• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unmasking AIT
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/interview_argument.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/oslo-intro.htm
The writing style, the layout, fonts used - all of this reminds me of the owner of the web site Emperor's Clothes. Seems to be the same guy, 'Jared Israel' I think his name was. Or maybe it's another dude from that site. Any case, these two sites are somehow related. I'm willing to bet on it.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 27 2007, 01:57 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 27 2007, 01:57 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.hirhome.com/israel/interview_argument.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/oslo-intro.htm
The writing style, the layout, fonts used - all of this reminds me of the owner of the web site Emperor's Clothes. Seems to be the same guy, 'Jared Israel' I think his name was. Or maybe it's another dude from that site. Any case, these two sites are somehow related. I'm willing to bet on it.

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/
[right][snapback]63619[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

yes, gil-white mentions one jared israel on his site as well as "emperor's clothes". My first impression was that the (UPenn) Asch Center, from which gil-white was dismissed, seems to be an american rightist group posing as a left action group, based upon the number of imported sri lankan becharis , but this was admittedly just a cursory glance. the hirhome site is significant because it deconstructs the "fledgling greek democracy" versus the persian-jew authoritarian nexus narrative that is so crucial to the western herrenvolks.

  Reply
my gut feeling is that the asch center (founded on psychology, of all things) is involved in some seriously subversive work.

harold f. schiffman announces an asch center event on a linguist list:

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/w...icy-list&P=2731

who is schiffman:

<b>Professor Emeritus of Dravidian</b>
<b>Linguistics and Culture</b>
<b>Dept. of South Asia Studies</b>
Williams Hall, Box 6305
<b>University of Pennsylvania</b>
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305

Phone: (215) 898-7475 (main office)
Fax: (215) 573-2138

Director
Consortium for Language Policy and Planning
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/



the racist victor mair is also associated with upenn

why was gil-white fired? could it have been for his endorsement of frawley, elst, and rajaram. usually partially sympathetic academics (eg E Bryant) will selectively endorse elst and steer wide clear of frawley and rajaram, but gil-white apparently did not have these compunctions. gil-white attributes his blacklist status to his research on western funding of the PLO, iran-contra, etc, but this does not seem to conflict too greatly with the generally rightist stance of the asch center.
  Reply
Gutneberg version of Disraeli's biography of Lord Bentinck
You can read the Chapter X

BTW Disraeli was one of the founders of Conservative party of UK.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->CHAPTER X.

    _The Jews_

THE relations that subsist between the Bedoueen race that, under the
name of Jews, is found in every country of Europe, and the Teutonic,
Sclavonian, and Celtic races which have appropriated that division of
the globe, will form hereafter one of the most remarkable chapters in
a philosophical history of man. The Saxon, the Sclav, and the Celt
have adopted most of the laws and many of the customs of these Arabian
tribes, all their literature and all their religion. They are therefore
indebted to them for much that regulates, much that charms, and much
that solaces existence. The toiling multitude rest every seventh day
by virtue of a Jewish law; they are perpetually reading, 'for their
example,' the records of Jewish history, and singing the odes and
elegies of Jewish poets; and they daily acknowledge on their knees, with
reverent gratitude, that the only medium of communication between the
Creator and themselves is the Jewish race. Yet they treat that race as
the vilest of generations; and instead of logically looking upon them
as the human family that has contributed most to human happiness, they
extend to them every term of obloquy and every form of persecution.

Let us endeavour to penetrate this social anomaly that has harassed and
perplexed centuries.

It is alleged that the dispersion of the Jewish race is a penalty
incurred for the commission of a great crime: namely, the crucifixion
of our blessed Lord in the form of a Jewish prince, by the Romans, at
Jerusalem, and at the instigation of some Jews, in the reign of Tiberius
Augustus Caesar. Upon this, it may be observed, that the allegation is
neither historically true nor dogmatically sound.

I. _Not historically true_. It is not historically true, because at the
time of the advent of our Lord, the Jewish race was as much dispersed
throughout the world as at this present time, and had been so for many
centuries. Europe, with the exception of those shores which are bathed
by the midland sea, was then a primeval forest, but in every city of the
great Eastern monarchies and in every province of the Roman empire, the
Jews had been long settled. We have not precise authority for saying
that at the advent there were more Jews established in Egypt than in
Palestine, but it may unquestionably be asserted that at that period
there were more Jews living, and that too in great prosperity and
honour, at Alexandria than at Jerusalem. It is evident from various
Roman authors, that the Jewish race formed no inconsiderable portion
of the multitude that filled Rome itself, and that the Mosaic religion,
undisturbed by the state, even made proselytes. But it is unnecessary to
enter into any curious researches on this head, though the authorities
are neither scant nor uninteresting. We are furnished with evidence
the most complete and unanswerable of the pre-dispersion by the sacred
writings themselves. Not two months after the crucifixion, when the
Third Person of the Holy Trinity first descended on Jerusalem, it being
the time of the great festivals, when the Jews, according to the custom
of the Arabian tribes pursued to this day in the pilgrimage to Mecca,
repaired from all quarters to the central sacred place, the holy
writings inform us that there were gathered together in Jerusalem 'Jews,
devout men, out of every nation under heaven.' And that this expression,
so general but so precise, should not be mistaken, we are shortly
afterwards, though incidentally, informed, that there were Parthians,
Medes, and Persians at Jerusalem, professing the Mosaic faith; Jews from
Mesopotamia and Syria, from the countries of the lesser and the greater
Asia; Egyptian, Libyan, Greek, and Arabian Jews; and, especially, Jews
from Rome itself, some of which latter are particularly mentioned as
Roman proselytes. Nor is it indeed historically true that the small
section of the Jewish race which dwelt in Palestine rejected Christ.
The reverse is the truth. Had it not been for the Jews of Palestine,
the good tidings of our Lord would have been unknown for ever to the
northern and western races. The first preachers of the gospel were Jews,
and none else; the historians of the gospel were Jews, and none else. No
one has ever been permitted to write under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, except a Jew. For nearly a century no one believed in the good
tidings except Jews. They nursed the sacred flame of which they were the
consecrated and hereditary depositaries. And when the time was ripe to
diffuse the truth among the ethnics, it was not a senator of Rome or a
philosopher of Athens who was personally appointed by our Lord for that
office, but a Jew of Tarsus, who founded the seven churches of Asia. And
that greater church, great even amid its terrible corruptions, that has
avenged the victory of Titus by subjugating the capital of the Caesars,
and has changed every one of the Olympian temples into altars of the God
of Sinai and of Calvary, was founded by another Jew, a Jew of Galilee.

From all which it appears that the dispersion of the Jewish race,
preceding as it did for countless ages the advent of our Lord, could not
be for conduct which occurred subsequently to the advent, and that they
are also guiltless of that subsequent conduct which has been imputed to
them as a crime, since for Him and His blessed name, they preached, and
wrote, and shed their blood 'as witnesses.'

But, is it possible that that which is not historically true can be
dogmatically sound? Such a conclusion would impugn the foundations of
all faith. The followers of Jesus, of whatever race, need not however be
alarmed. The belief that the present condition of the Jewish race is a
penal infliction for the part which some Jews took at the crucifixion is
not dogmatically sound.

2. _Not dogmatically sound_. There is no passage in the sacred writings
that in the slightest degree warrants the penal assumption. The
imprecation of the mob at the crucifixion is sometimes strangely quoted
as a divine decree. It is not a principle of jurisprudence, human or
inspired, to permit the criminal to ordain his own punishment. Why, too,
should they transfer any portion of the infliction to their posterity?
What evidence have we that the wild suggestion was sanctioned by
Omnipotence? On the contrary, amid the expiating agony, a Divine Voice
at the same time solicited and secured forgiveness. And if unforgiven,
could the cry of a rabble at such a scene bind a nation?

But, dogmatically considered, the subject of the crucifixion must be
viewed in a deeper spirit. We must pause with awe to remember what was
the principal office to be fulfilled by the advent. When the ineffable
mystery of the Incarnation was consummated, a Divine Person moved on the
face of the earth in the shape of a child of Israel, not to teach but to
expiate. True it is that no word could fall from such lips, whether in
the form of profound parable, or witty retort, or preceptive lore, but
to guide and enlighten; but they who, in those somewhat lax effusions
which in these days are honoured with the holy name of theology, speak
of the morality of the Gospel as a thing apart and of novel revelation,
would do well to remember that in promulgating such doctrines they are
treading on very perilous ground. There cannot be two moralities; and to
hold that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity could teach a different
morality from that which had been already revealed by the First Person
of the Holy Trinity, is a dogma so full of terror that it may perhaps
be looked upon as the ineffable sin against the Holy Spirit. When the
lawyer tempted our Lord, and inquired how he was to inherit eternal
life, the great Master of Galilee referred him to the writings of Moses.
There he would find recorded 'the whole duty of man;' to love God with
all his heart, and soul, and strength, and mind, and his neighbour as
himself. These two principles are embalmed in the writings of Moses, and
are the essence of Christian morals.*

    * 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.'
    --Leviticus xix.  18.


It was for something deeper than this, higher and holier than even Moses
could fulfil, that angels announced the Coming. It was to accomplish an
event pre-ordained by the Creator of the world for countless ages.
Born from the chosen house of the chosen people, yet blending in his
inexplicable nature the Divine essence with the human elements, a
sacrificial Mediator was to appear, appointed before all time, to purify
with his atoning blood the myriads that had preceded and the myriads
that will follow him. The doctrine embraces all space and time--nay,
chaos and eternity; Divine persons are the agents, and the redemption of
the whole family of man the result. If the Jews had not prevailed upon
the Romans to crucify our Lord, what would have become of the Atonement?
But the human mind cannot contemplate the idea that the most important
deed of time could depend upon human will. The immolators were
preordained like the victim, and the holy race supplied both. Could that
be a crime which secured for all mankind eternal joy--which vanquished
Satan, and opened the gates of Paradise? Such a tenet would sully and
impugn the doctrine that is the corner-stone of our faith and hope. Men
must not presume to sit in judgment on such an act. They must bow their
heads in awe and astonishment and trembling gratitude.

But, though the opinion that the dispersion of the Jewish race must be
deemed a penalty incurred for their connection with the crucifixion
has neither historical nor doctrinal sanction, it is possible that its
degrading influence upon its victims may have been as efficacious as if
their present condition were indeed a judicial infliction. Persecution,
in a word, although unjust, may have reduced the modern Jews to a state
almost justifying malignant vengeance. They may have become so odious
and so hostile to mankind, as to merit for their present conduct, no
matter how occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities
in which they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to
mingle.

Let us examine this branch of the subject, which, though of more limited
interest, is not without instruction.

In all the great cities of Europe, and in some of the great cities of
Asia, among the infamous classes therein existing, there will always be
found Jews. They are not the only people who are usurers, gladiators,
and followers of mean and scandalous occupations, nor are they anywhere
a majority of such, but considering their general numbers, they
contribute perhaps more than their proportion to the aggregate of the
vile. In this they obey the law which regulates the destiny of all
persecuted races: the infamous is the business of the dishonoured; and
as infamous pursuits are generally illegal pursuits, the persecuted race
which has most ability will be most successful in combating the law.
The Jews have never been so degraded as the Greeks were throughout the
Levant before the emancipation, and the degradation of the Greeks was
produced by a period of persecution which, both in amount and suffering,
cannot compare with that which has been endured by the children of
Israel. This peculiarity, however, attends the Jews under the most
unfavourable circumstances; the other degraded races wear out and
disappear; the Jew remains, as determined, as expert, as persevering,
as full of resource and resolution as ever. Viewed in this light, the
degradation of the Jewish race is alone a striking evidence of its
excellence, for none but one of the great races could have survived the
trials which it has endured.

But, though a material organization of the highest class may account for
so strange a consequence, the persecuted Hebrew is supported by other
means. He is sustained by a sublime religion. Obdurate, malignant,
odious, and revolting as the lowest Jew appears to us, he is rarely
demoralized. Beneath his own roof his heart opens to the influence of
his beautiful Arabian traditions. All his ceremonies, his customs, and
his festivals are still to celebrate the bounty of nature and the favour
of Jehovah. The patriarchal feeling lingers about his hearth. A man,
however fallen, who loves his home is not wholly lost. The trumpet of
Sinai still sounds in the Hebrew ear, and a Jew is never seen upon the
scaffold, unless it be at an _auto da fè_.

But, having made this full admission of the partial degradation of the
Jewish race, we are not prepared to agree that this limited degeneracy
is any justification of the prejudices and persecution which originated
in barbarous or mediæval superstitions. On the contrary, viewing the
influence of the Jewish race upon the modern communities, without
any reference to the past history or the future promises of Israel;
dismissing from our minds and memories, if indeed that be possible, all
that the Hebrews have done in the olden time for man and all which it
may be their destiny yet to fulfil, we hold that instead of being an
object of aversion, they should receive all that honour and favour from
the northern and western races, which, in civilized and refined nations,
should be the lot of those who charm the public taste and elevate the
public feeling. We hesitate not to say that there is no race at this
present, and following in this only the example of a long period, that
so much delights, and fascinates, and elevates, and ennobles Europe, as
the Jewish.

We dwell not on the fact, that the most admirable artists of the drama
have been and still are of the Hebrew race: or, that the most entrancing
singers, graceful dancers, and exquisite musicians, are sons and
daughters of Israel: though this were much. But these brilliant
accessories are forgotten in the sublimer claim.

It seems that the only means by which in these modern times we
are permitted to develop the beautiful is music. It would appear
definitively settled that excellence in the plastic arts is the
privilege of the earlier ages of the world. All that is now produced
in this respect is mimetic, and, at the best, the skilful adaptation
of traditional methods. The creative faculty of modern man seems by an
irresistible law at work on the virgin soil of science, daily increasing
by its inventions our command over nature, and multiplying the material
happiness of man. But the happiness of man is not merely material. Were
it not for music, we might in these days say, the beautiful is dead.
Music seems to be the only means of creating the beautiful, in which we
not only equal, but in all probability greatly excel, the ancients. The
music of modern Europe ranks with the transcendent creations of human
genius; the poetry, the statues, the temples, of Greece. It produces and
represents as they did whatever is most beautiful in the spirit of
man and often expresses what is most profound. And who are the great
composers, who hereafter will rank with Homer, with Sophocles, with
Praxiteles, or with Phidias? They are the descendants of those Arabian
tribes who conquered Canaan, and who by favour of the Most High have
done more with less means even than the Athenians.

Forty years ago--not a longer period than the children of Israel were
wandering in the desert--the two most dishonoured races in Europe were
the Attic and the Hebrew, and they were the two races that had done most
for mankind. Their fortunes had some similarity: their countries were
the two smallest in the world, equally barren and equally famous; they
both divided themselves into tribes: both built a most famous temple on
an acropolis; and both produced a literature which all European nations
have accepted with reverence and admiration. Athens has been sacked
oftener than Jerusalem, and oftener razed to the ground; but the
Athenians have escaped expatriation, which is purely an Oriental custom.
The sufferings of the Jews, however, have been infinitely more prolonged
and varied than those of the Athenians. The Greek nevertheless appears
exhausted. The creative genius of Israel, on the contrary, never shone
so bright; and when the Russian, the Frenchman, and the Anglo-Saxon,
amid applauding theatres or the choral voices of solemn temples, yield
themselves to the full spell of a Mozart or a Mendelssohn, it seems
difficult to comprehend how these races can reconcile it to their hearts
to persecute a Jew.

We have shown that the theological prejudice against the Jews has no
foundation, historical or doctrinal; we have shown that the social
prejudice, originating in the theological but sustained by superficial
observations, irrespective of religious prejudice, is still more
unjust, and that no existing race is so much entitled to the esteem
and gratitude of society as the Hebrew. It remains for us to notice the
injurious consequences to European society of the course pursued by
the communities to this race; and this view of the subject leads us to
considerations which it would become existing statesmen to ponder.

The world has by this time discovered that it is impossible to destroy
the Jews. The attempt to extirpate them has been made under the most
favourable auspices and on the largest scale; the most considerable
means that man could command have been pertinaciously applied to this
object for the longest period of recorded time. Egyptian Pharaohs,
Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, Scandinavian crusaders, Gothic princes,
and holy inquisitors have alike devoted their energies to the fulfilment
of this common purpose. Expatriation, exile, captivity, confiscation,
torture on the most ingenious, and massacre on the most extensive,
scale, with a curious system of degrading customs and debasing laws
which would have broken the heart of any other people, have been tried,
and in vain. The Jews, after all this havoc, are probably more numerous
at this date than they were during the reign of Solomon the Wise, are
found in all lands, and, unfortunately, prospering in most. All of which
proves that it is in vain for man to attempt to battle the inexorable
law of nature, which has decreed that a superior race shall never be
destroyed or absorbed by an inferior.

But the influence of a great race will be felt; its greatness does not
depend upon its numbers, otherwise the English would not have vanquished
the Chinese, nor would the Aztecs have been overthrown by Cortez and
a handful of Goths. That greatness results from its organization, the
consequences of which are shown in its energy and enterprise, in the
strength of its will and the fertility of its brain. Let us observe
what should be the influence of the Jews, and then ascertain how it
is exercised. The Jewish race connects the modern populations with the
early ages of the world, when the relations of the Creator with the
created were more intimate than in these days, when angels visited
the earth, and God himself even spoke with man. The Jews represent the
Semitic principle; all that is spiritual in our nature. They are the
trustees of tradition and the conservators of the religious element.
They are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that
pernicious doctrine of modern times--the natural equality of man.
The political equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal
arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and
circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking
the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it
possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy
all the genius of the world. What would be the consequence on the great
Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from
their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and
coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so
deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and
regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then
be their superiors. But though nature will never ultimately permit this
theory of natural equality to be practised, the preaching of this dogma
has already caused much mischief, and may occasion much more. The native
tendency of the Jewish race, who are justly proud of their blood, is
against the doctrine of the equality of man. They have also another
characteristic, the faculty of acquisition. Although the European
laws have endeavoured to prevent their obtaining property, they have
nevertheless become remarkable for their accumulated wealth. Thus
it will be seen that all the tendencies of the Jewish race are
conservative. Their bias is to religion, property, and natural
aristocracy: and it should be the interest of statesmen that this bias
of a great race should be encouraged, and their energies and creative
powers enlisted in the cause of existing society.

But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should
furnish its choice allies, and what have been the consequences?

They may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in
Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy,
against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle,
extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or in the
Christian form, the natural equality of man, and the abrogation of
property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional
governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one
of them. The people of God coöperate with atheists; the most skilful
accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar
and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe!
And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom
which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer
endure.

When the secret societies, in February, 1848, surprised Europe, they
were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little
capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the
Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves
with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments,
the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery
energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained
for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader
throw his eye over the provisional governments of Germany and Italy, and
even of France, formed at that period, he will recognize everywhere the
Jewish element. Even the insurrection, and defence, and administration
of Venice, which, from the resource and statesmanlike moderation
displayed, commanded almost the respect and sympathy of Europe, were
accomplished by a Jew--Manini--who, by the bye, is a Jew who professes
the whole of the Jewish religion, and believes in Calvary as well as
Sinai,--'a converted Jew,' as the Lombards styled him, quite forgetting,
in the confusion of their ideas, that it is the Lombards who are the
converts--not Manini.

Thus it will be seen, that the persecution of the Jewish race has
deprived European society of an important conservative element, and
added to the destructive party an influential ally. Prince Metternich,
the most enlightened of modern statesmen, not to say the most
intellectual of men, was, though himself a victim of the secret
societies, fully aware of these premises. It was always his custom,
great as were the difficulties which in so doing he had to encounter,
to employ as much as possible the Hebrew race in the public service. He
could never forget that Napoleon, in his noontide hour, had been checked
by the pen of the greatest of political writers; he had found that
illustrious author as great in the cabinet as in the study; he knew that
no one had more contributed to the deliverance of Europe. It was not
as a patron, but as an appreciating and devoted friend, that the
High Chancellor of Austria appointed Frederick Gentz secretary to the
Congress of Vienna--and Frederick Gentz was a child of Israel.

It is no doubt to be deplored that several millions of the Jewish race
should persist in believing in only a part of their religion; but this
is a circumstance which does not affect Europe, and time, with different
treatment, may remove the anomaly which perhaps may be accounted for. It
should be recollected, that the existing Jews are perhaps altogether the
descendants of those various colonies and emigrations which, voluntary
or forced, long preceded the advent. Between the vast carnage of the
Roman wars, from Titus to Hadrian, and the profession of Christ by his
countrymen, which must have been very prevalent, since the Christian
religion was solely sustained by the Jews of Palestine during the
greater part of its first century, it is improbable that any descendants
of the Jews of Palestine exist who disbelieve in Christ. After the fall
of Jerusalem and the failure of Barchochebas, no doubt some portion of
the Jews found refuge in the desert, returning to their original land
after such long and strange vicissitudes. This natural movement would
account for those Arabian tribes, of whose resistance to Mohammed we
have ample and authentic details, and who, if we are to credit the
accounts which perplex modern travellers, are to this day governed by
the Pentateuch instead of the Koran.

When Christianity was presented to the ancestors of the present Jews,
it came from a very suspicious quarter, and was offered in a very
questionable shape. Centuries must have passed in many instances before
the Jewish colonies heard of the advent, the crucifixion, and the
atonement; the latter, however, a doctrine in perfect harmony with
Jewish ideas. When they first heard of Christianity, it appeared to be a
Gentile religion, accompanied by idolatrous practices, from which severe
monotheists, like the Arabians, always recoil, and holding the Jewish
race up to public scorn and hatred. This is not the way to make
converts.

There have been two great colonies of the Jewish race in Europe; in
Spain and in Sarmatia. The origin of the Jews in Spain is lost in
the night of time. That it was of great antiquity we have proof. The
tradition, once derided, that the Iberian Jews were a Phoenician colony
has been favoured by the researches of modern antiquaries, who have
traced the Hebrew language in the ancient names of the localities.
It may be observed, however, that the languages of the Jews and the
Philistines, or Phoenicians, were probably too similar to sanction any
positive induction from such phenomena; while on the other hand, in
reply to those who have urged the improbability of the Jews, who had no
seaports, colonizing Spain, it may be remarked that the colony may
have been an expatriation by the Philistines in the course of the long
struggle which occurred between them and the invading tribes previous
to the foundation of the Hebrew monarchy. We know that in the time of
Cicero the Jews had been settled immemorially in Spain. When the Romans,
converted to Christianity and acted on by the priesthood, began to
trouble the Spanish Jews, it appears by a decree of Constantine that
they were owners and cultivators of the soil, a circumstance which
alone proves the antiquity and the nobility of their settlement, for
the possession of the land is never conceded to a degraded race.
The conquest of Spain by the Goths in the fifth and sixth centuries
threatened the Spanish Jews, however, with more serious adversaries than
the Romans. The Gothic tribes, very recently converted to their Syrian
faith, were full of barbaric zeal against those whom they looked upon as
the enemies of Jesus. But the Spanish Jews sought assistance from
their kinsmen the Saracens on the opposite coast; Spain was invaded and
subdued by the Moors, and for several centuries the Jew and the Saracen
lived under the same benignant laws and shared the same brilliant
prosperity. In the history of Spain during the Saracenic supremacy any
distinction of religion or race is no longer traced. And so it came
to pass that when at the end of the fourteenth century, after the fell
triumph of the Dominicans over the Albigenses, the holy inquisition was
introduced into Spain, it was reported to Torquemada that two-thirds of
the nobility of Arragon, that is to say of the proprietors of the land,
were Jews.

All that these men knew of Christianity was, that it was a religion
of fire and sword, and that one of its first duties was to avenge some
mysterious and inexplicable crime which had been committed ages ago by
some unheard of ancestors of theirs in an unknown land. The inquisitors
addressed themselves to the Spanish Jews in the same abrupt and
ferocious manner in which the monks saluted the Mexicans and the
Peruvians. All those of the Spanish Jews, who did not conform after
the fall of the Mohammedan kingdoms, were expatriated by the victorious
Goths, and these refugees were the main source of the Italian Jews, and
of the most respectable portion of the Jews of Holland. These exiles
found refuge in two republics; Venice and the United Provinces. The
Portuguese Jews, it is well known, came from Spain, and their ultimate
expulsion from Portugal was attended by the same results as the Spanish
expatriation.

The other great division of Jews in Europe are the Sarmatian Jews, and
they are very numerous. They amount to nearly three millions. These
unquestionably entered Europe with the other Sarmatian nations,
descending the Borysthenes and ascending the Danube, and are according
to all probability the progeny of the expatriations of the times of
Tiglath-Pileser and Nebuchadnezzar. They are the posterity of those
'devout men,' Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, who were attending the
festivals at Jerusalem at the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit.
Living among barbarous pagans, who never molested them, these people
went on very well, until suddenly the barbarous pagans, under the
influence of an Italian priesthood, were converted to the Jewish
religion, and then as a necessary consequence the converts began to
harass, persecute, and massacre the Jews.

These people had never heard of Christ. Had the Romans not destroyed
Jerusalem, these Sarmatian Jews would have had a fair chance of
obtaining from civilized beings some clear and coherent account of the
great events which had occurred. They and their fathers before them
would have gone up in customary pilgrimage to the central sacred place,
both for purposes of devotion and purposes of trade, and they might have
heard from Semitic lips that there were good tidings for Israel. What
they heard from their savage companions, and the Italian priesthood
which acted on them, was, that there were good tidings for all the world
except Israel, and that Israel, for the commission of a great crime
of which they had never heard and could not comprehend, was to be
plundered, massacred, hewn to pieces, and burnt alive in the name of
Christ and for the sake of Christianity.

The Eastern Jews, who are very numerous, are in general the descendants
of those who in the course of repeated captivities settled in the great
Eastern monarchies, and which they never quitted. They live in the same
cities and follow the same customs as they did in the days of Cyrus.
They are to be found in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor; at Bagdad,
at Hamadan, at Smyrna. We know from the Jewish books how very scant was
the following which accompanied Esdras and Nehemiah back to Jerusalem.
A fortress city, built on a ravine, surrounded by stony mountains and
watered by a scanty stream, had no temptations after the gardens of
Babylon and the broad waters of the Euphrates. But Babylon has vanished
and Jerusalem remains, and what are the waters of Euphrates to the brook
of Kedron! It is another name than that of Jesus of Nazareth with which
these Jews have been placed in collision, and the Ishmaelites have not
forgotten the wrongs of Hagar in their conduct to the descendants of
Sarah.

Is it therefore wonderful that a great portion of the Jewish race should
not believe in the most important portion of the Jewish religion? As,
however, the converted races become more humane in their behaviour to
the Jews, and the latter have opportunity fully to comprehend and deeply
to ponder over true Christianity, it is difficult to suppose that the
result will not be very different. Whether presented by a Roman or
Anglo-Catholic or Genevese divine, by pope, bishop, or presbyter, there
is nothing, one would suppose, very repugnant to the feelings of a Jew
when he learns that the redemption of the human race has been effected
by the mediatorial agency of a child of Israel: if the ineffable mystery
of the Incarnation be developed to him, he will remember that the
blood of Jacob is a chosen and peculiar blood; and if so transcendent a
consummation is to occur, he will scarcely deny that only one race could
be deemed worthy of accomplishing it. There may be points of doctrine
on which the northern and western races may perhaps never agree. The
Jew like them may follow that path in those respects which reason and
feeling alike dictate; but nevertheless it can hardly be maintained that
there is anything revolting to a Jew to learn that a Jewess is the queen
of heaven, or that the flower of the Jewish race are even now sitting on
the right hand of the Lord God of Sabaoth.

Perhaps, too, in this enlightened age, as his mind expands, and he takes
a comprehensive view of this period of progress, the pupil of Moses may
ask himself, whether all the princes of the house of David have done so
much for the Jews as that prince who was crucified on Calvary. Had it
not been for Him, the Jews would have been comparatively unknown, or
known only as a high Oriental caste which had lost its country. Has not
He made their history the most famous in the world? Has not He hung up
their laws in every temple? Has not He vindicated all their wrongs?
Has not He avenged the victory of Titus and conquered the Caesars? What
successes did they anticipate from their Messiah? The wildest dreams of
their rabbis have been far exceeded. Has not Jesus conquered Europe and
changed its name into Christendom? All countries that refuse the cross
wither, while the whole of the new world is devoted to the Semitic
principle and its most glorious offspring the Jewish faith, and the time
will come when the vast communities and countless myriads of America
and Australia, looking upon Europe as Europe now looks upon Greece, and
wondering how so small a space could have achieved such great deeds,
will still find music in the songs of Sion and still seek solace in the
parables of Galilee.

These may be dreams, but there is one fact which none can contest.
Christians may continue to persecute Jews, and Jews may persist in
disbelieving Christians, but who can deny that Jesus of Nazareth, the
Incarnate Son of the Most High God, is the eternal glory of the Jewish
race?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
Sparta was always portrayed as the antithesis of Athens. I always did wonder how the US and Soviet Union could exist within the same microcosm of the lunar landscaped Greece.

The Crux of WORLD HISTORY
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm


Chapter 3

The ancient Greeks: The reality,
and the apology.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux03.pdf

Were the ancient Greeks fascists?
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux03a.pdf
  Reply
Dhu, Why don't you contact Gil-White and invite him to this forum and also your comments on the Iranians etc.

I think the history of the Jews is very important thing for Hindus and Indians to understand. Did you see what Disraeli says about how Spain got Islamized? The newly converted Goths attacked Spain and troubled the Jews who were there for centuries before the advent of the revelation. They in turn invited they their Bedouin cousins the Moors!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The conquest of Spain by the Goths in the fifth and sixth centuries
threatened the Spanish Jews, however, with more serious adversaries than
the Romans. The Gothic tribes, very recently converted to their Syrian
faith, were full of barbaric zeal against those whom they looked upon as
the enemies of Jesus. But the Spanish Jews sought assistance from
their kinsmen the Saracens on the opposite coast; Spain was invaded and
subdued by the Moors, and for several centuries the Jew and the Saracen
lived under the same benignant laws and shared the same brilliant
prosperity. In the history of Spain during the Saracenic supremacy any
distinction of religion or race is no longer traced. And so it came
to pass that when at the end of the fourteenth century, after the fell
triumph of the Dominicans over the Albigenses, the holy inquisition was
introduced into Spain, it was reported to Torquemada that two-thirds of
the nobility of Arragon, that is to say of the proprietors of the land,
were Jews.

All that these men knew of Christianity was, that it was a religion
of fire and sword, and that one of its first duties was to avenge some
mysterious and inexplicable crime which had been committed ages ago by
some unheard of ancestors of theirs in an unknown land. The inquisitors
addressed themselves to the Spanish Jews in the same abrupt and
ferocious manner in which the monks saluted the Mexicans and the
Peruvians. All those of the Spanish Jews, who did not conform after
the fall of the Mohammedan kingdoms, were expatriated by the victorious
Goths, and these refugees were the main source of the Italian Jews, and
of the most respectable portion of the Jews of Holland. These exiles
found refuge in two republics; Venice and the United Provinces. The
Portuguese Jews, it is well known, came from Spain, and their ultimate
expulsion from Portugal was attended by the same results as the Spanish
expatriation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Is Israel a modern European expatriation to Asia? Have the European xtians finally done it?
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Innocence. The Jewish laws are designed to produce an ethical civilization, and one side effect of growing up under the influence of these laws is a stubborn commitment to the idea that humans are basically good. This is innocence. It is an error, because humans are not basically good; humans are pliable, and they respond to their environments. <b>The ancient Greco-Roman aristocracies, for example, were entire societies of murderers (the men), because this is what their culture brought them up to be (see point 3 on Messianism, for a description of Roman society). </b>It was not impossible for an individual to rebel against such a culture but the point is that it was not easy, and those who didn’t rebel were not basically good. One may certainly argue that such people were victims of their social system, as was the case also with many Nazis, whose minds were poisoned by propaganda, but that still does not make them basically good. The stubborn belief of many Jews that humans are basically good blinds them to the evil that always waits in ambush for them, and this ‘see no evil’ attitude is deadly.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders5.htm#2  link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jan 28 2007, 05:50 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jan 28 2007, 05:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dhu, Why don't you contact Gil-White and invite him to this forum and also your comments on the Iranians etc.

I think the history of the Jews is very important thing for Hindus and Indians to understand. Did you see what Disraeli says about how Spain got Islamized? The newly converted Goths attacked Spain and troubled the Jews who were there for centuries before the advent of the revelation. They in turn invited they their Bedouin cousins the Moors!

Is Israel a modern European expatriation to Asia? Have the European xtians finally done it?
[right][snapback]63653[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OK i will send an email to him but I think he must be aware of the forum (or atleast HC) since he mentions the recent DNA evidence against AIT in his book (nat. geographic article "india acquired language not genes form the west"). probably we will also have to shift gears towards the social history of Ideas rather than specific pointers of the out of india migrations. surprisingly, it is with the history of ideas that the herrenvolks seem to be most concerned with (eg with the new egalitarianism of the jews (the so-called "ethical revolution"). gil-white locates the jewish political-ethical revolution with the jewish saviors, the zoroastrians. buddhism and its attendant let live dynamic may not be so astonishing to us as indians but it was probably not so for the ancient jews embedded in the "societies of murderers" of the mediterranean. we have been ignoring this aspect so far..

another strategy may be to locate the locus in afghanistan or iran for the interval period so as to take the psychological sting out of an india locus. it was after all the iranian saka who filled up the near eastern and central asian spaces, migrating from the south.

The sheer indian manpower needed to impart zoroastrian and buddhist elements to Ur which resulted in messianic religions of Judaism is mind-boggling. But when we consider that half of Dubai's population todays is south asian, these ancient results are not that surprising.
  Reply
Following is just another of my usually opinionated posts. Feel free to ignore, or to read then ignore:

Concerning Gil White's book Crux of History, the only chapter I found mostly okay was the one Viren posted. Except the bit about the Zoroastrians being the early Leftists - there was no Left then (and does that make the Hindus, from whom the Iranians split, the early Rightists - which in Gil's view automatically defaults to 'fascism'.)

I also have a bone to pick with the following sweeping 'conclusions' of his:
- Romans were supposedly anti-semites, like Hitler.
The first time, and only other occasion, when I came across this accusation was at emperor's clothes (one of the tell-tale signs the two sites were related)

According to Gil the Romans genocided 2 out of 7 millions of Jews in the empire and thereabouts. Taking the number as fact, even though I haven't checked it, Gil glances over facts like how the Romans also helped cause the extinction of the Picts (who had to leave the region, and were then persecuted by the Celts and presumably destroyed by the Vikings). The Romans also killed innumerable numbers of Germanic tribes in their wars (hundreds of thousands or more), and the same case in their dealings with the Gauls and Thracians.
The armies of the Roman Empire dealt ruthless blows at many peoples, and the Roman genocide of the Jews was not aimed at Jewry in a way more particularly and peculiarly than that which they perpetrated against other peoples whom they could not assimilate into the empire. If you as a people stood against the Roman Empire, they'd kill you all or try to do so anyway. This wasn't the case under all the emperors, but certainly under several who were known for dealing absolutely unmercifully against foreign tribes and nations.
Likewise, Alexander and his army also genocided the populations of entire cities (at that time, cities embodied the concept of country - most of the people lived in the city.) On the other hand, Alexander let other people go, for whatever reasons.
- Gil White's 'Judaism was the early Left' and since for the communists and other leftists, the whole world consists of a Left and a Right, Gil too needs to find his Right. He finds it in Rome and Greece. And as a typical communist, he thinks all non-Left (hence clubbed as Right) are 'fascists'. Also typical, Gil thinks Left means egalitarian, and all the other good things. Whereas the Romans were supposedly all about power in the hands of few (what about the Roman trade Unions), and what about the democracy in Greek states - although only the male citizens could vote. This was early times for these ideas amongst Romans and Greeks.

So here comes Gil's proof:
1. assertion: 2 millennia and more ago, there existed one or more ideologies that were consistently Left with no hint of Right (and vice-versa)
2. assertion: early Judaism is Left
3. assertion: Left needs Right, Right always opposes Left with infinite hatred
4. assertion: Left is all the good stuff in the world. Right is evil and all the things every sane person hates. (What about the centre?)
5. assertion: all non-Left (auto-dubbed Right) is fascist
6. assertion: Rome particularly and peculiarly hated and opposed Jews
(assertion: probably something similar about Greece)
7. Conclusion: Ancient Rome and Greece were fascist

Communists see the whole world as either communist <i>or</i> fascist/capitalist (depending on which one they consider the current number one nemesis). You are either for or against them; and if you are against them, it could not possibly be because you hate communism and fascism (and aren't a great fan of capitalism) - Oh no, they'll tell you it's because you're a fascist. Don't protest, they'll decide.
Besides this non-logic, they'll tell you history was full of leftists and rightists (that is, communists and fascists) too. It has to be for them: their ideology, like muslims claim about Islam, stretches backwards in history to the dawn of man. Forget how Marx and that other dude started it. Communism was there from the start, and by default, so must fascism have been. They can't imagine history without the current streams of thinking, so they believe people always thought the same way, with the same paradigms and world views as today. Same 'cosmogony', if you will.

Personal view: Judaism was not Left. It is the unwilling and accidental ancestor of all the Abrahamic heresies: christoislamism (a kind of fascism, so RIGHT), fascism (RIGHT), communism and other socialisms (LEFT), racism (RIGHT), psecularism (LEFT), and the rest. That means that the ancestral Judaism either was neutral and that's why it gave rise to such opposite extremist ideologies, <i>or</i> it always had both left, right and centre present in it from the start and its unwanted offspring only took up one extreme or other.

Just a question, how is Zoroastrianism Left? It's a one-God only religion. More importantly, how is Judaism some 'free, tolerant, all-accepting' Left? A very strict one-God ideology- historically it said Boo when hearing of those who worship many Gods.

Gil White to me seems to be someone who is trying to reconcile two irreconcilables: his communism and his Judaism. The result of his attempt at harmonising the two is The Crux of History - the usual communist hobby of rewriting history. Contains bits of truth, lots of wishful thinking and twisting.

<- end of Can Ignore This warning ->

<b>EDIT:</b> About Emperor's Clothes. Some really good stuff on there about how the christofascism against Jews and Israel continues today, as well as about how Serbia is much put upon with many false allegations of warcrimes against it. Not sure I accept all of the bits written about Serbia, but I'd seen most of it confirmed elsewhere, so those portions get a tick.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Emperor's Clothes editor Jared Israel was a founder and, for two years, co-Chair of Milosevic's defense committee.  He was expelled from the committee when he refused to sanction keeping Ramsey Clark as the committee's honorary President. Jared Israel argued that Ramsey Clark was an apologist for Islamism (not to mention that Clark had publicly supported the media accusation that the Bosnian Serb leaders are war criminals) and that linking to him would dis-honor the Serbian people.  Israel prepared a lengthy brief on Ramsey Clark, which Mr. Milosevic read. When it became clear that Milosevic would not dissociate from Clark, Israel wrote an open letter to Milosevic.
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/smear.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Unfortunately for Jared Israel of Emperor's Clothes (and the Serbs), that committee he founded was taken over by fascists (probably infiltrated by those who stood to gain from it). This was used as a publicity campaign to smear all those who had been involved earlier, and the Serbs too: more guilt by indirect association.

Pages with links to informative content (don't know how true, how reliable or whether somewhat motivated):
http://www.tenc.net/classic.htm - other domain name of Emperor's Clothes. Has links to interesting stuff, particularly noticed things on Russia ( http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/encircle.htm ) and Central Asia
http://emperors-clothes.com/yugo.htm - on Yugoslavia


One of the other authors at Emperor's Clothes is Petar Makara. I think he is associated with the extensively documented site "srpska-mreza" on the history and present of the Serbs (especially his WWII pages are very informing, at http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/ww2.html )
The Serbs are accused of being leftists (yes they are for the most part, their country has been socialist for a long while), but America likes to accuse them of fascism also. However, Serbs (who are orthodox) are the only christians who get along well with Jews as far as I can tell.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 28 2007, 09:00 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 28 2007, 09:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->...Gil glances over facts like how the Romans also helped cause the extinction of the Picts (who had to leave the region, and were then persecuted by the Celts and presumably destroyed by the Vikings). The Romans also killed innumerable numbers of Germanic tribes in their wars (hundreds of thousands or more), and the same case in their dealings with the Gauls and Thracians.
The armies of the Roman Empire dealt ruthless blows at many peoples, and the Roman genocide of the Jews was not aimed at Jewry in a way more particularly and peculiarly than that which they perpetrated against other peoples whom they could not assimilate into the empire. [right][snapback]63665[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
husky,

gil=white uses the terminology that he is familiar with..

i don't think he is saying that christianity is egalitarian. jews do not have the universality of christians and "maintain" a natural tribal social organization; that is they are not fully messianic and their concerns are limited to the boundaries of palestine. the jewish response to roman pressures was the slave religion of Christianity - a slave religion by all accounts is definitely a revolutionary movement, not necessarily egalitarian, and certainly in form similiar to all succeeding revolutionary movements, communism, etc. why blame picts for not being able to develop a religico-polito movement that was able to bring romans to their knees. should we have expected the jews to take comfort in the fact that the romans were just occupiers and not homogeneizing monotheists. this problem of our perception will continue if we insists on viewing the messianic error as just a monotheist-polytheist problem (as the semitics do). the monotheist-polytheist dichotomy is just the first symptom of the semitic (actually greek) error that burst onto the stage of history. the real, original error lies elsewhere (in greece and rome, where the christist scriptures were frst written in koine greek):

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->... The actions one is ‘ashamed’ of are done in such moments of “delirium”. Good actions are reflec-tions of, come from, the “real me”. The point of reference is essentially the inner self (the good inner self, in Rousseau’s case), in terms of which one can say: “This is really me” or “This is really not me”. Such sentiments are foreign to us, or so I claim.

Three peripheral remarks are in order.

1. We do describe, even in our models, people as ‘good’ or ‘evil’. But these descriptions abbreviate actions and relations: ‘dutiful son’ abbreviates actions performed by one of the relata in its relation-ship with the other.

2. The ‘doctrine of Karma’ is a component of a theory of ‘self-identity. Because the ‘self’ is the set of actions performed by the organism (if we leave out its representations) and because all organisms (including animals, insects etc.) do act, it is not possible to restrict ‘selves’ to human beings alone. Such a doctrine must perforce be applicable to all organisms capable of performing actions, as is indeed the case.

3. Because of the essential relationship between the ‘self’ and actions, the moral life of an organism includes all kinds of actions performed by it during its life-time. This has an additional conse-quence that a human organism’s relationship to the Natural world becomes an essential aspect in the construction of a ‘self’. By the same token, man’s relationship to Nature becomes a moral re-lationship as well.

<b>The contrast with Western ethical thought is again instructive in this regard. Ever since Homer, it has been a rather characteristic trait of Western thinking that moral phenomena pertained only to the domain of human intercourse. The relation of Man to Nature fell outside the scope of moral life: </b>where it does enter into discussion at all, it does so derivatively in terms of, say, the consequences of such actions on future generations. Inanimate Nature, non- and quasi-sentient animals, on their part, could not enter into any moral relationship with human beings because they lacked the faculty or the capacity to ‘reason’ (or whatever) by exercising which moral choices and decisions could be made. Morality came into play only when both the relata in the relationship were moral agents and Nature disqualified herself from being one. In the best of cases, Nature was indifferent to man’s striving to realize a moral world. At worst, she was hostile to such an endeavour.

This restricted scope of the domain of moral life has had the consequence that ‘technology’ could not be considered as a moral action in itself. Technological action has come to be governed by criteria other than those that regulate moral action. To be sure, in the last decade or so, there has emerged a burgeoning domain of environmental ethics, which has seen it fit to challenge the predominant view. ...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

it is of course wrong to see buddhism in a similar light as christianity, that is as a egalitarian response to brahmin machinations, but we should not import our specific concerns onto the jew-roman situation..

gil's greater point is that the western herrenvolk are intent on projecting the persians as the ancient USSR, and themselves as the lone cowboy on the shining hill. this is demonstrably wrong.....
  Reply
Post 192 (dhu):
Obviously, your understanding far exceeds mine. Heck, you can distill ideas in a few sentences that would take me chapters of reading to understand. Afraid that #192 is such a case: requires re-reading on my part and lots of time to turn it around in my mind.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->should we have expected the jews to take comfort in the fact that the romans were just occupiers and not homogeneizing monotheists.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->They merely need to know there was a difference between (1) the pogroms against them that the christos enacted since the early christian times, a recent instance of which was the pointed genocide of Jews by Hitler and his christo empire; and (2) the Roman wars and persecutions against Jews which resulted in genocide and mass-extermination of Jewry.
The intent in both cases was very different, whereas Gil-White is equating these two in intent (that both specifically hated Jewry and blamed them for everything) as well as in ideology (that both were fascist).
One can rightly blame the Romans for a lot of heinous things, but not the kind of christoislamic fascist anti-semitism that Gil-White is accusing them of.

Neither (1) nor (2) was in any way okay, but the Romans could (and showed signs that they eventually would) have learnt from the past, whereas christofascist belief is founded on anti-semitism. It is really central, in that it directly follows from the central doctrines of christianity.
And that's why some christos today still believe in the 'Final Solution', while a top-level catholic priest reiterates the eternal accusations of christianity against Jews and Judaism on TV ( Shadow of anti-Semitism hangs over Vatican - CBC News, 16 March 2000).
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our moral concepts are capable of being ordered (Whether it is a partial- or quasi-ordering is an empirical question). It will be a qualitative ordering, to be sure. But Western moral concepts cannot order actions; they can only classify them. As a result, epistemologically speaking, there is a greater chance that our concepts can aid in the generation of an adequate moral theory than Western theories are ever likely to in their present form.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is important to note that <b>Ancient Greek, </b>for example, <b>introduced not only the word 'ethica'. The same culture also gave us many substantial treatises on that subject, the most well-known of which is Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea. </b>If <i>the Indian text, composed around 650- 1200 years ago, does not even have a word for that phenomenon called 'ethics', how could it be an ethical tract at all? It cannot. </i>Hence the reason why the authors discover that the

“text does not contain one single general rule stated in the prescriptive mode. General rule of conduct may easily be derived from various statements, but it is significant that the rules are not formulated as such. … <b>The statements are written in the evaluative rather than the normative mode” </b>(p.95). <i>[[[ the author is refering to the indian text here  ]]]]</i>


..

How can one speak about 'ancient' India, when one is talking about a text composed during the 'middle ages'? Here, 'antiquity' does not have a particular time-frame as its reference. Instead, it is civilizational: <b>compared to the 'ancient Greeks' (of about 2500 years ago), the Indian civilization of about 700 years ago is more 'ancient' (i.e. more primitive). </b>Of course, this is not made explicit but it is the only possible interpretation, especially in light of their conclusions.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/blog...renaissance.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
<b>Normative ethics  </b>
..
* <b>Aristotle argues for virtue ethics which focuses on the inherent character of a person, as opposed to the specific actions they may take. </b>There has been a significant revival in virtue theory over the last three decades, through the work of philosophers such as G. E. M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Rosalind Hursthouse<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 29 2007, 05:53 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 29 2007, 05:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 192 (dhu):
Obviously, your understanding far exceeds mine. Heck, you can distill ideas in a few sentences that would take me chapters of reading to understand. Afraid that #192 is such a case: requires re-reading on my part and lots of time to turn it around in my mind.

[right][snapback]63706[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

husky, my understanding is limited to leeching off of others. probably we will have to wait for the next generation of vivekananda to come forth to piece it all together. the key I would think lies in the origins of roman jurispudence. If jewish and Romans shared one thing, then that would have to be the entity called "the Law". currently, the dominant paradigm of a "Middle eastern prelude to the european miracle" states that roman jurispudence was just a continuation of hammurabi.

right now i am leaning towards the uncomfortable fact that the entire phenomenon of semitism (in s. europe and the levant) was simply a cough reflex to expel the indic imports (initailly IE, then Zoroastrian, and finally buddhist)... a test case would be to see if panchatantra became normatized into aesops upon entry into europe..
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another observation that Professor Edgerton makes challenges our persistent assumption that animal fables function mainly as adjuncts to religious dogma, acting as indoctrination devices to condition the moral behaviour of small children and obedient adults. Not the Machiavellian Panchatantra: "Vishnu Sarma undertakes", Edgerton notes, "to instruct three dull and ignorant princes in the principles of polity, by means of stories . . . .[This is] a textbook of artha, 'worldly wisdom, or niti, polity, which the Hindus regard as one of the three objects of human desire, the other being dharma, 'religion or morally proper conduct' and kama 'love' . . . . The morals of the stories are often amoral. They glorify shrewdness and practical wisdom in the affairs of life, and especially in politics and the conduct of government."

This realistic practicality explains why the original Sanskrit villain jackal, the decidedly jealous, sneaky and evil vizier-like Damanaka ('Victor') is his frame-story's winner, and not his goody-goody brother Karataka who is presumably left 'Horribly Howling' at the vile injustice of Part One's final murderous events. <b>In fact, in its steady migration westward the persistent theme of evil-triumphant in Kalila and Dimna, Part One frequently outraged Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious leaders — so much so, indeed, that ibn al-Muqaffa carefully inserts (no doubt hoping to pacifiy the powerful religious zealots of his own turbulent times) an entire extra chapter at the end of Part One of his Arabic masterpiece, putting Dimna in jail, on trial and eventually to death. </b>So much for naughty jackals!   

Needless to say there is no vestige of such dogmatic moralising in the collations that remain to us of the pre-Islamic original — the Panchatantra. Technically, from the perspective of a more subtle and flexible functionality, Joseph Jacobs in 1888[24] offers a less coercive interpretation of how the Panchatantra/Kalila and Dimna stories might work more effectively to modify human behaviour: " . . . . <b>if one thinks of it, the very raison d'être of the Fable is to imply its moral without mentioning it."</b>
panchatantra link wiki<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
is it not odd that the arabs, the prototypical semitics, were the last to normatize (with the very late advent of islam). our first indications of normatization are in greece, then the jews, then arabs.
  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Are Western traditions innately richer because they have the moral ought?

My answer: No. In fact, in my book on ethics I will prove the following: the non-normative ethics are richer: <b>Under specific assumptions, in limited conditions, one can derive a normative ethics from a non-normative one. </b><b>The relation between non-normative ethics and normative ethics is analogous to the relation between Einsteinian theory and Newtonian theory: </b>under specific assumptions, in limited conditions, you can derive the Newtonian theory from the Einsteinian theory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagu...ssage/3491
this above message contains a refutation of the neo-western contention that china harbored a more ancient strand of normative virtue ethics. these herrenvolks never do seem to stop with their allegations, limitless in number and directed at all and sundry. really amazing if you think about it..




  Reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only thing I want to add here is about the Chinese. There is another way to look at the feeling we have with respect to the (mainland) Chinese. What if it has nothing to do with age of the culture but with a fundamental *structural similarity* within the Asian culture? What if there is something called the ‘Asian culture’ the way one can speak of the Western culture? Prima facie, there is some ‘evidence’ (of sorts) that makes this appellation plausible. <b>How could traditions that we call ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Buddhism’ so easily *migrate* across the whole of Asia? Remember this happened without any kind of centralised authority (military, political, economic or religious) enforcing it on the entire continent. </b>The travelling ‘mendicants’, so many thousands years ago for heaven’s sake, ‘carried’ these traditions outwards. A plausible hypothesis would be: there must be something fundamentally similar (structurally similar?) between the different Asian cultures that makes them into the Asian culture. How about this: the strategy of social interaction is the same within the Asian culture?
link
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 18 Guest(s)