Posts filed under ‘Constitutional Defense’

A Little Education for Closet Pinkos

by John Young

With apologies to Mr. Dawkins, there are three sorts of homo sapiens on this planet; and these sorts exist within every race and religion.

Every person on the planet — without regard to race, religion or intelligence — can be fit into three categories.

1. Sheeple
These are people who have bought into the matrix of lies that surround us and have become so dependent upon the smoke and mirrors that they will defend those lies to the death.

2. Wolves
These are people who will gladly shear sheeple; and the originators and propagators of the matrix of lies intended to give them a constant supply of the productivity and support of sheeple.

3. Humans

Humans are people who have no desire to either shear or be shorn. They want to exist on the basis of their own merit, and cooperate with others to mutual benefit in a symbiotic rather than parasitic fashion.

Wolves fear and loath Humans, and teach their Sheeple to do the same. This is because Humans are truly the origin of all worthwhile values — the values upon which the Sheeple subsist and the Wolves feed.  Neither Sheeple nor Wolves understand or acknowledge this, because to do so would be to acknowledge their own lack of moral worth.

Most people, though not all, have the capacity to become Humans; but choose to remain either Sheeple or Wolves out of laziness or the desire for unearned plunder.

The power to create is the power to destroy. As the originators of values, Humans have the capacity to destroy the civilization they created simply through withholding their productivity. They also have the power to see the Wolves and Sheep for what they are — and hold a mirror up to their faces.

Humans, who are a minority, have to blend in to avoid being targeted for destruction and assume the visage of either Sheeple or Wolves. But let there be no mistake: without the Humans there would be nothing but barbarism.  There would be nothing to plunder.

And … closet pinkos are nothing but Sheeple or Wolves. They have failed to understand that the only thing that enables their plans to work at all is the army of disguised Humans out there.

And that army of disguised Humans could destroy them overnight simply by laying down and going to sleep and acting like Sheeple in ALL respects — not just in terms of their publicly expressed thoughts.


February 15, 2010 at 9:17 pm 2 comments

Who is John Young?

Someone has asked me about these mysterious signs that just keep popping up along highways and byways throughout the country. The illustration shows one of them.

With all due respect to Ayn Rand, this seems to be derived from the famous “Who is John Galt?” from her novel, Atlas Shrugged. The novel depicts a world in which the goose that lays the golden egg finally has enough and goes on strike. What our government and corporations have lost sight of is the fact that European-Americans are the goose that lays the golden egg in this country, and by displacing us and denying us civil rights and protections afforded to other ethnic groups, they are ultimately creating a strike in numerous spheres. This country will not survive that strike.

Located in Vermont

Located in Vermont

But, to answer the question — I’m John Young. I’m a member of EAU. I’m a husband, father, scientist, engineer, farmer, musician and a philosopher. I bring a multidisciplinary approach to the analysis of contemporary issues facing our Folk.
The obvious intent of these signs is to get people familiar with European Americans United, and perhaps even with my body of thought in that arena.
Well — I encourage you to do so. I don’t bite!

June 18, 2009 at 12:51 am 11 comments

Mexican Drug Crisis and Gun Laws

Mexican drug cartels have been funneling dope into this country for decades. Using violent gangs such as MS-13 as street troops, the Mexican Mafia has expanded its reach into over 200 U.S. cities. Some areas in this country are so overrun, and the police are so overwhelmed, that the police have signed “truces” with these gangs and abandoned whole regions to their rule.

The same occured in Mexico going way back. In essence, entire Mexican states are in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and the only “rule of law” that applies is whatever the drug cartels allow.

It is true that the cartels and Mexican Mafia have our police out-gunned with “assault-style” weapons — but this is not the whole story.

The whole story, albeit abbreviated, goes like this:

The United States armed, equipped and trained an anti-drug force in Mexico and provided them with everything from machine guns to military helicopters. The anti-drug force then got a better deal from the drug cartels, and defected wholesale.

The same has occured with Mexican military units. These units are corrupted wholesale, and defect en masse to the cartels; bringing their military weaponry with them. Meanwhile, the cartels control many ports of entry so they can get an unlimited supply of weapons from whatever country they wish. It turns out they have imported as many as 20 million select-fire full-auto-capable AK-47 machine guns from China.

These AK-47s are not the same thing you can buy from your local gun shop in some states. The AK-47s that you can buy over the counter are specifically designed so that they cannot be converted to fire full-auto. They are semi-automatic only, like the popular Remington 7400 hunting rifle; only much less powerful.

The AK-47s being brought into Mexico from China, on the other hand, are fully automatic weapons. They are capable of laying down suppression fire and similar techniques typically used in modern military tactics. Such rifles, if manufactured after 1986 (which these certainly are), are completely illegal for any civilian in the United States to own under any circumstances. Period.

Either way, due to defections from U.S.-equipped forces, defections from their own police and military forces, and unlimited access to military weaponry from China … the drug cartels are better equipped and better trained than Mexican law enforcement, and certainly better equipped and trained than civilian law enforcement in the United States. After all, how many police departments can field a helicopter gunship?

Even though police officers are fond of referring to us non-police as “civilians,” the simple fact of the matter is that they are civilians as well. Despite their militarization, they are neither trained nor equipped to go head-to-head against a military force.

That’s not their fault, because that was never intended to be their purpose. The purpose of civilian law enforcement is to preserve peace within a community, and serve and protect the community at large. And for this purpose, most police are equipped in spades.

When dealing with a military force that is invading our country and killing our citizens, our Congress and President have both the power AND the obligation to deploy a force that is entirely trained and equipped to deal with such threats: The United States Army.

The situation in Mexico has killed thousands upon thousands of Americans in aggregate — far more than Saddam Houssein would ever dream of killing in his wildest imagination.

Clearly the incompetence, corruption and instability of the Mexican government — combined with the side-effect of thousands of dead American citizens — makes Mexico a worthy candidate for “regime change.” Let’s drop the 101st Airborne division — The Screaming Eagles — onto these cartels.

The Mexican cartels are used to corrupting local politicians, machine-gunning innocent people and outgunning police. If faced with a genuine military force the first thing they would do is scream and the second thing they would do is DIE. Problem solved.

The Mexican cartels provide the top-level brains and funding for the expansion of the Mexican Mafia and the various street gangs (such as MS-13) working under its umbrella. Without the cartels, you have a snake with its head cut off. Something that our civilian law enforcment can address.

So the problem we are seeing with violence from the Mexican cartels is entirely solvable if we apply an appropriate solution to the problem. That is, you fight a military force WITH a military force.

Instead, Hillary Clinton proposes that we fight the problem by restricting Americans’ right of self defense.

Huh? Come again?

Never forget that our government no longer represents us. In fact, it fears and hates us. It fears us more than it fears an armed military force that is, quite literally BEHEADING our citizens! Our government sees us as an impediment rather than an asset.

A logical response to the knowledge that our citizens are being killed in cross-border incursions would be to deploy our military. A second response might be to arm our citizens who are proximate to the border.

But such responses assume a government that actually serves our citizens — which is something we haven’t had since our first dictator — Abraham Lincoln — decided to squash the South in their peaceful bid for independence.

Instead we have a government that will capitalize on any excuse or any source of confusion to justify disarming our citizens and thus leaving them even MORE vulberable to assaults.

Recall that there is a major difference between the AK-47s that the Mexican drug cartels are importing from China and the AK-47s that a civilian can buy in America. Although the carbines appear similar, the tactical differences are night and day.

Hillary Clinton seizes upon the ignorance of the public on this issue to describe the problem as one in which American gun owners, having access to “assault weapons” are somehow funneling them to cartels in Mexico. And so she is calling for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” in America as a solution to the problem.

Of course, it won’t solve the problem. It will simply disarm the people she fears and hates the most: American citizens.

March 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm 1 comment

Obama, Keynes and Bailout II

The thoughts I have on Barack Obama are extensive. I could write books on the various aspects of this topic, but won’t. Instead, each aspect will be explored individually over time as the new president’s actions illustrate the necessary points. In the meantime, I’d like to share a bit of my stream of consciousness regarding his new bailout package.

Nobody in America outside of academia admits to being a socialist. Yet politicians put forth proposals, policies and legislation that are textbook examples of socialism constantly. The new bail-out package is socialism and has therefore been proposed by socialists — whether they dare to name themselves honestly or not. All of these proposals for national health care are nothing but socialism as well. The ridiculous controlled media paints the picture of an amazing world in which effects (socialist programs) come into being without their causes (socialists).

The media can certainly mediate people’s perceptions; especially given the large number of voters in this country who can’t find the United States on a map and are therefore easily manipulated by the barrage of non-facts and simplistic logic they receive via their 5-hour daily dose of brainwash-tube.

But media can only manipulate perception, it cannot change reality. A person’s perception of reality can be changed through the ingestion of LSD. But no matter what that person perceives or believes while under the influence, if he jumps off the Empire State Building believing in his ability to fly, he will wind up just as dead. Perceptual manipulation has its limits — both for hallucinogenic substances and for our controlled media.

And this is where the proverbial rubber hits the road for President-elect Obama. The earlier so-called “stimulus” package under George Bush failed to stimulate the economy and mainly managed to bail out well-connected people who were already multi-billionaires at the cost of impoverishing the children and grandchildren of ordinary Americans. It was a classic example of Keynesian economic principles — AND an illustration that they are nearing the end of their usefulness.

Keynesian economic principles are the inevitable result of massive disparities of wealth. The essence of the problem can be explained thusly:

The people who own the widget company seek to sell their widgets for the highest price possible while paying their workers the lowest wage possible. As long as there is ample opportunity for other people to start their own widget companies, this tends to equalize.

But if wealth is allowed to concentrate and startup capital becomes limited mainly to cronies and the well-connected so that new widget companies can’t be created; enterprises tend to endlessly consolidate into ever-larger entities. In other words, finance capitalism destroys the free market. When this happens, we eventually end up with a situation in which the people employed making widgets can’t afford to buy them. That’s when you have a recession or even a depression.

Keynesianism — which is just a form of socialism under another name — seeks to correct the imbalance so that workers at the widget factory can afford to buy the widgets. It does this by government spending in various forms; and this spending is funded through deficits that are paid back in the form of taxes by the folks who own the widget factory. In other words, wealth is re-distributed to correct the imbalance.

Technically speaking, this sort of game could go on forever: a huge wealth disparity occurs which creates a recession and then government comes along and takes money from the “haves” and gives it to the “have nots” until the “have nots” can finally afford to buy widgets again.

But there are a lot of issues with this. I think that any person concerned about ethics should have some reservations about using the government as a mechanism to do something that — if it were done by regular citizens — would be felonious. That is, using the government to take one person’s wealth by force and then give it to someone else.

Remember, as the Declaration of Independence noted, governments derive their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. Obviously, I cannot give someone else “consent” to do something that is highly illegal for me to do as well. That’s why people who hire assassins go to jail just as if they had conducted the assassination personally. Well, then … as I have no right to go taking away other people’s stuff, I can’t give government “consent” to do so on my behalf, either. Thus, the entire Keynesian premise flies in the face of the underlying tenets of our system of government and is ipso facto UNJUST.

But, even if it were just — Keynesianism has reached the end of its rope. You can see this in the form of the details of President Obama’s mis-named “stimulus” plan as he has now decided that tax rebates will not be issued to anyone making over $75,000/year; and will also be issued to people who paid no taxes at all because they didn’t work.

You see, the very same problems with so-called “democratic capitalism” (which is really crony capitalism) that cause the enormous disparities in wealth also hamstring Keynesianism.

In any free market, there will always be natural disparities in wealth. Some people are smarter than others, some people are more industrious than others, and some people are just plain lucky. Sometimes very bright people find themselves following a calling or cause that doesn’t pay well. Some people just don’t care about money. Others are incredibly acquisitive. This is just the way the world works, and government shouldn’t be interfering to make things work any differently.

But in spite of these relatively minor disparities, as long as the market is truly free, you will not end up with such enormous disparities of wealth that recessions become inevitable. That’s because, in a free market, as soon as the widget manufacturer raises prices high enough; someone else starts making widgets to force the price down. As soon as the first widget maker effectively lowers the wage of workers, someone else steps in who is willing to pay those worker more and steals them away.

But we don’t have a free market in the United States. What we have is democratic capitalism with a huge dose of crippled socialism thrown in.

That’s because finance capitalists figured out long ago how to buy influence in the halls of Congress. As Congress makes its own rules regarding ethics, 99% of this outright corruption is entirely legal; but it should suffice to say that many people who entered public service near penniless leave their “service” as multi-millionaires.

So what happens is once a corporation reaches a large enough size that it can easily cope with new regulations, new regulations are passed that effectively prevent the entry of new competition. Without all of these regulations, it would be entirely feasible to start (for example) a car company with less than $1M; but with these regulations it’s almost impossible to do for less than $1B. The same situation occurs in thousands of industries. Thus we are faced with corporate behemoths that grow ever larger by gobbling up other companies and no effective competition entering the mix. Without effective competition, those who control the corporations have free reign to charge as much as possible while paying as little as possible — and stratospheric wealth disparities result, with workers ultimately finding themselves unable to buy the widgets they make.

So it isn’t the free market that causes the problem; but rather interference in that market prompted by the unique form of corruption engendered by so-called democratic capitalism.

But the $75,000 income limit in the stimulus package truly tells the tale.

Remember, Keynesianism takes from the “haves” and gives to the “have nots” so that the “have nots” can afford to buy widgets. The trouble is that the very very small group of true “haves” in this country has bought itself immunity from that system. In practice, this means that all re-distribution takes place by taking from the “have a little somethings” to the “have a little less somethings.” Or from the “Have enough to get by” to the “Can’t quite make it.” Because the vast wealth at the top of the pyramid is off-limits, Keynesianism can only work with re-shuffling the lower layers of that pyramid. Because there just isn’t enough money in those layers, our government is then forced to borrow the money. Let’s face it: the government already takes fully HALF of my income, and there comes a point of diminishing returns where if they take any more I won’t be able to afford gas to go to work so they lose everything. There comes a point, as it has in Sweden, where people refuse promotions and “aim low” to avoid being taxed to death. In order to avoid this, the government turns to deficits rather than taxes to fund their Keynesian scheme.

When government borrows the money, it takes up investments that would otherwise be available to fund new companies, transitory payrolls or purchases of homes and cars. This makes less money available to prime the real economy.
Even worse, as most of that money is simply printed out of thin air, there is an inflationary response that makes the value of dollars that people already own worth less. So this creates a hidden tax upon the people who save their money and transfers it to the people who don’t.

Bailout II simply won’t work any more than Bailout I did.

Bailout I stole our money through diminishing its value in order to disproportionately enrich a bunch of privileged cronies whose only merit was in their personal and family connections. Greenburg’s AIG was bailed out for billions of dollars — and what did they do? They turned around and gave the personnel in the division responsible for putting them in a bad fix bonuses coming out to over $1,000,000 per person. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the abuse of taxpayer money — BILLIONS of which has already gone missing and nobody can figure out where it went. Isn’t it amazing how the IRS and SSA can both tell me, to the penny, exactly how much money I make and from where, but billions of dollars can just go missing and hardly anyone notices?

Bailout II is more of the same, but even worse. What makes it to the final bill is still a matter of conjecture, but so far it has included $150 million for birth control, $4.6 billion for community organizers to ensure Obama’s re-election and other garbage. What it can’t do is fix our broken economy.

If you wish to fix a problem, then you identify and repair the underlying causative factor. The only thing the bailout bills accomplish is deficit spending, inflation and perks for the well-connected. What the bailout bill DOESN’T do is much more informative than what it contains. It doesn’t do anything to bring back the true industries of this country that form the backbone of the economy. For better or for worse, all wealth originates from the application of human effort and ingenuity to natural resources in order to make them more useful. Certainly, at the levels of “high finance” and big-time law you see more money — but that money floats to the top after having originated in the blood, sweat and toil of many millions of hardworking people. If you have nothing at the bottom of that pyramid and all you have is “services” such as paper-shuffling, stock trading and ambulance chasing — then you don’t have an economy. That’s the core of the issue; and Bailout II doesn’t do nearly enough to address it.

I can already see that even the Obama administration is dubious about the likelihood of success of Bailout II. This can be discerned by noting that the Democrats now have enough votes to pass whatever they want without any Republican participation. Yet, they keep trying to get Republicans to sign on. Why? Because if this plan were a sure success — they would want teh credit, accolades and VOTES it would bring. But if it fails, they don’t want Republicans out there two years from now saying “I told you so.”

Bailout II is only possible in this country because people are so woefully educated about economics.

Read, and share the following book: Economics for Helen.

January 28, 2009 at 7:08 pm Leave a comment

Tomorrow there will be no Winners

It’s election eve, and tomorrow there will be no winners among patriotic Americans. Certainly, this or that candidate of the oligarchy will win in a spoils system that allows the winners to enrich the coffers of supporters and hangers-on at public expense. But among patriotic Americans — those of us who can see the founding fathers as ancestors, speak English, pay taxes, obey the laws — there will be no winners in tomorrow’s election.

The two major party candidates are, in and of themselves, evidence that “democracy” in this country has become a cruel caricature of itself.

On the one hand, we have the representative of the Republican National Committee, Inc., John McCain. For the past two decades he has proudly and loudly thumbed his nose at even the most basic conservative principles in order to earn the status of “maverick” and become a media darling. Before he co-sponsored an amnesty for illegal aliens with Ted Kennedy, he had infamously empowered George Soros‘ 527 groups while dis-empowering the NRA through his euphemistically entitled “Campaign Finance Reform” act. Most tellingly, John McCain has appeared in advertisements lobbying for civilian disarmament on behalf of a Handgun Control Inc. spin-off deceptively named Americans for Gun Safety. Try not to act surprised if traditional conservative voters aren’t ready to “crawl across broken glass” to cast their votes.

On the other hand, we have the representative of Democratic National Committee, Inc., Barack Obama. Senator Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist; and Barack Obama has managed to be the only Senator with a more leftist voting record. If he walks like a socialist and he votes like a socialist — he’s a socialist. Thus, some of his more sordid associations ought not be surprising. Along with kicking off his political career in the living room of an unrepentant communist domestic terrorist, he spent two decades in Rev. Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, where he literally affixed his signature to a so-called “Black Value System” that specified the “destruction of the white enemy” as a goal of his deity. And, to this date, he still has not even provided evidence of being eligible to be President on the basis of his real birth certificate.

In sum, both of these candidates are domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America; and obviously so to anyone paying attention. Therefore when either of them wins the election, it will be a sad day for this country indeed. The idea that either of them will raise his right hand on January 20th and swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution” is just further proof of both their individual moral bankruptcy and the sheer idiocy of those who voted for them in the primaries.

Meanwhile, both voter fraud and ballot destruction have become major problems. Groups such as ACORN have registered untold hundreds of thousands of voters — many of whom are too young to vote, dead or nonexistent, and will nevertheless show up to cast their ballots. Many have already done so via liberalized absentee voting procedures. In a small town in New Hampshire, a scandal erupted when an entire family voted for Ron Paul during the Republican primary, and then discovered that when the town’s votes were reported, none were reported for Ron Paul.

Taken altogether, things have become so bad politically that many have given up on ideas of reform, and embraced secession and the destruction of the federal union as the only real solution.

But all is not lost.

Because we find ourselves in the ironic position that, as people lose faith in the status quo, they will be more receptive to our message. They will also become more receptive to third parties.

And don’t forget — no matter what the results of the election tomorrow, a vote for Chuck Baldwin will not be wasted.

November 4, 2008 at 1:00 am 1 comment

Jesse Jackson (Unintentionally) Highlights Something Interesting

A recent article in the New York Post (10/14/2008) quotes Jesse Jackson at the World Policy Forum in France saying that, under an Obama administration, “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end. He further noted that “Zionists … have controlled American policy for decades.”

His assertion of Zionist control is inaccurate, though Walt And Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy certainly establishes that the Israel Lobby (in various forms) certainly has substantive influence. Influence and control are two different things — and it is important to understand the distinction.

Because Jesse Jackson doesn’t understand the difference between control and influence, his conclusion is incorrect. Control is obvious, and it can be seen as directly as the laws of cause and effect. Control is causation. Influence is less obvious, and can be seen only in terms of patterns and trends, and is much more akin to the idea of probability in quantum mechanics. Influence is correlation.

Ending or reducing control is easy — because there is an immediately visible feedback loop of cause and effect that can be observed to measure success. Ending or reducing influence, on the other hand, can be like nailing jelly to a tree because its source and effects are far less obvious.

Ending or reducing so-called “Zionist” influence in this country is extremely unlikely under an Obama administration because even folks like Jesse Jackson misunderstand the intermingling of Americanism and Zionism and the strong parallels between the two.

The first thing to be understood is that “Zionist” is not a polite way of saying “a subset of especially bad Jewish people” — even when certain people intend it to have that meaning — because many Jews are not Zionists and many Zionists are not Jews. Many people in this country — of every ethnic and political persuasion — are Zionists. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.” If you were to ask European-Americans if they support Israel and its development, quite a few would answer in the affirmative. Whether they should or not is a story for another day, but the simple fact is that they do. That makes them Zionists.

I think the reasons why many folks of Jewish ancestry would support Israel are fairly obvious and understandable. Israel serves as a reservoir of Jewish genes that assures the continuity of the Jewish folk no matter what may happen in Diaspora. Every race and people should, in order to prevent genocide and promote important human biodiversity, have an equivalent of Israel. (Though without the presence of what Jimmy Carter characterized as apartheid.)

But the thing that makes the phenomenon of Zionist influence so hard to quell lies deeply in the European-American psyche — pre-dating Theodore Herzl and philosophical Zionism by hundreds of years. In very important ways, Zionism existed among European-Americans long before Jewish folks had even considered the idea.

European-Americans came to North America under many different conditions and for many different reasons. Our ancestors came here as members of dissident religious groups that were persecuted in our European homelands. Our ancestors came here to practice their religions freely without fear. Many of our ancestors came here to populate debtor’s prisons in the Carolinas. And far too many of our ancestors came here in chains in the holds of ships where they were forced to endure the Atlantic passage on meager rations in disease and rat-infested holds from which many did not emerge alive.

But pretty much across the board, America was seen in terms of the biblical metaphor of Exodus: the Promised Land. You can see this in journals, logs, and letters of the time; and the theme repeats itself continuously. The idea of North America fulfilling the role of Promised Land for the European diaspora, replete with endless Old Testament biblical references, was a dominant aspect of the thought processes of our ancestors who came to this continent from Europe. The idea of Manifest Destiny drew its primary strength from this conviction. North America was the New Israel, and members of the European diaspora were the new Jews. We (European-Americans) were the new Chosen People, and North America was the Promised Land, delivered to us through divine Providence, and flowing with milk and honey.

Thus it is no mistake, when you look at a map of the United States, to see towns with names taken straight out of the Bible, with a preponderance from the Old Testament: Canaan, Lebanon, Hebron, Bethel, Goshen, Jericho, Eden, Nineveh, Sharon, Zion, Shiloh, etc. There are literally thousands of cities, towns and landmarks in the United States whose names were directly derived from the Bible. The preponderance of Old Testament names is living proof of the mindset of a great many of our ancestors. Anyone who has paged through birth and death records will find that a large proportion of our ancestors had names like Samuel, Isiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Adam and even Moses. Our ancestors weren’t Jewish of course; but, in a certain way, they thought of themselves in similar terms.

Biblical sensibilities, and particularly Old Testament biblical sensibilities corresponding to the Jewish Torah and Tanakh, formed the core of the mindset of many of the earliest European-Americans coming in through Plymouth and Jamestown. You can see the depth of Old Testament biblical influence in the old so-called “Blue Laws” that mandated keeping the Sabbath (and certain other commandments) with a zeal practically indistinguishable from Ultra Orthodox Judaism. For many years, the divorce laws in the United States mirrored those that exist in Israel today.

It is important to keep these aspects of the history of Americans in mind when trying to fully grasp the idea of Zionist influence. You see, Americans have a long history of relating both intensely and personally with many of the stories, ideas and narratives that form the core of Judaism and give rise to Zionism.

Because of these similarities, it is extremely easy for folks whose loyalties lie with Israel rather than the United States to manipulate Americans through a call to commonality. There is commonality in the tales of establishing a homeland after fleeing oppression or persecution, a deep resonance with the David and Goliath story, and a nearly innate sympathy with the people whose narrated past was adopted by many of our ancestors as their own. Naturally, people affiliated with organizations such as AIPAC and the American Jewish Committee work to foster and intensify such feelings.

Of course the Old Testament wasn’t the only source of inspiration for our European-American forebears. Throughout the country we find places named after Greek and Roman cities such as Athens, Carthage, Troy and Rome ; our buildings and monuments reflect the sensibilities of the Greek and Roman polytheists; our mottoes are largely expressed in the classical Latin of the Roman Republic and many of our heroes were named after mythological and historical figures such as Ulysses. Likewise, New Testament influences made themselves felt in laws named after Jesus’ parables — like Good Samaritan Laws, charitable endeavors on a scale beyond anything the world had ever before seen, and a host of children named after Apostles, Saints and Popes.

So the European-American zeitgeist cannot honestly be seen as arising entirely from Old Testament archetypes. Rather, as a new experiment in self-government arising at the height of the Enlightenment when all of the older Greek philosophers were being re-read for perhaps the first time in hundreds of years; and with a host of manifestations of Christianity with varying loci of scriptural emphasis … the European-American zeitgeist arises from a mixture of influences and narratives; but only a person ignorant of our history would miss the undeniable influence of the Old Testament.

A while back I took the time to read all of the articles of secession passed by the various Southern legislatures. Easily two-thirds of them made reference to the institution of slavery as having been divinely ordained and a precious gift of deity. Where is the institution of slavery established in the Bible, along with all of the rules governing its exercise? In the Pentateuch, of course. That part of the Old Testament also known as The Torah.

This is something that Dr. Tomislav Sunic has dealt with at some length in his recent book Homo Americanus; though he comes at it from a somewhat different direction. Our approaches to the subject differ, but many of our conclusions are similar. Specifically, that Christianity, as practiced by most of our European-American forebears, was of a strongly Jewish flavor that didn’t exist in continental Europe.

As James Russell described in his book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity; when Christianity came to the heart of Europe, its emphasis and practice were transformed from that of a breakaway sect of Judaism to a religion that absorbed not just the pre-Christian extrinsic manifestations of the European folk-soul (such as the solstice and equinox holidays); but also maintained a body of philosophy as a lens through which scripture was viewed so that the emphasis and meaning of scripture were interpreted in a European rather than Middle Eastern context; and in which explicitly relating to the Old Testament was practically non-existent. Thus the medieval Christians of Europe didn’t see themselves as de-facto extensions of Judaism; but rather as its repudiation.

This changed with Martin Luther who, in spite of his extensive scholarship, probably failed to understand the consequences of his religious advocacies. I don’t want to cover the entire story of Martin Luther, but suffice it to say that he is responsible for many of the principles of language translation, the standardization of the German language and a host of other positive accomplishments. Moreover, the motivations that led to his religious advocacies were founded in true concern over abuses by the dominant religious authorities of his time. But those factors notwithstanding, by translating the Bible into the vernacular, putting forth a view that scripture should be individually interpreted and understood by each person and furthering the idea that every person of faith was an ipso facto priest … he managed to strip away the distinctly European philosophical lens through which scripture had been viewed in times past, thereby leaving many of our ancestors, for the first time, with an unfiltered Hebraic scripture from which they were to draw their own opinions.

In most of Judaism, the Hebraic scriptures are informed, interpreted and expanded upon by a supplementary text written by Jewish biblical scholars known as the Talmud; and by an oral tradition that is said to pre-date the written Torah. Thus, no matter what the written scriptures may say, there is plentiful room for philosophical interpretation to keep the end result true to the intent of the religion as a group evolutionary strategy.

Up until Martin Luther, while Medieval Christianity didn’t draw from the Talmud (which Luther condemned as being filled with lies), it DID draw from an analogous body of literature and thought composed by far-seeing theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Albertus Magnus and others. This body of literature served a purpose for European Christianity very similar to that served by the oral law and Talmudic scholarship for Judaism. It helped to keep European Christianity focused on a distinctly pro-European path. Obviously, this system was imperfect; but when Martin Luther appointed each individual person as the arbiter of scriptural truth — that body of knowledge became superfluous and was largely discarded.

Bereft of the foundation of hundreds of years of Euro-centric scholarship, many new branches and interpretations of Christianity took on a cast that was influenced by the un-mediated interpretation of Hebraic scriptures that lacked a European cultural anchor — thereby setting the stage for a group of Europeans who considered themselves to the the true Chosen People sailing for their own Promised Land, and entrenching specifically Zionist ideas within the early European-American psyche. It is thus no shock to discover that the number of Christian Zionists in this country is larger than the number of Jewish folks who explicitly self-identify as Zionists. (As a side note, consider that at one time the theory that the English people were the true Jews spoken of by the Old Testament was quite popular.)

This is an important factor in understanding Zionist influence because the number of people in the United States who are specifically and explicitly beholden to Israel is relatively small — certainly no more than 2% of the population, and likely a lot less. Compared to the 98% or more of the population that lacks such explicit loyalties to a foreign state, such a small population is relatively powerless — especially in a democracy — without incredible leverage. Wealth differential, beneficial symbiosis with owners of mass-media and similar factors can only provide so much leverage. The primary leverage comes, as I described above, from the long acquaintance and implicit acceptance of Zionist ideas among European-Americans that pre-dates modern Zionism. In other words, many of our people — with names like Samuel, Sarah, Levi, Rachel and David, living in towns like Canaan, Sharon or Shiloh and reading weekly from a non-mediated Tanakh — are implicitly predisposed to accept the explicit arguments of Zionists, thereby multiplying their effective power by a factor of 20 or more.

What I am saying, then, is that the Israel Lobby — composed of a very small number of activists — gains its primary power through US, and retains that power through OUR sanction. The moment sufficient numbers of European-Americans explicitly reject the idea of congruity between the American and Israeli narratives, the Israel Lobby will crumble to dust of its own accord.

Until that time, despite Jesse Jackson’s attribution of near-messianic powers to Barack Obama, he will be unable to substantively reduce the power of Zionism. At the one-on-one level of politicians, Zionist lobbies will hold sway in this country as long as it doesn’t create a dramatic electoral liability.

That is to say that a lobby for a foreign state can only use money and/or threats to secure favorable votes from politicians so long as the electorate does not strongly oppose those votes. If Americans were to decide that the American narrative was far from congruous with the founding of the modern State of Israel, and that uncritical support of Israel might even be contrary to America’s best interests — and if they were to decide this to be a hot-button issue determining their votes in elections — all the lobbyists in the world would be powerless to effectuate their desired ends among our political class.

But such a repudiation of Zionism has not gained currency among most voters. As a result, explicitly pro-Zionist lobbies composed of Christian Zionists, AIPAC and many others hold sway. Barack Obama could, conceivably, reject their overtures — though I consider that unlikely for a candidate so gutless that he voted “present” 130 times. But even if he did, as long as the bulk of the American people see the Israeli narrative as their own; the lobbies need only appeal to the American people to bring politicians back in line.

Barack Obama, even on his best day, doesn’t have the power to change that.

But WE do.

There’s nothing wrong with the Jewish people wanting their own state. That’s very normal and in some cases even laudable. (Though I have certain ethical qualms with the details of how Israel is run.)

But there is something VERY wrong with a United States citizen of any ethnicity relating so strongly to a foreign country — ANY foreign country — so strongly that they would willingly subjugate the interests of the United States in its favor.

That is something that needs to be changed.

October 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm 3 comments


July 2018
« Jun    

Posts by Month

Posts by Category