We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The Nazi menace did not end in 1945 I wish I were only talking about this:
“Essex Police Issue Update After WWII Bomb Safely Detonated in East Tilbury”
(This Twitter thread by Tony Brown @agbdrilling shows detailed pictures of how the bomb was found and safely exploded under sand.)
But the thing uppermost in my mind was actually this:
“Amsterdam rioters ‘planned Jew hunt on Telegram’ before they attacked Israeli football fans”
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem visited Mr Hitler and Mr Himmler – and was an ally of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany.
Back during the First World War Imperial German intelligence, without the knowledge of Kaiser Wilhelm II, spread stories among Muslims that the Kaiser had converted to Islam (it was a lie – he had not converted) and that if Germany won the war the women of the British and French infidels would be given to the Islamic faithful (another lie – Germany had no such plans), although these stories were lies – they were popular among some segments of Islamic opinion, as they tied in to ancient promises (through the centuries – going all the way back to Muhammed himself) about what the right hand of the Islamic faithful would be able to grasp.
John Buchan in his novel “Greenmantle” attacked the efforts of German intelligence in the First World War, indeed years before it, to spread these promises to the Islamic population.
As for the later, National Socialist, propaganda against Jews and the effort to find common cause with Islam – the lies about Jews go back to the philosopher Fichte (a century before the Nazis) and even to Martin Luther (some of whose writings Mr Hitler quoted – in context) and to various other thinkers.
It is interesting that over time the links with Christianity were dropped – for example General Lundendorff, basically dictator of German “War Socialism” in the latter part of the First World War, was a Pagan.
In his Table Talk (not meant for publication) Mr Hitler speculated that Islam would have been a better religion for Germans than Christianity – due to the warrior ethic of Islam.
There is also a link between German philosophical Determinism, famously present in Martin Luther, with its rejection of the “Jewish” concept of Free Will (moral choice and personal responsibility) and Islam – but it should be remembered that this only applies to Sunni Islam, indeed only to certain forms of Sunni Islam (not really the various Sufi traditions) – it does not really apply to the various forms of Shia Islam.
The various forms of Sunni and Shia Islam differ on several important matters – although, sadly, not really in their view of infidels.
It has been pointed out that some of the characters in John Buchan novels spout anti Jewish opinions – but he made clear that he included such characters because there were so many such people, not because he supported their opinions.
As he put it in the 1930s – “these silly lies can often be traced back to Germany”, referring to philosophical and racial attacks on Jews, although it should be noted that at least one of the “German” thinkers attacked by Buchan was English in origin – Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who had been close to the Kaiser (whispering madness into the ear of the German Emperor – although Wilhelm escaped it in the end) and who personally anointed Adolf Hitler as the savior of Germany.
@Paul Marks,
Regarding The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Islam.
Don’t forget the 13th SS Mountain Division Handschar (1st Croatian) was formed from Muslims from Croatia. Their war record was, as you would expect, from its ethnic composition and training, brutal.
Wikipedia has an article about the Division.
The links cultivated by the Nazis with various Muslim groups was known although the full extent of their cooperation is somewhat uncertain.
The historian Denis Winter in his attack on General Haig (“Haig’s Command) points out that General Ludendorff was more intelligent, more cultured (Haig’s interests seemed to be confined to horse riding and golf) and a better commander than Haig – all true – but Denis Winter leaves out that General Ludendorff wished to enslave the world, and General Haig did NOT – and some people (including myself) would regard this as an important difference that should at least be mentioned (of course General Ludendorff would have argued that freedom is an illusion – and that, therefore, he did not want to enslave any free person – there being no such thing).
My grandfather James Power, who served in the First World War, was not an admirer of the military ability of General Haig and nor were the other First World War veterans I knew as a young boy – but they did remember his order, to all ranks, of early spring 1918 – in response to the success of Ludendorff’s Operation Michael Offensive.
“With our backs to the wall, but believing in the justice of our cause, I place my trust in you” – at least that was the bit that was remembered.
Everyone knew this really meant “I am at my wit’s end, I do not know what to do, please YOU do something” – but that did not stop the soldiers being profoundly moved by it – even hardened combat veterans can be moved by such an appeal, and were.
The Storm Troopers (again an invention of the First World War – not the Second) were stopped – although at the expense of 100% casualties (killed and wounded) in some (some) British units.
Although it should also be noted that Imperial German effectiveness in this vital period of 1918 was undermined by the German soldiers turning on the civilian population – morality may be an “illusion” as the fashionable philosophers taught (although I do not believe so), but it is certainly true that vital time was wasted by the attacking soldiers looting and torturing and murdering civilians. Sometimes in a state of wild drunkenness – from looted wine (in 1940 it was not drink – it was powerful drugs, but that was a deliberate policy of the German military of that time – both so the men could do without sleep and keep up the offensive day-after-day without rest, and to make them more aggressive, sometimes men are not eager to kill and so must be chemically helped – at least this was the reasoning, although prolonged use of such chemicals did, sometimes, have unfortunate effects on the ability to logically reason).
Even in 1914 there was a German policy of “terribleness” towards civilians in Belgium and in France, and the civilians were used as forced labour during the war (with an electric fence preventing them escaping into Holland – the voltage being lethal), but the behaviour of early 1918 was NOT planned – it was ad hoc, and the various cruelties (even if morality is rejected as an “illusion”) wasted valuable time – perhaps they should have waited till victory to indulge their passions, and take what their right hand could grasp. Perhaps they should not have allowed their passions to make reason (both practical reason – and moral reason) a slave.
Before French writers interject – I am aware of the heroic sacrifices of the French Army in the First World War – that their casualties were far more severe than British casualties.
And before American writers interject – I am also aware that some two million American soldiers were in Europe by the end of 1918, with millions more on the way, and that this had a terrible effect on the mental state of General Ludendorff and others.
As for the story that he was found in his office frothing at the mouth – I have no idea whether this is true, or just a story that old (very old) soldiers liked to tell.
Phil B – yes indeed Sir, it is a difficult subject, made more difficult to research by the danger of being “cancelled” for “Islamophobia”.
The Nazis lost the political, sticks-and-stones war.
But Hitler won the ideological war – Europe is solidly post-Christian, neo-pagan, as he envisioned.
Lip service is paid to Judeo-Christian concepts no longer animated by conviction or backed up in action.
Ethics are situational and subjective. When necessary for appearances’ sake, there is generalized handwringing and pious talk of “humanity” that means nothing, obligates no-one.
“Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish like circumcision”
Islamic certainty and cruelty will easily prevail against the self-doubt and faded, unfelt generalities of Christian Europe.
At least the Jews have someplace to run this time.
Good. Because that means they can be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Telegram is assisting the criminal investigation, isn’t it?
BenDavid,
Indeed. I keep visualizing a meme that is a smiling picture of Hitler with the strapline “How’s that victory over fascism working out for you?”
We now have more fascists, communists and antisemites than ever, and this time they’re inside the gates.
“Identified and prosecuted”
You mean like the “Blackburn men” who drove around north London shouting through a megaphone “kill the Jews, rape their women”. Although identified by the police they faced no charges as the CPS declined to prosecute claiming there was little prospect of a conviction. Maybe there wasn’t enough hate involved?
I very much doubt anything will happen to these Dutchmen.
BenDavid “conscience is a Jewish invention” – of course it is NOT, but it is indeed of importance that the National Socialists, and others, thought it was.
In a horrible way the National Socialists stood for a perverse form of “freedom” (even though they denied the existence of free will in the sense of moral agency) – the “freedom” to ignore moral reason and follow their passions, the “freedom” from the “burden of right and wrong” (moral right and wrong).
With the will of the ruler being the only moral right and wrong – what the ruler commands being the only moral right, and what the ruler forbids being the only moral wrong.
In theology this is known as “voluntarism” – the idea that moral right is just what God commands, and moral wrong is just what God forbids – an arbitrary matter of WILL, with no moral reason.
As people on this thread are well aware – this theological position is also associated with a religion (a religion and legal system with a vast number of followers) which is of increasing importance in the world.
The idea that this movement will be satisfied with the extermination or enslavement of the Jews is false – it wants the world, all of the world.
“Who now remembers the Armenians?” is an, alleged, statement from Mr Hitler – with his position being if a slaughter is successful it will never be punished.
Certainly the modern West does not remember the Armenians – there was a big campaign (by Social Media, the CIA and so on) to get the Armenians to vote out their pro Russian government and vote in a pro Western (read pro Brussels and DC) government – but after the Armenians did that, the West betrayed the Armenians to Azerbaijan.
Most likely Mr Putin (who has made a cynical alliance with some Islamic powers – I can remember when Mr Putin slaughtered Muslim civilians without mercy, but that all seems to have been forgotten) would also have betrayed the Armenians – even if they had not voted out the pro Russian Republican Front government, but the West was supposed to be different from Mr Putin.
Paul
Speaking of Armenians I always find it ironic that one of the most popular and allegedly influential left wing YouTube channels is called The YoungTurks (TYT) with zero pushback for what some might consider a poorly chosen name.
Incidentally their widely-viewed meltdown last week while still enjoyable was not a patch on the 2016 all-time classic.
As for the original quote about a bomb from WW2 being exploded, I read once that the bombs came from Checkoslavakia, and some of the workers would, on occasion, pull a wire out as a way of resisting the Nazis. Had this bomb come from those factories?
Paul,
Ah, Greenmantle… I have read all the Hannay stories and they are… Infuriating! The plots require staggering co-incidences and they just shouldn’t work – but they do! Absolute rip-roaring page-turners. Greenmantle’s take on Islam is also interesting. Not least the titular character and the impression he leaves on Hannay’s pal, Sandy. There seems to have been (at the time) a sort of “noble other” concept of Islam in much of the West. The arc of which can be traced maybe from Richard Burton through to TE Lawrence* and may go back to ideas about Saladin.
Perhaps in some perverted way it permeates thinking here still. Hence the support for Hamas. I don’t know what Saladin would have thought of the Glorius Armies of Allah hiding in tunnels under children’s hospitals. I suspect he wouldn’t have appoved and I know full-well what Richard Hannay would have thought…
*My wife’s Great Grandfather knew Lawrence. He was a telegraph engineer and Lawrence cosulted him on destroying this means of communication for the Ottoman Empire. Why him? He’d installed it. Somewhere in the family archives is a photo of a lynched body in the desert. On the back it is labelled, “Justice – Persian Fashion”.
John – yes the “Young Turks” is not a nice name, but then person in charge of it is not a very good person.
NickM – Greenmantle could do with a bit of blue pencil work, we do not need, as readers, to be told that the German position is wrong on such-and-such points – let the characters speak. But then it was published during the war, and John Buchan did not want to be misunderstood.
Paul Marks:
BenDavid “conscience is a Jewish invention” – of course it is NOT
——————-
Well, we are now discovering that the Judeo-Christian West has some unique features – which all flow from the starting Jewish premises:
A moral, monotheistic Creator + Humans “created in His image” =
= free will AND personal moral responsibility.
= fundamental equality independent of talent, power, or value to others.
Which in turn lead to democracy, universal suffrage, and limiting the powerful before the (very uniquely defined) individual.
This has not arisen in any other society – despite decades of Leftie neo-pagan assertion that “all cultures are equal”.
In fact, much has been written about how other cultures have moral codes based on shame or status – which lead to brutal pagan outcomes but not to Western-style freedoms.
And we are now seeing that freedom is not even sustainable in the West when individuals no longer define themselves by Judeo-Christian religious/moral terms.
So whatever the Jews – or the G-d of the Jews – did invent, it is pretty gosh-darn unique – and uniquely powerful in tempering base human nature.
@BenDavid
A moral, monotheistic Creator + Humans “created in His image” =
I don’t know if Judaism was the first monotheistic religion — it might be — but I find this idea of “created in his image” a curious one. The Tanakh in no respect, says humans are like God Genesis 1:27 notwithstanding. In the Biblical worldview God is all powerful, is spirit, is omniscient, omnipotent, without moral flaw and eternal. These are the fundamental attributes of God and obviously none of them apply to man, tricked into moral depravity by a snake a woman and a juicy piece of fruit. Even before the sin of Adam, most of these attributes could not be applied to man.
= free will AND personal moral responsibility.
If you accept that free will and moral responsibility are intricately linked it is plain that societies back to early hunter gatherers had laws where people were held responsible for their actions. So in what way can you make that claim? This seems to be as old as human society itself.
= fundamental equality independent of talent, power, or value to others.
The Bible is bristling with counter examples to this. In fact the whole notion of “a chosen people” runs entirely contrary to that idea. And shall we talk about the subservience of women, or the implacable hostility to homosexuals, or to “witches” whatever that means? Shall we discuss the treatment of Amalekite babies? To give one simple example of inequality — if a woman if found to not be a virgin on the night of her wedding the bridegroom can have her stoned to death at her father’s door. Whereas were the bridegroom a womanizing frat boy no similar consequence awaits him.
Equality, meritocracy, democracy, universal suffrage are consequences of the enlightenment: the tentative, growing, abandonment of religious overlordship over humans, and the rise of morality, law and society based on science and rationality. It is rather the end of religion that leads to these things, not it primacy.
By no means am I saying that Judaism was without merit. On the contrary, I think modern Jewish society are some of the greatest humans have produced. Of all the early religions it seems to be one of the best. But it is full of the sort of deep flaws you would expect from a group of honest, well meaning and honorable bronze age tribesmen. Perhaps the greatest contribution to society Judaism makes is that they were a “people of the book”, and their focus on written law, literacy of people, study and intellectual honesty no doubt was a huge contributor both to the enlightenment and to the remarkable success of Jewish people around the world against the seemingly insurmountable odds of anti-semitism.
This has not arisen in any other society – despite decades of Leftie neo-pagan assertion that “all cultures are equal”.
In case we are unclear, I entirely reject the idea that all cultures are equal, only the stupid or shockingly ill informed could possibly believe that. I doubt, for example, that the left would think the dixieland “the south will rise again” culture is equal to sophisticated Manhattan ideas.
Though TBH I don’t know where this idea that the left are “neo-pagan” comes from unless you use the word “pagan” so broadly that it loses all meaning.
Fraser Orr – it is not strange. It does not mean that Jews thought that God had a physical body like their own – it meant that they were free will moral agents, as God was (and is).
Persons have moral responsibility for their actions because they could, with moral effort, have chosen to do other than they did. Without this central principle of free will (moral agency) concepts such as morality (ethics) and justice – are without meaning. That was the reason that Spinoza was rejected by the Jewish community – he was prepared to carry on the rituals – but he denied the basic principles, the philosophical principles.
BenDavid – is a free society, without slavery and so on, without Christianity or Judaism?
Japan is an example of such a society – wildly imperfect certainly, but we are also wildly imperfect.
But you could argue that Japan was remade after World War II – in spite of some Japanese thinkers, centuries before, being pro liberty (sadly those thinkers had little impact on society).
So the honest answer from me would be – I do not know.
We all know the example of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius proclaiming, in his “Meditations”, equal rights, the freedom of the governed, freedom of speech (and so on) – whilst, at the same time, being the military dictator of a society that had millions of slaves.
On the other hand Aristotle pushed the “natural slaves” argument – and freed all his slaves in his will, either (by some strange chance) none of them were “natural” slaves, or he did not, deep down, believe his own argument.
Roman legal thinkers accepted that slavery was against natural law – so they hid by the idea that as all other nations committed this crime, the Romans also had the right to commit it. Not very sound reasoning.
Fraser Orr – you pose way too many deep questions to unpack in a blog thread. Taking one path through this:
1. Image of G-d = knowledge of right and wrong + sufficient freedom from animal instinct to actually choose one’s behavior, and therefore be responsible for it. The “snake and fruit” story is precisely about that, the birth of a unique human consciousness begins with awareness of the ability to choose. It ends with their banishment from unaware animal existence.
According to the Jewish tradition, the Tree of Life story happens on Friday evening – as the flaming sword closes off Eden, Adam stops calling Eve “the woman” and gives her the first proper name… at this point “heaven and earth are complete” with the unique idea of human personhood.
2. The very next verse says “and Adam knew his wife” – indicating not just that the old animal standard for killing and robbing does not apply to these new beings, but that new standards of sexual behavior also inhere to human personhood. The use of the verb “know” is not just a euphemism or literary device – sex must now be linked to intimacy and respect for personhood. Sex that is compulsive, exploitative, or demeaning is prohibited…. which explains the “implacable hostility to homosexuality” and gives a cogent, reliable yardstick by which to judge the confused claims and awful results of the sexual “revolution”.
3. The concept of a chosen people basically starts in response to the (freely-willed!) indifferent drift of humanity under influence of selfish, power-hungry human nature. Throughout the Bible and Talmud this is formulated in deliberately non-elitist terms: Jews are a firstborn son among brothers. The sages portray G-d silencing His angels while the Egyptians drown in the Red Sea… The rest of humanity is not abandoned, but as the story of the Flood demonstrates, G-d has purposely limited himself in this world to enable human free will.
4. I would love to hear concrete examples of the “other historical sources” for Western humanism and ever-expanding suffrage…. If you’re worried about girls being stoned you will love how archeologists identify ancient Roman whorehouses by the large number of infant skeletons buried in their gardens.
—————————————————–
Paul Marks: maybe you should talk to some old Chinese and Koreans about Japanese moral delicacy…
Thanks for the info @BenDavid. I’m an admirer of Judaism, as much as an atheist can be anyway, but not by any means a scholar. So I found your comments illuminating.
What I guess leaves me a little uncomfortable (and I say this as coming from a Christian background) is this intersection of oral tradition and written record. For example, you say the Image of G-d = the knowledge of right and wrong with sufficient freedom from animal instinct. It seems to me that there is no data in the text to support that, in fact I’d say it contradicts the record. After all if this image allows them to have the knowledge of right and wrong, exactly how do we explain the prohibition on eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If they already had that knowledge what harm would eating the fruit bring? If it is to mean anything, from the context, the purpose is to allow man to rule. And rulership requires only two things: power and authority.
I’m sure Talmudic scholars have written a million words on this subject, but at the end of the day what I read in your explanations is just some justifications for not treating people equally, and that is my point. Perhaps divine providence is such that people should be treated differently, but if that is so you can’t reasonably make the claim that Judaism is the source of ideas of the moral ideas of treating people equally.
I think this point is illustrative of that:
The concept of a chosen people basically starts in response to the (freely-willed!) indifferent drift of humanity under influence of selfish, power-hungry human nature.
But I’m sure you will agree that the Torah and the Ketuvim, and I suppose particularly the Nevi’im do not portray the Jews in a particularly positive light in these terms either. And yet, for no reason based on merit, they are “chosen” and treated specially. So again, this seems a perfect illustration where Judaism does not at all support the idea of equal treatment or distinction based on merit alone. And as to first born sons, surely we all agree that the world is a better place when sons and daughters are treated equally irrespective of sex or age post majority? As a second born son, I have some skin in that particular game. 😀
And as to your last point, yes for sure, the Roman society was terrible in many respects and certainly not egalitarian. But Rome collapsed a thousand years before the enlightenment, so I suppose we’d expect nothing less.
Though this discussion is perhaps a bit to esoteric for the crowd who usually hangs here. But FWIW, I do find a certain delight in a thread containing “Nazi” in the title devolving into a discussion on Jewish apologetics. The ubermensch look pretty tiny in an honorable discussion about the profundities of the universe.
We need a philosophy blog.
Fraser:
If this image allows them to have the knowledge of right and wrong, exactly how do we explain the prohibition on eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
——————————–
1. You are reading a tightly written multilevel spiritual allegory written in very terse language – in an often axe-grinding translation cascade (Greek->Latin->English). Sorry, I can’t do anything about that. I am trying to reclaim for you nuances of literal meaning, and bring the homilies and sermonic interpretations of the sages who codified the original text.
2. I call BS on the attempt to portray Judaism as elitist. The merit here is the kernel of faith and commitment to truth that distinguished people like Abraham and Rebecca from their pagan milieu. People who have survived to this century with a Jewish identity descend from generations that reaffirmed that choice through very tough times – when the sages tell us that only 1/5 of the Hebrews left Egypt, they are describing their own generation and most other generations… and converts, Christians, and to some extent Muslims are considered to be fulfillments of the promise that Abraham will be “a father to many nations”. Even the most assimilated Jews retain rock-solid commitment to liberal projects of emancipation and suffrage…. even to the point where they confusedly embrace woke identity politics.
Compared with a culture like Japan, the Bible and Talmud take a very different attitude towards chosenness, and constantly chastise and criticize the backsliding and rote observance of the Jews. And ancient Israel governed by Biblical and Talmudic law included civil equality for non-idolatrous gentiles.
It’s a big tent.
3. It’s very important for Christians to remember that Judaism gets NO concept of “Original Sin” from this story. As I mentioned in passing – the Tree of Knowledge story (chapter 2) goes back and gives detail about what happened on the 6th “day” of creation. It is the story of the birth of unique human consciousness and personhood.
Adam (in the original text he is “ha-adam”, literally “the earth creature”) who calls himself “The Man/The Male”, and another creature called “The Woman/Female” start the story living like animals. No shame, no clothes, foraging like chimps. According to the sages the “naming of the animals” is Adam copulating with them – an interpretation that is understandable given the conclusion of the story – and finding he is not part of them…. it ends with moral awareness (learned by breaking a command) and personhood (expressed by clothing, and the naming of Eve, and a new sexuality).
How does one become aware of one’s free human nature?
The two year old has heard words like “fair”, so when someone takes his trike he runs after shouting “its not faaaair” but what the little narcissistic barbarian really means is “I want”. But he’s getting there.
Two year olds acquire the lessons of Eden by saying NO a lot. Only by disobeying does he learn that he has a choice in the matter.
(this is another, subtler reason why children need strong boundaries instead of indulgence)
So let’s try the story like this (a brilliant take by a modern Kabbalistic Rabbi):
Mommy bakes cookies. A plate of hot cookies on the table.
“We’re not going to eat cookies until after dinner, right Timmy?”
“Right mommy”
Mommy goes over to older brother Jack and says, “go in that kitchen and get him to eat a cookie.”
Not to catch Timmy out – not a gotcha – but to start to teach him.
Note how childlike the “I hid because I was naked” dialogue is…
Adam, Eve, Cain all pass the buck, complain its too hard, and say things that have certainly come out of my mouth…but are unknown to any other species.
That’s the story being told here.
The flaming swords closes off the way back, only self-aware, responsible adulthood is now possible.
The Noah story ends with the first PTSD alchoholic (Noah) and his dysfunctional family.
The “prehistoric” mythological/allegorical section of Genesis will end with the Tower of Babel – in which G-d rejects the false unity of dictatorships and protects individual conscience.
From there on we are in the recognizable world of history and historical figures like Nimrod.
——————————————
Hope this helps
There is another way to look at it- Man is made in the image of the name of God- the Hebrew letters for YeHoWaH (YHVH) can make a stick-figure image of a human. And I can argue that the Edenic story happened after the 6th day. At the end of chapter 1 in Genesis, God is very happy- noy what happens when Adam sins! Thus Adamites are a separate branch of humans.
the Hebrew letters for YeHoWaH (YHVH) can make a stick-figure image of a human.
—————————
Uhhh looks more like grazing cow to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png