From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyénot

SMM

The Living Force
I got the Kindle version a few weeks ago after looking at the content and introduction.

I'm excited to read this and The Origins of World's Mythologies. There are so many books on the list, it's ever-expanding. This book takes me back to the days of questioning Jehovah's witnesses on what the bible says.
 

SummerLite

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thing is: cultural Marxism/neo-Marxism is a mix between Marx and Freud, advanced primarily by the lunatic Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse etc.). They saw that the proletariat had no intention joining the Marxists but preferred fascism, nationalism, conservatism etc. They explained it in Freudian terms: those workers were controlled by the evil patriarchy by means of culture, the repression of sexuality in particular. Hence the goal became to "liberate" them, i.e. sexual liberation and the dismantling of the patriarchal culture. Once liberated, they would bring the revolution about. This is at the root of all that followed - identity politics, political correctness etc. In the postmodernism thread, we already talked about the huge role psychoanalysis played in the genesis of postmodernism/neo-Marxism, but once you see it spelled out by Atzmon, it's like "duh". And of course, this was largely a Jewish operation.
"advanced primarily by the lunatic Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School" and the rest sounds very fishy to me, I smell a rat. Who are you quoting Luc?I can clearly see how Reich's ideas could very easily be used (and abused) to further this agenda, fits very well. Being one of many who respect WR's work and recognize his many valuable contributions to humanity I was compelled to do a little search on how this negative view came into acceptance (by some). I was shocked by what I found. The accusations on the web are atrocious. Incest, bestiality, a sex fiend, kicked out of several countries for being a public nuisance and peddling subversive sexuality are among the claims and he was also crazy!. Then severe harassment after coming to the USA resulting in prison time where he died. Why was this man so viciously maligned, is it because he was so reprehensible? I think not. The links for Orgonelab give extensive coverage of his discoveries and life if your interested and where I obtained a lot of the information here.

Its interesting that his story takes place within part of the time frame covered in "From Yahweh to Zion" (I'm half way through the book and its awesome!) in the years 1923-1957, the year he died. So knowing the political atmosphere explains his persecution.. Coming to the point, in shortened terms, Reich was an aggressive, outspoken critic of Marxism and communism. He railed against the rigid structures of the oppressive society that surrounded him and saw how this caused so much human suffering. He stepped on a lot of toes, infuriated people at the highest levels and was seen as a threat to the system. They hated him. He was kicked out of all the groups he belonged to in Europe or left of his own accord,. He was a rebel rouser. Yes, he was against many things such as the rigid, male dominated patriarchy and the mistreatment of women and children which are legitimate issues even though they have become ponerized. Much was wrapped up in his ideas about sexual repression in the culture BUT he didn't promote sexual excess. The underlining concept was, peoples energy/spirit is so repressed they are unable to function in a healthy fashion and experience life in a positive, fulfilling and loving manner. This repression, caused blockages in the body which resulted in various diseases. His discoveries in this area laid the foundation for further important work by others.

"Healing Developmental Trauma" p.22,23. " Reich was the first psychoanalyst to emphasize the importance of including the body in psychotherapy; his goal was to anchor in the body Freud's belief in the biological foundation of the psyche. Reich believed that our biological based emotions govern our psychological processes. He is best known for his insights on what he called character structures, which, he contended, are kept in place by defensive armoring, the muscular rigidity that is the protective response to living in emotionally repressive environments that are hostile to aliveness and the life force. Building on Reich's break through was Alexander Lowen MD. who developed Bioenergetics, a somatic approach that included his own psychodynamically based character structure system. The Reichian/Bioenergetic tenet of the functional unity of mind and body is consistent with NARM".

Knowing that he valued self determination/regulation and strived to liberate people from societal oppression, its highly unlikely he supported the tenets of the Frankfurt School.
Debunking the Frankfurt myth:
The specific modern myth of Reich as a "cultural Marxist" or "member of the Frankfurt Group" was specifically fabricated by conservative critics of the 1960s sexual and Red-political rebellions, but only based upon what was written by leftist writers who had distorted Reich's ideas into sexual license.
Reich consequently was attacked by the Hard-Left for being "too conservative" in his abandonment of rigid Marxism and Communist dictatorship, and attacked by the Hard-Right for being "too liberal" in his advocating of peer-oriented adolescent and premarital sexual freedom, love-based marriage, legalized divorce, and family planning measures.
http://www.orgonelab.org/wrhistory.htm#MYTHS

There is a lot of speculation as to why there was such a fierce campaign to silence him after coming to the USA. Some say it was his involvement with the military and his 'shooting down' of UFO'S with one of his devices. The lights (ufo's) he called DOR, negative energy. Others say it was his studies and experiments with curing cancer that brought the FDA down on him. By his and others accounts, he was having some success with this. At the time. the FDA was in hyperdrive to eliminate "quacks" and any alternative treatments that interfered with big pharma and the establishment of the medical monopoly. Dr. Rife was also prosecuted at this time for his Rife machine. Another idea was, Reich's discovery of the energy that permeates all life, which he called orgone, and his discoveries where somehow a threat.

I suspect the animosity he created in Europe followed him to the US. It began with the first US publication of his book Mass Psychology of Fascism which brought the PTB down on him in Europe. The first attack came from articles in The New Republic, a liberal, Jewish/Zionist magazine. Interestingly enough, the editor at the time was former VP, Henry Wallace, a champion of the Zionist cause and spoken of in "From Yahweh to Zion". A chief protagonist in all this was Mildred Brady. "The Bradys played a key role in setting up that dictatorial "health" infrastructure, even after being fired from their jobs at the Office of Price Administration in 1941, during the Roosevelt Administration, due to their open Soviet CP sympathies." They assisted in the Federal Government control over large sectors of the economy, public behavior and health issues.

If there is one thing I'd like to thank Wilhelm Reich for, its his insistence that childbirth should be without trauma. He highlighted the traumatic procedures followed in hospitals during childbirth and warned of the continuing repercussions to the individual. As a result both my children and 2 grandchildren had natural untruamatic births. A contribution to our society of great value.

It looks like this negative "press" continues to this day unfortunately. Is he still a threat? I think we need to set the record straight and question whatever comes up about Reich. He's really been buried in so much slander we need to watch for red flags.

What follows is a detailed account, of the beginning of the end for Reich, if your interested, pretty brutal. Information acquired through the Freedom of Information Act is included. http://www.orgonelab.org/ReichPersecution.htm An interview with Linda Moulton Howe: Linda Moulton Howe: Dr. Wilhelm Reich

His books, such as Function of the Orgasm, were given sneering reviews by mainstream medical journals as early as 1942, stimulating a rumor campaign which he addressed by public exposure and rebuttals in his new Journal . No legal attacks or organized persecutions came from any of these early American annoyances. This would change, however. In 1946, shortly after the first English edition of his Mass Psychology of Fascism appeared in the USA — one of his works from the 1930s which got him on the Nazi and Comintern death-lists in Europe — he once again came under serious attacks from the Communists.

The New Republic magazine figured centrally in the renewed campaign against Reich. Developed from the family fortune of Willard Straight, an American investment banker, New Republic was originally liberal-progressive but pro-American in outlook. By Reich's time, however, it was taken over by the young Michael Whitney Straight, who by his own later admissions had been recruited as a Soviet spy in 1935, while attending Cambridge University. Straight was an important American member of the NKVD-controlled Cambridge Five spy ring, which worked primarily out of the UK, and included the notorious Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess, and Kim Philby. Together they provided the Soviet Union with atomic and other top secrets during the period of WW-II until around 1952, when they were exposed. Straight successfully concealed his Soviet connections until 1962.

As owner of the New Republic and NKVD-KGB agent, Michael Straight brought many open and cloaked communists onto their staff, such as former US Vice-President (1941-44) Henry Wallace, as editor. Wallace's unconcealed Soviet and CP sympathies, his white-washing of Soviet gulag death-camps, open meetings with Comintern operatives, and other factors forced President Roosevelt to drop him as VP in 1944, in favor of Harry Truman. Newly-released materials from Soviet archives confirm Wallace was in fact working covertly for the Soviets.

Under Straight's oversight and Wallace's editorship, the New Republic obtained its direction from the Comintern and KGB, to steer old-fashioned and healthy American liberal democratic sentiments towards pro-Soviet and Comintern agendas. In this regard, assaulting anti-communist freedom-fighters like Wilhelm Reich, who had personally seen and wrote about the poison of Red Fascism, was certainly a central part of their mission. It appears, the newly-published 1946 English edition of Reich's Mass Psychology came to the attention of the Comintern and New Republic staff, triggering a renewed interest to destroy him.

Under the editorship of Henry Wallace, the New Republic firstly published a slanderous "book review" of Reich's Mass Psychology, authored by Fredric Wertham, a socialist-oriented psychiatrist who eventually made his fame in books and articles denouncing the ill effects of comic books upon American youth, advocating censorship. The article misrepresented Reich as a dangerous political radical out to do harm to the USA, accusing him of having "utter contempt for the masses", as if Reich's criticisms against the murderous Nazis and Communists were ill-conceived. Wertham called upon "the intellectuals in our time ... to combat the kind of psycho-fascism which Reich's book exemplifies."

But the Wallace-Wertham slanders would pale by comparison to the public sexual slander and smear campaign started the following year, 1947, by the Communist writer Mildred Brady, in both Harper's and the same New Republic magazine. Her smear articles "The New Cult of Sex and Anarchy" and "The Strange Case of Wilhelm Reich"made additional unwarranted accusations, which stimulated copy-cat articles within other magazines, newspapers and professional publications of that time.

The Bradys — Mildred and her husband Robert — were intimate with the Straight and Wallace networks of Comintern friends and KGB agents. Robert Brady's academic post at the UC Berkeley campus was identified by the FBI as a meeting ground for contacts and go-betweens stretching back to the Soviet Union. The Bradys also had a long relationship with the largest and most successful Soviet spy-ring working in the USA, as established by Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, which also was involved in taking atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The Bradys had years earlier been central in founding the Consumers Union organization, which had a powerful influence within the FDA and medical organizations. They had actually written some of the specific language for legal codes later used by the FDA to attack natural healing methods, such as the "interstate transportation" and "mislabeling of merchandise" clauses. While nominally overseeing the safety of foods, drugs and cosmetics, a perhaps more central goal of the FDA starting from its earliest years, and apparently due in part to pernicious Comintern subterfuge, was to concentrate Federal Government control over large sectors of the economy, public behavior and health issues.

The Bradys played a key role in setting up that dictatorial "health" infrastructure, even after being fired from their jobs at the Office of Price Administration in 1941, during the Roosevelt Administration, due to their open Soviet CP sympathies. The Dies Committee of the US Congress had publicly identified the Bradys as Soviet agents, resulting in their firing. One of the employees of their Consumer's Union (which later went on to publish Consumer's Reports magazine) was also identified in FBI files as a Soviet courier and get-away car driver for the assassin in the 1940 murder of Leon Trotsky in Mexico City. Once Wilhelm Reich was identified as a possible threat to Comintern goals in the USA, this same network of Soviet agents and sympathizers began orchestrating a serious and deadly assault against him.

Brady's smear articles denounced Reich by putting falsehoods into his mouth, implying he ran a sex-racket, and repeated defamation from old Socialist and Communist newspapers which had attacked him ten years earlier in Scandinavia. Brady also denounced Reich for his criticisms of Stalinist sex-repression — factually, the Bolsheviks and later Stalinist dictatorship had progressively betrayed every human right and freedom as existed during the early authentic Russian Revolution, or even as left-over from Tsarist days. As a skilled writer, Brady smoothly lied about nearly everything, implying also that Reich was advertising the orgone accumulator as a cure-all, which was never the case. Her article used standard Soviet methods of public disinformation, with ridicule and half-truth mixed with lies, with the goal to isolate and destroy her target. She ended with an open call for government investigation of his work.

The Brady smears were quickly picked up and reprinted verbatim, without any fact-checking, by other publications, including by hostile medical journals. The influential Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic reproduced the entire Brady article, as Karl Menninger had been strongly influenced by various anti-Reich psychoanalysts and psychiatrists whose animus dated back to Reich's European period. The Journal of the American Medical Association also also joined in, publishing a derogatory item based upon the Brady article, given their on-going war against all forms of natural healing that competed with their beloved and very profitable pharmacy drugs. Short versions of the Brady article, or new ones drawing from it, and salted up with even more salacious commentary, appeared in Colliers, The New York Post, Everybody's Digest, Mademoiselle, Consumer's Reports and others, as well as in chapters or sections of new books on medical and psychoanalytical issues. These publications reached tens of millions of people.

Brady's smears were significantly amplified a few years later by the Marxist "humanist" Martin Gardner (later of CSICOP3 fame). His 1950 article in the Antioch Review presented Reich to the academic world as a misguided crackpot. In Gardner's influential 1952 book Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science, which contained a chapter on "Orgonomy", Reich was subjected to what later became a trademark of Gardner and CSICOP — a litany of false and exaggerated cartoon-like caricatures of serious work, with slanderous distortions of public dangerousness, and hyena-like laughing ridicule. Reich was branded as a crackpot and charlatan. Together, Brady and Gardner got the anti-Reich bonfires stoked and roaring hot. The orgone accumulator was by then being publicly called a "sex box" in men's magazines such as Sir!, and Reich became the object of public scorn and ridicule, with open calls for "government action" to "protect the public" from "medical quackery". It was, as Reich noted, a communist conspiracy playing upon sexual anxieties, with a subsequent emotional chain reaction.

At the height of this anti-Reich press smear campaign, the Brady articles were delivered into the hands of top FDA officials by influential medical doctors, which triggered the start of an official but exceedingly biased "investigation". What was the FDA like at this time?

By the 1940s, the FDA was financially energized and socialist-oriented, a "do-good", "consumer activist" and "anti-corporation" organization, with a considerable amount of its resources dedicated to snooping out and eradicating independent medical pioneers of all sorts, under the authority of "stamping out medical quackery". Even without active Comintern agents working within its ranks, it was a decidedly socialist outfit and did not need a whole lot of encouragement to go after yet another unorthodox physician — and they had entire ready-made departments dedicated to such efforts. The FDA's mandate also placed it into a close working relationship with the MD-hospital physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Their economic motivations and mechanistic allopathic ideology influenced the FDA to such an extent that it became an agent for destruction of the many less-costly natural healing clinics and methods as applied by non-MD health-care practitioners. In this regard, towards building up a gigantic bureaucratic power that could crush down anyone they cared to, both the Comintern moles and the MD-hospital physicians shared common goals.

The FDA had previously destroyed Harry Hoxsey's popular cancer-treatment clinics, whose Native American herbal remedies were used widely with much success. They had smashed down the many healing water health spas which existed across the nation, where orgone-charged blue-glowing waters (see Chapter 10) flowed up from the Earth, like Lourdes in France, and were used and accepted by most of the natural-healing physicians and ordinary people of that period. Historically, the Indian tribes would smoke the peace-pipe and enjoy sweat-lodges around these waters, to regain health and heal old injuries. Other natural healing clinics and pioneering physicians such as Max Gerson, were shut down through deceit and brute force by the FDA fanatics, working closely with the MD-hospital system, American Medical Association (AMA) and pharmacy companies. Most of this occurred years before Wilhelm Reich came to their attention.

The FDA assault upon Reich was primarily led by W.R.M. Wharton, Chief of the Eastern Division of the FDA, and by Resident FDA Inspector for the State of Maine, Charles A. Wood. Wharton is described by other FDA personnel and biographers as a ruthless and pornographic, sex-obsessed character, who kept a ceramic phallus in his office, placing it provocatively on his desk when his secretary would take dictations. He wrote internal FDA letters and notes repeating the salacious accusations of the Brady articles. Inspector Wood, who took the key evidence-gathering role in their legal case against Reich, also was prejudicially influenced by the Brady articles. Early in his investigation, he declared to one of Reich's employees that "the accumulator was a fake...and Dr. Reich was fooling the public with it..." and would "soon go to jail." His investigation thereby, from the start, assumed the Brady smears were factual material, and Reich was running some kind of "sex racket" or "fraud".
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this is certainly true. There is a subtlety with Judaism though that I think is worth mentioning: while other religions believe they have a "special path towards salvation", and evangelicals in particular think it's a simple matter of "accepting Jesus", they at least try to convince others of their path, i.e. proselytization.

Now Judaism is often praised nowadays for not proselytizing. But this just goes to show that Judaism is pure tribalism: because if you are convinced that you are on the right spiritual path and that it is actually beneficial to soul development, you quite naturally want to show this path to as many people as possible. How could it be otherwise? Of course, the question is how you go about it. Done right, it should be a subtle invitation when people truly ask, like opening a door. I don't see anything wrong with that. But how can you believe something to be "the true path" and yet it's totally exclusive and you should never "invite" others to it? That's not just "feeling special", that's tribal superiority, i.e. racial chosenness. Just thought this is an important distinction.

BTW, here's a talk by Atzmon where he explains some of the points from his book. One thing he mentions and that I think is interesting as well is that identity politics kind of turns everyone into a "Jew": for example, as a gay, you identify with the "international gay" instead of with your neighbors. Same for blacks, women etc. Just like the Jew identifies with world Jewry. And it can be just as subversive, like when "international Homosexuality" is used as a weapon for foreign interventions, such as eroding Russia via NGOs and the like. I think that's a very good point and kind of explains why it was mostly Jews who came up with these concepts.

Emphasis mine. As a homosexual I can certainly agree with this although, in my case, I have for most of my adult life been turned off by the idea of homosexual tribalism and have been what is called 'non scene'. The vast majority of the so-called gay lifestyle is a big turn off for me. I have sometimes pondered that I am a [self made] outcast of outcasts.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
First, there is a crucial link between neo-Marxism and postmodernism that Jordan Peterson and the like seem to miss
Why do you say he misses that link? I'm under the impression that a lot of what he talks about addresses that link specifically.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Why do you say he misses that link? I'm under the impression that a lot of what he talks about addresses that link specifically.
I didn't mean that he doesn't talk about the link between neo-Marxism and postmodernism, which he does a lot, but another link apart from the substitution of one victim group (workers) with other victim groups (identity politics). Namely the role of Freud/psychoanalysis and its combination with Marxism, culminating in the belief that sexual repression by means of patriarchal culture is the reason the "oppressed" don't realize they're oppressed and therefore their sexuality needs to be liberated. Or did you mean JP has talked about that? If so I'm not aware of it or don't remember it.
 

Tuatha de Danaan

Jedi Master
"advanced primarily by the lunatic Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School" and the rest sounds very fishy to me, I smell a rat. Who are you quoting Luc?I can clearly see how Reich's ideas could very easily be used (and abused) to further this agenda, fits very well. Being one of many who respect WR's work and recognize his many valuable contributions to humanity I was compelled to do a little search on how this negative view came into acceptance (by some). I was shocked by what I found. The accusations on the web are atrocious. Incest, bestiality, a sex fiend, kicked out of several countries for being a public nuisance and peddling subversive sexuality are among the claims and he was also crazy!. Then severe harassment after coming to the USA resulting in prison time where he died. Why was this man so viciously maligned, is it because he was so reprehensible? I think not. The links for Orgonelab give extensive coverage of his discoveries and life if your interested and where I obtained a lot of the information here.

Its interesting that his story takes place within part of the time frame covered in "From Yahweh to Zion" (I'm half way through the book and its awesome!) in the years 1923-1957, the year he died. So knowing the political atmosphere explains his persecution.. Coming to the point, in shortened terms, Reich was an aggressive, outspoken critic of Marxism and communism. He railed against the rigid structures of the oppressive society that surrounded him and saw how this caused so much human suffering. He stepped on a lot of toes, infuriated people at the highest levels and was seen as a threat to the system. They hated him. He was kicked out of all the groups he belonged to in Europe or left of his own accord,. He was a rebel rouser. Yes, he was against many things such as the rigid, male dominated patriarchy and the mistreatment of women and children which are legitimate issues even though they have become ponerized. Much was wrapped up in his ideas about sexual repression in the culture BUT he didn't promote sexual excess. The underlining concept was, peoples energy/spirit is so repressed they are unable to function in a healthy fashion and experience life in a positive, fulfilling and loving manner. This repression, caused blockages in the body which resulted in various diseases. His discoveries in this area laid the foundation for further important work by others.

"Healing Developmental Trauma" p.22,23. " Reich was the first psychoanalyst to emphasize the importance of including the body in psychotherapy; his goal was to anchor in the body Freud's belief in the biological foundation of the psyche. Reich believed that our biological based emotions govern our psychological processes. He is best known for his insights on what he called character structures, which, he contended, are kept in place by defensive armoring, the muscular rigidity that is the protective response to living in emotionally repressive environments that are hostile to aliveness and the life force. Building on Reich's break through was Alexander Lowen MD. who developed Bioenergetics, a somatic approach that included his own psychodynamically based character structure system. The Reichian/Bioenergetic tenet of the functional unity of mind and body is consistent with NARM".

Knowing that he valued self determination/regulation and strived to liberate people from societal oppression, its highly unlikely he supported the tenets of the Frankfurt School.
Debunking the Frankfurt myth:
The specific modern myth of Reich as a "cultural Marxist" or "member of the Frankfurt Group" was specifically fabricated by conservative critics of the 1960s sexual and Red-political rebellions, but only based upon what was written by leftist writers who had distorted Reich's ideas into sexual license.
Reich consequently was attacked by the Hard-Left for being "too conservative" in his abandonment of rigid Marxism and Communist dictatorship, and attacked by the Hard-Right for being "too liberal" in his advocating of peer-oriented adolescent and premarital sexual freedom, love-based marriage, legalized divorce, and family planning measures.
http://www.orgonelab.org/wrhistory.htm#MYTHS

There is a lot of speculation as to why there was such a fierce campaign to silence him after coming to the USA. Some say it was his involvement with the military and his 'shooting down' of UFO'S with one of his devices. The lights (ufo's) he called DOR, negative energy. Others say it was his studies and experiments with curing cancer that brought the FDA down on him. By his and others accounts, he was having some success with this. At the time. the FDA was in hyperdrive to eliminate "quacks" and any alternative treatments that interfered with big pharma and the establishment of the medical monopoly. Dr. Rife was also prosecuted at this time for his Rife machine. Another idea was, Reich's discovery of the energy that permeates all life, which he called orgone, and his discoveries where somehow a threat.

I suspect the animosity he created in Europe followed him to the US. It began with the first US publication of his book Mass Psychology of Fascism which brought the PTB down on him in Europe. The first attack came from articles in The New Republic, a liberal, Jewish/Zionist magazine. Interestingly enough, the editor at the time was former VP, Henry Wallace, a champion of the Zionist cause and spoken of in "From Yahweh to Zion". A chief protagonist in all this was Mildred Brady. "The Bradys played a key role in setting up that dictatorial "health" infrastructure, even after being fired from their jobs at the Office of Price Administration in 1941, during the Roosevelt Administration, due to their open Soviet CP sympathies." They assisted in the Federal Government control over large sectors of the economy, public behavior and health issues.

If there is one thing I'd like to thank Wilhelm Reich for, its his insistence that childbirth should be without trauma. He highlighted the traumatic procedures followed in hospitals during childbirth and warned of the continuing repercussions to the individual. As a result both my children and 2 grandchildren had natural untruamatic births. A contribution to our society of great value.

It looks like this negative "press" continues to this day unfortunately. Is he still a threat? I think we need to set the record straight and question whatever comes up about Reich. He's really been buried in so much slander we need to watch for red flags.

What follows is a detailed account, of the beginning of the end for Reich, if your interested, pretty brutal. Information acquired through the Freedom of Information Act is included. http://www.orgonelab.org/ReichPersecution.htm An interview with Linda Moulton Howe: Linda Moulton Howe: Dr. Wilhelm Reich

His books, such as Function of the Orgasm, were given sneering reviews by mainstream medical journals as early as 1942, stimulating a rumor campaign which he addressed by public exposure and rebuttals in his new Journal . No legal attacks or organized persecutions came from any of these early American annoyances. This would change, however. In 1946, shortly after the first English edition of his Mass Psychology of Fascism appeared in the USA — one of his works from the 1930s which got him on the Nazi and Comintern death-lists in Europe — he once again came under serious attacks from the Communists.

Thank you SummerLite for the above information on Wilhelm Reich. Over the past few years I've read information on this gentleman and to be perfectly honest I really thought there were two Wilhelm Reichs.

The information was so contradictory I never thought it was about the same man. I am so embarrassed to have to admit this, that my critical thinking was in no way critical and I wasn't even prompted to check my facts. How could I have missed such a crucial point. The thought's just given me a headache.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I didn't mean that he doesn't talk about the link between neo-Marxism and postmodernism, which he does a lot, but another link apart from the substitution of one victim group (workers) with other victim groups (identity politics). Namely the role of Freud/psychoanalysis and its combination with Marxism, culminating in the belief that sexual repression by means of patriarchal culture is the reason the "oppressed" don't realize they're oppressed and therefore their sexuality needs to be liberated. Or did you mean JP has talked about that? If so I'm not aware of it or don't remember it.
No, don't think he has addressed that specifically. He tends to avoid the jewish question, for obvious reasons (he'd be destroyed in a heart-beat).
 

genero81

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Read this book for a meetup tonight with the 'Intellectual Society of Nashville' Sounds pretentious, I know. This will be my first time going, so I will see. He did pick some interesting reading and future reading will include existential authors like Nietzsche and Satre. Anyway, I found the following interesting and for lack of a better place to share it, am including it here.

If it is asked how in pagan times, where each State had its cult and its gods, there were no wars of religion, I answer that it was precisely because each State, having its own cult as well as its own government, made no distinction between its gods and its laws. Political war was also theological; the provinces of the gods were, so to speak, fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over another. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods; they shared among themselves the empire of the world: even Moses and the Hebrews sometimes lent themselves to this view by speaking of the God of Israel. It is true, they regarded as powerless the gods of the Canaanites, a proscribed people condemned to destruction, whose place they were to take; but remember how they spoke of the divisions of the neighbouring peoples they were forbidden to attack! "Is not the possession of what belongs to your god Chamos lawfully your due?" said Jephthah to the Ammonites. "We have the same title to the lands our conquering God has made his own." [42] Here, I think, there is a recognition that the rights of Chamos and those of the God of Israel are of the same nature. But when the Jews, being subject to the Kings of Babylon, and, subsequently, to those of Syria, still obstinately refused to recognise any god save their own, their refusal was regarded as rebellion against their conqueror, and drew down on them the persecutions we read of in their history, which are without parallel till the coming of Christianity. [43] Every religion, therefore, being attached solely to the laws of the State which prescribed it, there was no way of converting a people except by enslaving it, and there could be no missionaries save conquerors. The obligation to change cults being the law to which the vanquished yielded, it was necessary to be victorious before suggesting such a change. So far from men fighting for the gods, the gods, as in Homer, fought for men; each asked his god for victory, and repayed him with new altars. The Romans, before taking a city, summoned its gods to quit it; and, in leaving the Tarentines their outraged gods, they regarded them as subject to their own and compelled to do them homage. They left the vanquished their gods as they left them their laws. A wreath to the Jupiter of the Capitol was often the only tribute they imposed. Finally, when, along with their empire, the Romans had spread their cult and their gods, and had themselves often adopted those of the vanquished, by granting to both alike the rights of the city, the peoples of that vast empire insensibly found themselves with multitudes of gods and cults, everywhere almost the same; and thus paganism throughout the known world finally came to be one and the same religion. It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions. What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms. However, as there have always been a prince and civil laws, this double power and conflict of jurisdiction have made all good polity impossible in Christian States; and men have never succeeded in finding out whether they were bound to obey the master or the priest. Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good. But the Arabs, having grown prosperous, lettered, civilised, slack and cowardly, were conquered by barbarians: the division between the two powers began again; and, although it is less apparent among the Mahometans than among the Christians, it none the less exists, especially in the sect of Ali, and there are States, such as Persia, where it is continually making itself felt. Among us, the Kings of England have made themselves heads of the Church, and the Czars have done the same: but this title has made them less its masters than its ministers; they have gained not so much the right to change it, as the power to maintain it: they are not its legislators, but only its princes. Wherever the clergy is a corporate body, [44] it is master and legislator in its own country. There are thus two powers, two Sovereigns, in England and in Russia, as well as elsewhere. Of all Christian writers, the philosopher Hobbes alone has seen the evil and how to remedy it, and has dared to propose the reunion of the two heads of the eagle, and the restoration throughout of political unity, without which no State or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that the masterful spirit of Christianity is incompatible with his system, and that the priestly interest would always be stronger than that of the State. It is not so much what is false and terrible in his political theory, as what is just and true, that has drawn down hatred on it. [45] I believe that if the study of history were developed from this point of view, it would be easy to refute the contrary opinions of Bayle and Warburton, one of whom holds that religion can be of no use to the body politic, while the other, on the contrary, maintains that Christianity is its strongest support. We should demonstrate to the former that no State has ever been founded without a religious basis, and to the latter, that the law of Christianity at bottom does more harm by weakening than good by strengthening the constitution of the State. To make myself understood, I have only to make a little more exact the too vague ideas of religion as relating to this subject. Religion, considered in relation to society, which is either general or particular, may also be divided into two kinds: the religion of man, and that of the citizen. The first, which has neither temples, nor altars, nor rites, and is confined to the purely internal cult of the supreme God and the eternal obligations of morality, is the religion of the Gospel pure and simple, the true theism, what may be called natural divine right or law. The other, which is codified in a single country, gives it its gods, its own tutelary patrons; it has its dogmas, its rites, and its external cult prescribed by law; outside the single nation that follows it, all the world is in its sight infidel, foreign and barbarous; the duties and rights of man extend for it only as far as its own altars. Of this kind were all the religions of early peoples, which we may define as civil or positive divine right or law. There is a third sort of religion of a more singular kind, which gives men two codes of legislation, two rulers, and two countries, renders them subject to contradictory duties, and makes it impossible for them to be faithful both to religion and to citizenship. Such are the religions of the Lamas and of the Japanese, and such is Roman Christianity, which may be called the religion of the priest. It leads to a sort of mixed and anti-social code which has no name. In their political aspect, all these three kinds of religion have their defects. The third is so clearly bad, that it is waste of time to stop to prove it such. All that destroys social unity is worthless; all institutions that set man in contradiction to himself are worthless. The second is good in that it unites the divine cult with love of the laws, and, making country the object of the citizens' adoration, teaches them that service done to the State is service done to its tutelary god. It is a form of theocracy, in which there can be no pontiff save the prince, and no priests save the magistrates. To die for one's country then becomes martyrdom; violation of its laws, impiety; and to subject one who is guilty to public execration is to condemn him to the anger of the gods: Sacer estod. On the other hand, it is bad in that, being founded on lies and error, it deceives men, makes them credulous and superstitious, and drowns the true cult of the Divinity in empty ceremonial. It is bad, again, when it becomes tyrannous and exclusive, and makes a people bloodthirsty and intolerant, so that it breathes fire and slaughter, and regards as a sacred act the killing of every one who does not believe in its gods. The result is to place such a people in a natural state of war with all others, so that its security is deeply endangered. There remains therefore the religion of man or Christianity—not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel, which is entirely different. By means of this holy, sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God, recognise one another as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even at death. But this religion, having no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws in possession of the force they have in themselves without making any addition to it; and thus one of the great bonds that unite society considered in severally fails to operate. Nay, more, so far from binding the hearts of the citizens to the State, it has the effect of taking them away from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit. We are told that a people of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see in this supposition only one great difficulty: that a society of true Christians would not be a society of men. I say further that such a society, with all its perfection, would be neither the strongest nor the most lasting: the very fact that it was perfect would rob it of its bond of union; the flaw that would destroy it would lie in its very perfection. Every one would do his duty; the people would be law-abiding, the rulers just and temperate; the magistrates upright and incorruptible; the soldiers would scorn death; there would be neither vanity nor luxury. So far, so good; but let us hear more. Christianity as a religion is entirely spiritual, occupied solely with heavenly things; the country of the Christian is not of this world. He does his duty, indeed, but does it with profound indifference to the good or ill success of his cares. Provided he has nothing to reproach himself with, it matters little to him whether things go well or ill here on earth. If the State is prosperous, he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he may grow proud of his country's glory; if the State is languishing, he blesses the hand of God that is hard upon His people. For the State to be peaceable and for harmony to be maintained, all the citizens without exception would have to be good Christians; if by ill hap there should be a single self-seeker or hypocrite, a Catiline or a Cromwell, for instance, he would certainly get the better of his pious compatriots. Christian charity does not readily allow a man to think hardly of his neighbours. As soon as, by some trick, he has discovered the art of imposing on them and getting hold of a share in the public authority, you have a man established in dignity; it is the will of God that he be respected: very soon you have a power; it is God's will that it be obeyed: and if the power is abused by him who wields it, it is the scourge wherewith God punishes His children. There would be scruples about driving out the usurper: public tranquillity would have to be disturbed, violence would have to be employed, and blood spilt; all this accords ill with Christian meekness; and after all, in this vale of sorrows, what does it matter whether we are free men or serfs? The essential thing is to get to heaven, and resignation is only an additional means of doing so. If war breaks out with another State, the citizens march readily out to battle; not one of them thinks of flight; they do their duty, but they have no passion for victory; they know better how to die than how to conquer. What does it matter whether they win or lose? Does not Providence know better than they what is meet for them? Only think to what account a proud, impetuous and passionate enemy could turn their stoicism! Set over against them those generous peoples who were devoured by ardent love of glory and of their country, imagine your Christian republic face to face with Sparta or Rome: the pious Christians will be beaten, crushed and destroyed, before they know where they are, or will owe their safety only to the contempt their enemy will conceive for them. It was to my mind a fine oath that was taken by the soldiers of Fabius, who swore, not to conquer or die, but to come back victorious—and kept their oath. Christians would never have taken such an oath; they would have looked on it as tempting God. But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes. I shall be told that Christian troops are excellent. I deny it. Show me an instance. For my part, I know of no Christian troops. I shall be told of the Crusades. Without disputing the valour of the Crusaders, I answer that, so far from being Christians, they were the priests' soldiery, citizens of the Church. They fought for their spiritual country, which the Church had, somehow or other, made temporal. Well understood, this goes back to paganism: as the Gospel sets up no national religion, a holy war is impossible among Christians. Under the pagan emperors, the Christian soldiers were brave; every Christian writer affirms it, and I believe it: it was a case of honourable emulation of the pagan troops. As soon as the emperors were Christian, this emulation no longer existed, and, when the Cross had driven out the eagle, Roman valour wholly disappeared. But, setting aside political considerations, let us come back to what is right, and settle our principles on this important point. The right which the social compact gives the Sovereign over the subjects does not, we have seen, exceed the limits of public expediency. [46] The subjects then owe the Sovereign an account of their opinions only to such an extent as they matter to the community. Now, it matters very much to the community that each citizen should have a religion. That will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of that religion concern the State and its members only so far as they have reference to morality and to the duties which he who professes them is bound to do to others. Each man may have, over and above, what opinions he pleases, without it being the Sovereign's business to take cognisance of them; for, as the Sovereign has no authority in the other world, whatever the lot of its subjects may be in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this life. There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject. [47] While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them—it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly recognising these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law. The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas. Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected. Those who distinguish civil from theological intolerance are, to my mind, mistaken. The two forms are inseparable. It is impossible to live at peace with those we regard as damned; to love them would be to hate God who punishes them: we positively must either reclaim or torment them. Wherever theological intolerance is admitted, it must inevitably have some civil effect; [48] and as soon as it has such an effect, the Sovereign is no longer Sovereign even in the temporal sphere: thenceforce priests are the real masters, and kings only their ministers. Now that there is and can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: Outside the Church is no salvation, ought to be driven from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the prince the pontiff. Such a dogma is good only in a theocratic government; in any other, it is fatal.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract (pp. 71-77). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.
 

Laurs

Padawan Learner
Also (jewish) Dr Gabor Mate (of the book 'When the Body Says No') is critical of at least the ongoing terror of the Israeli state aided and abetted by the West against the Palestinians, see this interview of five years ago:

Beautiful Dream of Israel has Become a Nightmare
Posted on JULY 28, 2014 at 11:07 PM by STEPHANIE LEE
As a Jewish youngster growing up in Budapest, an infant survivor of the Nazi genocide, I was for years haunted by a question resounding in my brain with such force that sometimes my head would spin: “How was it possible? How could the world have let such horrors happen?”
It was a naïve question, that of a child. I know better now: such is reality. Whether in Vietnam or Rwanda or Syria, humanity stands by either complicitly or unconsciously or helplessly, as it always does. In Gaza today we find ways of justifying the bombing of hospitals, the annihilation of families at dinner, the killing of pre-adolescents playing soccer on a beach.
In Israel-Palestine the powerful party has succeeded in painting itself as the victim, while the ones being killed and maimed become the perpetrators. “They don’t care about life,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, abetted by the Obamas and Harpers of this world, “we do.” Netanyahu, you who with surgical precision slaughter innocents, the young and the old, you who have cruelly blockaded Gaza for years, starving it of necessities, you who deprive Palestinians of more and more of their land, their water, their crops, their trees — you care about life?
There is no understanding Gaza out of context — Hamas rockets or unjustifiable terrorist attacks on civilians — and that context is the longest ongoing ethnic cleansing operation in the recent and present centuries, the ongoing attempt to destroy Palestinian nationhood.
The Palestinians use tunnels? So did my heroes, the poorly armed fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto. Unlike Israel, Palestinians lack Apache helicopters, guided drones, jet fighters with bombs, laser-guided artillery. Out of impotent defiance, they fire inept rockets, causing terror for innocent Israelis but rarely physical harm. With such a gross imbalance of power, there is no equivalence of culpability.
Israel wants peace? Perhaps, but as the veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has pointed out, it does not want a just peace. Occupation and creeping annexation, an inhumane blockade, the destruction of olive groves, the arbitrary imprisonment of thousands, torture, daily humiliation of civilians, house demolitions: these are not policies compatible with any desire for a just peace. In Tel Aviv Gideon Levy now moves around with a bodyguard, the price of speaking the truth.
I have visited Gaza and the West Bank. I saw multi-generational Palestinian families weeping in hospitals around the bedsides of their wounded, at the graves of their dead. These are not people who do not care about life. They are like us — Canadians, Jews, like anyone: they celebrate life, family, work, education, food, peace, joy. And they are capable of hatred, they can harbour vengeance in the hearts, just like we can.
One could debate details, historical and current, back and forth. Since my days as a young Zionist and, later, as a member of Jews for a Just Peace, I have often done so. I used to believe that if people knew the facts, they would open to the truth. That, too, was naïve. This issue is far too charged with emotion. As the spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle has pointed out, the accumulated mutual pain in the Middle East is so acute, “a significant part of the population finds itself forced to act it out in an endless cycle of perpetration and retribution.”
“People’s leaders have been misleaders, so they that are led have been confused,” in the words of the prophet Jeremiah. The voices of justice and sanity are not heeded. Netanyahu has his reasons. Harper and Obama have theirs.
And what shall we do, we ordinary people? I pray we can listen to our hearts. My heart tells me that “never again” is not a tribal slogan, that the murder of my grandparents in Auschwitz does not justify the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians, that justice, truth, peace are not tribal prerogatives. That Israel’s “right to defend itself,” unarguable in principle, does not validate mass killing.
A few days ago I met with one of my dearest friends, a comrade from Zionist days and now professor emeritus at an Israeli university. We spoke of everything but the daily savagery depicted on our TV screens. We both feared the rancour that would arise.
But, I want to say to my friend, can we not be sad together at what that beautiful old dream of Jewish redemption has come to? Can we not grieve the death of innocents? I am sad these days. Can we not at least mourn together?

This piece originally appeared as an Opinion in the Toronto Star (July 22).

Hope they can muster up the courage to further stand up to the PTB, continue to speak out and inspire people to wake up, smell the coffee and at least take a stand against these actors against humanity.
 

Meager1

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I found this old book online and if there’s any actual truth to it, it explains a lot.
Seems, that the biggest secret is a sworn oath to Israel and the god of Israel.
Which would also help to explain why and how Israel seems to have their hands
on every aspect, of everything. Here’s the link for those interested.

 

Navigator

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
After reading Harrison's excellent article Puritans Gone Wild! The Hidden Yankee History of Woke SJWs I remembered these passages from the book:

“Cecil Roth explains: “The religious developments of the seventeenth century brought to its climax an unmistakable philo-semitic tendency in certain English circles. Puritanism represented above all a return to the Bible, and this automatically fostered a more favourable frame of mind towards the people of the Old Testament.” And so, “Though the Jews were still jealously excluded from England, there was no country in which the Hebraic spirit was so deeply rooted or so universally spread.” In other words, Puritanism was a kind of Judeo-Protestantism. Some Puritans went so far as to consider the Levitical laws as still in force; they circumcised their children and scrupulously respected the Sabbath. Under Charles I (1625–1649), writes Isaac d’Israeli, “it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a British senate had been transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbins.”
“During their civil war against the royalist Anglicans, the Puritans saw themselves as Israel exiled among the Egyptians, and used the image of the Exodus as a rallying cry. For them, Cromwell was not only Moses leading the people out of Egypt, but also Joshua exterminating the Canaanites. In reality, the Puritan revolution was more like that of the Maccabees (who had themselves rewritten the story of Moses and Joshua to their advantage). Puritan England was exalted as a new Israel, though this did not deprive the Jews of their privileged status. It was often asserted that the new Chosen People must help the old Chosen People return to their original homeland as a prelude to their conversion at the Second Coming of Christ. Jews enjoyed such prestige in seventeenth-century England that authors vied with each other to prove that the English were the direct descendants of the Jews in general and the famous ten lost tribes of Israel in particular. This strange theory, called British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism, originated in The Rights of the Kingdom (1646), a plea for regicide written by John Sadler, private secretary of Oliver Cromwell, Hebraist and friend of Menasseh Ben Israel”
 

Mariama

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
FWIW, Dr. Kevin Barrett interviews Dr. Laurent Guyenot about this book.

I am watching this right now and thought it was interesting that the Jewish billionaire producer of the film JFK came up. I watched it a couple of times and the focus is indeed on the CIA and the American Deep State. But basically what he did was deflecting the public from Israeli involvement (so far I have only read about 130 pages of FYTZ, so I can't say anything more on the topic). I recall a video that Laura posted a few years ago of a man saying these kind of things as well. He mentioned the Zionists founding the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (if I remember correctly), because that would focus on white people's racism instead of Jewish racism. Very, very cunning.
 

Navigator

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Another illuminating article by Guyénot, focusing on Freud and Kafka:

 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Another illuminating article by Guyénot, focusing on Freud and Kafka:

An excellent article that covers a LOT of ground and includes the following gem (only one of many):

"In September 1909, invited to give a series of lectures in New England, Freud jokingly asked his companions, Sandor Ferenczi and Carl Jung: “Don‘t they know we’re bringing them the plague?” An extraordinary statement for a medical doctor pretending to have found a “cure” for neurosis. And a prophetic one: Freudism became a justification for a sexual “liberation” that can be seen in retrospect as a massive sexual abuse of the youth."
 
Top Bottom