| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:56 am Post subject: I Can Be A Philosopher, Too! |
 |
|
I've been interested in the Nazis for the last year or so. This happened because I put up Ram Dass's "Be Here Now" book. Not just reading, but actually typing the book, because it's in that goofy format with lots of philosophically revealing pictures, I saw a strange way of thinking I hadn't identified when I read the book 35 years ago. I've been on the Trail of the Octopus for 12 years now -- one heavenly cycle -- ever since I started my website on Y2K -- and suddenly I realized Ram Dass was a big baby octopus. I had previously blamed Ram Dass when I realized the bad thing he did to all of us who lived through the 60's and 70's, which was to take us outside of the socially responsible world, and lead us to Shangri-la. He was the Pied Piper for the conservative-always-and-forever-pretending-to-be-liberal-establishment getting us away from the political process. I figure that since that was the result, that must have been the intention. Sure, they let us be anarchists and protesters, and get beat the shit out of, and put in jail or killed. But we could have been on the inside with Ralph Nader and his group interacting closely with our government, steering it in the right direction. When I finally realized I was in Shangri-la, a long way from home, I walked out of my Truman Show door and saw that America was taken over by Fascists. It was so obvious: there was a WalMart at every big intersection. And the world as I had known it as a child was completely gone. And it was very, very violent.
It is only fair to curse those years of Buddhist meditation. And to curse everyone else's meditation, too. While we were in la la land, the bastards took over the world.
So suddenly, Ram Dass is leading me further down the Trail of the Octopus than I've ever gone by reading political books. Suddenly, I found myself in the middle of Nazi and Rosicrucian land. Key names: Crowley, Hartmann, Blavatsky, Steiner, the cultists at the center of the Nazi conspiracy, or should I say, "Mystery School"? And when my friend Neutopia went to India last month to visit Sri Aurobindo's ashram, I was led even further down the Trail of the Octopus when I started reading about Aurobindo and "The Mother." Gnostic misogynist pigs, one and all.
And son-of-a-gun if Nietzsche wasn't a gnostic, too. It's true, just like Dusty Sklar said, that Nazism has its roots in gnosticism. Damngod, the words even sound alike! These guys ARE gameplayers. And so am I.
So I know it's completely bodacious. But they are poseurs, too! They pretend to be philosophers when they're nothing but cultists. Show me a philosopher who WASN'T a cultist? Show me the philosophy that ISN'T religion? You wonder how they distinguish science fiction from religion from philosophy from cult. It seems like there's nothing but cultists in this entire world, ever since people gathered together into cities and lost their freedom to roam. Well, I was a cultist, too, so that means I can be a philosopher, too, and demand an equal place at the philosophical "round" table. I am tired of reading all of this philosophical nonsense, and seeing it rebutted nowhere. It's time to fight back against this so-called "Philosophy."
This evening I presented several hypothesis to my husband about consciousness-raising. I proposed that the reason that people in the 60's and 70's became alienated from their parents' worldview was due to the influence of foreign religions and travel in foreign countries. I hypothesized that without experiencing something really different from your own culture, you would not be able to consciously see your own culture -- it would remain subconscious. The story of the Tierra del Fuegans who couldn't see the foreign ship until their shaman pointed it out comes to mind. They were so much in their subconscious socially shared worldview that they couldn't really see. And the same is true for Americans and Westerners, isolated in their worldview. Even if we have the opportunity to create a new world, it is usually a lot like the world of our parents. But the influence of foreign cultures in the 60s, mostly Eastern, changed our ability to see. And being one of those persons influenced by a foreign culture -- Tibetan in my case -- one thing I can definitely see is that all these right-wing Christians fighting over whose religion is going to be the biggest and baddest, sharing the basic view that God and his elect will rule over all, is the saddest thing in the world. I mean, God doesn't even exist. There is no heaven, no hell, no devil and no angels. And Christ is nothing but a political tool.
So I was doing a search in Blavatsky's "Isis Unveiled" for all her references to "gnostic." And, of course, I think all her arguments are stupid. But I decide to give her the benefit of the doubt, and REALLY LISTEN to what she's saying in one of her references, which is that the apostle Paul was obviously a gnostic. Okay, I agree with her 100%. She wins. But she's still stupid. This Christian/God game is no longer working on those of us who can now see the created nature of our cultural reality. And since the god delusion is completely all-pervasive, the whole constructed social world looks like one big illusion. Illusion and delusion: give me the wind and the trees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Question: "Is Richard Dawkins a gnostic, too?" He's definitely an octopus. I hate it that the atheists have been taken over by the nut-case cultists. But then again, they've taken over EVERYTHING. Who ISN'T Illuminati these days? Answer: I'm not! You only know you're not if you can see what it is. Shortcut to what it is: nihilism. People may think they love the world, but they are just big, fat liars. If they love the world, then why don't they lift a hand to protect those who are innocent? Because they don't give a shit! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia is evil. I believe that entities through their persons can be evil. I believe that gnosticism is evil: it wants to destroy the world, it hates nature, all creatures, and especially women; therefore, it's evil. I can understand hating part of nature: the killing and death part, but not the good parts, like love and motherhood. Wikipedia is promoting the view that Nietzsche WASN'T an anti-semite. Their argument goes something like this:
Since Nietzsche said this:
| Nietzsche wrote: | | We require an intergrowth of the German and Slav races, and we require, too, the cleverest financiers, the Jews, for us to become masters of the world. |
And this (in one of his typical screaming rages where he heaps hate on everyone):
| Nietzsche wrote: | | [F]or what purpose did Nature give me my foot? — To kick, by St. Anacreon, and not merely to run away! To trample on all the worm-eaten "chairs," the cowardly contemplators, the lascivious eunuchs of history, the flirters with ascetic ideals, the righteous hypocrites of impotence! All reverence on my part to the ascetic ideal, in so far as it is honourable! So long as it believes in itself and plays no pranks on us! But I like not all these coquettish bugs who have an insatiate ambition to smell of the infinite, until eventually the infinite smells of bugs; I like not the whited sepulchres with their stagey reproduction of life; I like not the tired and the used up who wrap themselves in wisdom and look "objective"; I like not the agitators dressed up as heroes, who hide their dummy-heads behind the stalking-horse of an ideal; I like not the ambitious artists who would fain play the ascetic and the priest, and are at bottom nothing but tragic clowns; I like not, again, these newest speculators in idealism, the Anti-Semites, who nowadays roll their eyes in the patent Christian-Aryan-man-of-honour fashion, and by an abuse of moralist attitudes and agitation dodges, so cheap as to exhaust any patience, strive to excite all the blockhead elements in the populace (the invariable success of every kind of intellectual charlatanism in present-day Germany hangs together with the almost indisputable and already quite palpable desolation of the German mind, whose cause I look for in a too exclusive diet, of papers, politics, beer, and Wagnerian music, not forgetting the condition precedent of this diet, the national exclusiveness and vanity, the strong but narrow principle, "Germany, Germany above everything," and finally the paralysis agitans of "modern ideas"). |
We must ignore the fact that he said this:
| Nietzsche wrote: | "Rome against Judaea, Judaea against Rome." Hitherto there has been no greater event than that fight, the putting of that question, that deadly antagonism. Rome found in the Jew the incarnation of the unnatural, as though it were its diametrically opposed monstrosity, and in Rome the Jew was held to be convicted of hatred of the whole human race: and rightly so, in so far as it is right to link the well-being and the future of the human race to the unconditional mastery of the aristocratic values, of the Roman values.... The Romans were the strong and aristocratic; a nation stronger and more aristocratic has never existed in the world, has never even been dreamed of; every relic of them, every inscription enraptures, granted that one can divine what it is that writes the inscription. The Jews, conversely, were that priestly nation of resentment par excellence, possessed by a unique genius for popular morals: just compare with the Jews the nations with analogous gifts, such as the Chinese or the Germans, so as to realise afterwards what is first rate, and what is fifth rate.
Which of them has been provisionally victorious. Rome or Judaea? but there is not a shadow of doubt; just consider to whom in Rome itself nowadays you bow down, as though before the quintessence of all the highest values ... to three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (to Jesus of Nazareth, to Peter the fisher, to Paul the tent-maker, and to the mother of the aforesaid Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome is undoubtedly defeated. At any rate there took place in the Renaissance a brilliantly sinister revival of the classical ideal, of the aristocratic valuation of all things ... but immediately Judaea triumphed again, thanks to that fundamentally popular (German and English) movement of revenge, which is called the Reformation.... Judaea proved yet once more victorious over the classical ideal in the French Revolution ... and in opposition to resentment's lying war-cry of the prerogative of the most, in opposition to the will to lowliness, abasement, and equalisation, the will to a retrogression and twilight of humanity, there rang out once again, stronger, simpler, more penetrating than ever, the terrible and enchanting counter-war-cry of the prerogative of the few! Like a final sign-post to other ways, there appeared Napoleon, the most unique and violent anachronism that ever existed, and in him the incarnate problem of the aristocratic ideal in itself — consider well what a problem it is: — Napoleon, that synthesis of Monster and Superman. |
and this:
| Nietzsche wrote: | | And how about the atrocious form of this chronic hobnobbing with God? This Jewish, and not merely Jewish, slobbering and clawing importunacy towards God! |
There's a good reason for this apparent discrepancy: Not all Jews are equal to Nietzsche. In other places, Wikipedia promotes the idea that there is only ONE kind of Jew, instead of there being at least 7 kinds of Jews: (1) the innocent Jew-Jews (the majority of Jews following the religious faith of their fathers), (2) the Kabbalah Jews, (3) the Sephardic "elite" Jews, (4) the Christian Jews, and (5) Conservative, (6) Liberal, and (7) Third-party Jews, just for starters. But Wikipedia wants to promote the myth that all Jews are the same so we won't see that sometimes Jews don't get along, and more importantly, that certain Jews participated in the holocaust.
Dusty Sklar says that the Nazis waged a religious war against the Jews, NOT a racial war. Gnostics against Jew-Jews. After looking at the evidence -- and I'm still looking -- I agree with her. The evidence I've seen is startling. Just like 9/11, where we saw the shadow of traitorous Americans killing innocent Americans at the moment that all our defenses stood down, Gnostic Jews fought against Jew-Jews on the side of the Nazis in World War II. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.naderlibrary.com/cult.foundninecentchamberlain.htm
| Lord Redesdale wrote: | | That Chamberlain is a strong Anti-Semite adds to the value of the testimony which he bears to the nobility of the Sephardim, the intensely aristocratic Jews of Spain and Portugal, the descendants of the men whom the Romans, dreading their influence, deported westward. "That is nobility in the fullest sense of the word, genuine nobility of race! Beautiful forms, noble heads, dignity in speech and in deportment.... That out of the midst of such men prophets and psalmists should go forth, that I understood at the first glance -- something which I confess the closest observation of the many hundred 'Bochers' in the Friedrichstrasse in Berlin had failed to enable me to do." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a very gnostic view:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.genealogyofmoralsnietzsche.htm
| Nietzsche wrote: | | And how about the atrocious form of this chronic hobnobbing with God? This Jewish, and not merely Jewish, slobbering and clawing importunacy towards God! |
As explained by Edward Moore:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.gnosticismphilinternet.htm
| Edward Moore wrote: | | In the system of Ptolemy we are explicitly told that the cause of Sophia’s fall was her desire to know the ineffable Father. Since the purpose of the Father’s generating of the Aeons (of which Sophia was the last) was to “elevate all of them into thought” (Irenaeus 1.2.1) it was not permitted for any Aeon to attain a full knowledge of the Father. The purpose of the Pleroma was to exist as a living, collective expression of the intellectual magnitude of the Father, and if any single being within the Pleroma were to attain to the Father, all life would cease. This idea is based on an essentially positive attitude toward existence—that is, existence understood in the sense of striving, not for a reposeful end, but for an ever-increasing degree of creative or “constitutive” insight. The goal, on this view, is to produce through wisdom, and not simply to attain wisdom as an object or end in itself. Such an existence is not characterized by desire for an object, but rather by desire for the ability to persist in creative, constitutive engagement with/in one’s own “circumstance” (circumscribed stance or individual arena). When Sophia desired to know the Father, then, what she was desiring was her own dissolution in favor of an envelopment in that which made her existence possible in the first place. This amounted to a rejection of the gift of the Father—that is, of the gift of individual existence and life. It is for this reason that Sophia was not permitted to know the Father, but was turned back by the “boundary” (horos) that separates the Pleroma from the “ineffable magnitude” of the Father (Irenaeus 1.2.2) |
Of course, none of this makes a damn bit of sense. People should put their thinking skills to higher purposes, like serving the needs of all sentient beings, not promoting a mindless Communism and a "logic" that looks like it came from the Malleus Mallificarum.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.malleus.toc.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nietzsche starts out his "Genealogy of Morals" with a gnostic self-declaration:
| Nietzsche wrote: | We are unknown, we knowers, ourselves to ourselves: this has its own good reason. We have never searched for ourselves — how should it then come to pass, that we should ever find ourselves? Rightly has it been said: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Our treasure is there, where stand the hives of our knowledge. It is to those hives that we are always striving; as born creatures of flight, and as the honey-gatherers of the spirit, we care really in our hearts only for one thing — to bring something "home to the hive!"
As far as the rest of life with its so-called "experiences" is concerned, which of us has even sufficient serious interest? or sufficient time? In our dealings with such points of life, we are, I fear, never properly to the point; to be precise, our heart is not there, and certainly not our ear. Rather like one who, delighting in a divine distraction, or sunken in the seas of his own soul, in whose ear the clock has just thundered with all its force its twelve strokes of noon, suddenly wakes up, and asks himself, "What has in point of fact just struck?" so do we at times rub afterwards, as it were, our puzzled ears, and ask in complete astonishment and complete embarrassment, "Through what have we in point of fact just lived?" further, "Who are we in point of fact?" and count, after they have struck, as I have explained, all the twelve throbbing beats of the clock of our experience, of our life, of our being — ah! — and count wrong in the endeavour. Of necessity we remain strangers to ourselves, we understand ourselves not, in ourselves we are bound to be mistaken, for of us holds good to all eternity the motto, "Each one is the farthest away from himself" — as far as ourselves are concerned we are not "knowers." |
Edward Moore explains this passage as follows:
| Edward Moore wrote: | The Gnostic Mytho-Logos
The Gnostic Idea or Notion was not informed by a philosophical world-view or procedure. Rather, the Gnostic vision of the world was based upon the intuition of a radical and seemingly irreparable rupture between the realm of experience (pathos) and the realm of true Being—that is, existence in its positive, creative, or authentic aspect.
The problem faced by the Gnostics was how to explain such a radical, pre-philosophical intuition. This intuition is “pre-philosophical” because the brute experience of existing in a world that is alien to humankind’s aspirations may submit itself to a variety of interpretations. And the attempt at an interpretation may take on the form of either muthos or logos—either a merely descriptive rendering of the experience, or a rationally ordered account of such an experience, including an explanation of its origins. The ancient Greek explanation of this experience was to call it a primal “awe” or “wonder” felt by the human being as he faces the world that stands so radically apart from him, and to posit this experience as the beginning of philosophy (cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b 10-25 and Plato, Theaetetus 155d). But the Gnostics recognized this “awe” as the product of a radical disruption of the harmony of a realm persisting beyond becoming—that is, beyond “becoming” in the sense of pathos, or “that which is undergone.” The muthos always corresponds to the “first-hand” account rendered by one who has undergone, immediately, the effect of a certain event. The myth is always an explanation of something already known, and therefore carries its truth-claim along with it, just as the immediacy of an event forbids any doubt or questioning on the part of the one undergoing it. The logos, on the other hand, is the product of a careful reflection (dianoia), and refers, for its truth-value, not to the immediate moment of “grasping” a phenomenon (prolępsis), but to the moment of reflection during which one attains a conceptual knowledge of the phenomenon, and first comes to “know” it as such—this is gnôsis: insight. The direct result of this gnôsis is the emergence from the sense of existence as pathos, to the actuality of being as aisthęsis—that is, reception and judgment of experience by way of purely rational or divine criteria. Such criteria proceeds directly from the logos, or divine “ordering principle,” to which the Gnostics believed themselves to be related, by way of a divine genealogy. Although Gnostic onto-theology proceeds by way of an elaborate myth, it is a myth informed always by the logos, and is, in this sense, a true mythology—that is, a rendering, in the immediacy of language, of that which is ever-present (to the Gnostic) as a product of privileged reflection. |
Everything these guys say goes to their belief system. You think they're being clever and individualistic, but no, they've just adopted old ideas from the past and are regurgitating them in a new format. It's so very boring to read the same old shit over and over and over again everywhere you turn. Curse the world that was created by the Illuminati. They think they are world craftsmen, but they may as well be slaves for The Terminator. They are world destroyers, not world creators. And it's so easy to destroy.
Is a dam a creation or a destruction? Is a city a creation or a destruction? I would argue that they are assaults against nature, our real home. Contrary to what the little puppet/female sacrifice Dominique Sanda says in Steppenwolf, obediently speaking the words of another gnostic, Herman Hesse (no wonder he got the Nobel prize):
http://www.naderlibrary.com/steppenwolf2.gall.htm
| Steppenwolf wrote: | HARRY: Did you ever demand more?
HERMINE: Always.
HARRY: What?
HERMINE: Eternity.
HARRY: Where did you hope to find that?
HERMINE: In a special kingdom on the other side of appearances. The kingdom of God if you are pious, but it doesn't matter. Whatever you call it, it's where we belong, our home. Oh, Harry ... so much dirt and humbug we have to slog through in order to get home, and no guide but our homesickness. |
What the hell is he/she talking about? I never suffered from this kind of "homesickness." The only homesickness I ever felt was when I lived in Oregon and wanted to move back to Arizona. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll have to put up Hermann Hesse's book "Demian," which is about the gnostic deity Abraxas who argues that there can be no good without evil, and that along with worshipping Jehovah we should also worship the Devil. And destroy our world.
| Hesse wrote: | | The bird struggles out of the egg. The egg is the world. Whoever wants to be born, must destroy a world. The bird flies to God. That God's name is Abraxas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another day, another female sacrifice: Kate Winslett in "Mildred Pearce." First they take away her husband and give him to another woman, then they turn her into a kind of prostitute, then desperate, she gets a job as a waitress slinging hash, then they kill her daughter while she's screwing a man she just met that morning, heaping on the guilt, they make her other daughter a huge brat who pretends to be a rich lady looking down her nose at her plebe mother, and all through the movie I watched until I couldn't stand it anymore, Kate is crying and scowling and putting wrinkles in her face. It was like watching Pistis Sophia be assailed by dragons. It was obvious that a man wrote the script, because while her husband is being a philandering shite, she's half-way defending him and blaming herself. And that's the best they could think of doing with one of the most beautiful, voluptuous women in the world, who they've hounded into losing weight and getting all buff. Why didn't they just throw her into a volcano? She should have refused to do such a crummy movie. I want to see my women happy.
Little boys aren't allowed to play with dolls. That privilege is saved for men to do with women. They dress us up, fix our hair, make our boobs bigger and our tummies flatter, put stories in our mouths, then play us like dolls. Where is the REAL woman?
You tell this to the nicest man: he'll just smile indulgently: he doesn't believe a word of it, but he understands you're crazy.
These movies assault us women and make us depressed. Screw the female sacrificers! They're not nihilists; they're torturers.
Here's what you do with a beautiful woman. You adore her. And don't forget to talk to her. Her mind is the most important thing in the world to her.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
DO NOT READ THIS! http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.sevensermonsjung.htm It is too painful and crazy. To think that they called Carl Jung a "psychologist." Like making the god Loki a "psychologist," or Dr. Mengele. In Rosicrucian terms, this is called "The Reconciliation of Opposites," and I would add to that, "in Nihilism." Of course, in Nothingness all opposites are reconciled. "I AM/I AM NOT!", said John the Revelator. No one can touch this material. It's completely radioactive. It will destroy you. Better to go put your head into a meat grinder than to read this TOTALLY FORBIDDEN MATERIAL. Aleister Crowley would have been proud. Those two were born only two months apart. And they were both Nazis.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/headexplodingfinalweb2.gif
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.godsbeasts.toc.htm
| Dusty Sklar wrote: | When the president of the international German Medical Society for Psychotherapy, located in Germany, resigned because of the Nazi takeover in 1933, Jung filled the post by remote control from Switzerland and assumed the editorship of its official publication, the Zentralblatt fur Psychatherapie. Its December 1933 issue was graced with a commitment by the new Reichsfuhrer of psychoanalysts, Professor M. H. Goring, the nephew of Hermann Goring, to "Adolf Hitler's fundamental book, Mein Kampf" and "to contribute to the work of the people's chancellor to educate the German people for the spirit of heroism and sacrifice." And Goring gratefully acknowledged: "Thanks to the fact that Dr. C. G. Jung accepted the presidency on June 21st, 1933, it has been possible to continue the scientific activity of the Association and of its periodical."
For that same issue, Jung wrote an introduction which he later had many opportunities to defend:
The differences which actually do exist between Germanic and Jewish psychology and which have long been known to every intelligent person are no longer to be glossed over, and this can only be beneficial to science. In psychology more than in any other science there is a "personal equation," disregard of which falsifies the practical and theoretical findings.
Though he went on to state that he was no more depreciating "Semitic psychology" than he would if he talked of the Chinese in terms of Oriental psychology, his editorial in no way hurt him with the Nazis. The General Medical Society, although international in membership, was dominated by the Germans. Its publication was put out in Germany, and the managing editor and staff were German. Jung had given orders that the issue which caused him such embarrassment be "for exclusive circulation in Germany," but the managing editor had disobeyed him. Jung said: "The incident is naturally so incriminating as to put my editorship seriously in question." |
http://www.naderlibrary.com/cult.revoltdemonsmumford.htm
| Lewis Mumford wrote: | | Even Jung's much-debated interpretation of what was happening in Hitler's Germany in the thirties was not without insight, though his conduct justifies the suspicion that he himself, like all too many equally intelligent contemporaries in Europe, had momentarily turned to the same demonic powers for salvation and let himself be carried away by them. |
Of course, "equally intelligent" means "equally unintelligent." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 1010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl Jung wrote: | | My friendly relations with a large group of Jewish colleagues and patients over a period of many years in itself disproves the charge of anti-Semitism. |
Carl Jung's use of the word "anti-semitism," is nothing but a red herring. Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg was himself Jewish, so he couldn't have been "anti-semitic." But he sure hated Jews who practiced Judaism. That's what was going on with the Nazi elite. If you were a Christian, Pagan, Gnostic, Sephardic or Banker Jew, that was completely different. Of course, when it came to the German citizenry, anti-semitism was paramount. They knew nothing of the finer distinctions going on at the higher levels of government.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nazi.naziculturemosse.3.htm#The_Earth-Centered_Jew_Lacks_a_Soul,_by_ALFRED_ROSENBERG
| Alfred Rosenberg wrote: | Where the idea of the immortal dwells, the longing for the journey or the withdrawal from temporality must always emerge again; hence, a denial of the world will always reappear. And this is the meaning of the non-Jewish peoples: they are the custodians of world-negation, of the idea of the Hereafter, even if they maintain it in the poorest way. Hence, one or another of them can quietly go under, but what really matters lives on in their descendants. If, however, the Jewish people were to perish, no nation would be left which would hold world-affirmation in high esteem -- the end of all time would be here.
... the Jew, the only consistent and consequently the only viable yea-sayer to the world, must be found wherever other men bear in themselves ... a compulsion to overcome the world.... On the other hand, if the Jew were continually to stifle us, we would never be able to fulfill our mission, which is the salvation of the world, but would, to be frank, succumb to insanity, for pure world-affirmation, the unrestrained will for a vain existence, leads to no other goal. It would literally lead to a void, to the destruction not only of the illusory earthly world but also of the truly existent, the spiritual. Considered in himself the Jew represents nothing else but this blind will for destruction, the insanity of mankind. It is known that Jewish people are especially prone to mental disease. "Dominated by delusions," said Schopenhauer about the Jew.
... To strip the world of its soul, that and nothing else is what Judaism wants. This, however, would be tantamount to the world's destruction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
