
villainous feeling of superiority that
hurting another person can bring them.

But I'm listening.

__________________
"...And God created Mitchell Warren. And God came to regret that he created Mitchell on the earth."
http://www.thelatemitchellwarren.com

eleutheromaniac

"I have to agree with mitchell"

Why not debate this here? I think the best way to strengthen the argument I am making is through debate.

__________________
Augmented Reality

eleutheromaniac

"Are There Any Niggers Here Tonight?"

"Oh, my god, did you hear what he said? Are there any niggers here tonight? Is that rank! Is that cruel! Is that a cheap way to get laughs? Well, I think I see a nigger at the bar talking to two guinea owners and next to them....Now why have I done this? Is it only for shock value? Well, if all the niggers started calling each other nigger, not only among themselves, which they do anyway, but among others. If President Kennedy got on television and said:'I'm considering appointing two or three of the top niggers in the country to my cabinet'-if it was nothing but nigger, nigger, nigger- in six months nigger wouldn't mean any more than good night, god bless you...-when that beautiful day comes, you'll never see another nigger kid come home from school crying because some motherfucker called him a nigger."
---Lenny Bruce

This is what I'm thinking of putting on the back cover (of course I'm going to have to get permission first)

__________________
Augmented Reality

eleutheromaniac

"Jews tend to believe this is only their realm and should not be touched by anyone else."

In this case, I think you're confusing the average member of the Jewish faith with Zionist leaders. (Or is this what you meant?) That's something that will also be covered in my book.

I think that most Jews don't mind other people speaking out against anti-Semitism; in fact I think they encourage it. If a jew complains about anti-semitism, or a minority about racism, or a homosexual about gay-bashing, etc. then it just looks like another person trying to make excuses for their life. But when someone outside of those groups speaks up, then it give the cause more credibility.

__________________
Augmented Reality

thelatemitchellwarren

hahah, yeah use that.


i saw a documentary on lenny bruce a while
back. it's really interesting and sad how
innovative he was and how he was pounced
on by society at the time because of it.

His progressive artistry and its persecution
actually destroyed his career and life.

__________________
"...And God created Mitchell Warren. And God came to regret that he created Mitchell on the earth."
http://www.thelatemitchellwarren.com

eleutheromaniac

That's why I think a quote from him would be so appropriate for my book. Plus it explains why I used those words in the title.

Would PA let me put that on the back cover and let me keep the title? I'm not sure if Author House would. They don't mind swearing and potentially offensive material in the book, but I doubt they would allow it on the cover. (Which is ironic, since I'm trying to destroy the hateful nature of these words. Can you imagine an entire book shelf with that title? Lenny would be proud.)

If I show this piece to a major publishing house, they will probably mess with it and completely ruin it; meaning once again I'll be forced to self-finance.

__________________
Augmented Reality

thelatemitchellwarren

I really don't know. I am impressed with
some books that PA has released under
their name...and yet, I don't think any
traditional publisher would allow that
for a title. PA is trying to be taken
seriously as a traditional publisher...so I
have my doubts.

btw, my argument was basically that
the bible as a whole painted the Jewish
nation in a negative light. Were you going
to touch on that later on? A lot of people
think it was just the gospels, but a lot of
it could have stemmed from the earlier
books like Hosea and Chronicles, when
it reveals the chronic infidelity of the Jews
when it comes to following their God.
And then later on, past the gospels, where
it is stated that God has rejected the
Jewish nation, because they rejected his
son.

I don't blame you for not going into the
religious aspect, especially if you feel
that in later times the anti-semitism
started. But to suggest that it was just
the gospels that could have lead to
anti-semitism, I don't think would be
accurate, and yet is a belief held by
many.

__________________
"...And God created Mitchell Warren. And God came to regret that he created Mitchell on the earth."
http://www.thelatemitchellwarren.com