reply to post by Kantzveldt
The state of Israel is not Semitic, it is a Western culture transplanted, en masse, into a Semitic one, hence the dischord and suppression of the
native populace. The appropriation of Hebrew as the national language as a means of homogenising numerous cultures who happen to share the same
faith, but different ethnicities, and ancestral languages is following a previously proven pattern.
The Nazi Party based their approach to ethnic cleansing and social unity on something similar to the Israeli state; that ‘sameness’ promotes
unity. The Party leadership drew heavily on Artur de Gobineau’s pseudo-scientific ideas of racial stereotypes, much of Eastern Europe was deemed,
in his eyes, and that of the Nazi leadership, to be peopled by the ‘degenerate races’. As is often the case with Philo-semites, Gobineau, much
like Adolf Eichmann, differentiated between cultured or Westernised Jews, and those Jews that lived simply as peasant farmers and craftsmen. It was
the latter that were identified immediately for death by the killing squads because they were ‘untermensch’, and the former who were, ideally,
supposed to be relocated to Palestine, or Madagascar or anywhere else that would take them. While there were no qualms at killing those deemed to be
sub-human and degenerate, there was much debate, vascilliation and even regret about killing the white, Westernised Jews of the Greater Reich. Unlike
the mass murder of the Eastern European Jews and Ethnic Poles etc, there was never any intention of murdering the Jews of Central and Northern Europe,
that became, in the eyes of the Nazis, an economic necessity.
Similarly, in the upheaval of the Russian Revolution, the same differentiation occurs, the Bolsheviks were not peopled by the Jews that had been
contained and ghettoised within the Pale of Settlement, who were the victims of the German killing squads, but by the sons and daughters of merchants
and others of the professional classes who were assimilated to Russian culture. When the ‘reprisals’ were enacted against the Jews of the Pale,
encompassing the Ukraine, it was not because those people had been commissars, it was because they were there, because they had nowhere to go, and the
area, due to the stringency of the Pale’s borders, was incredibly overcrowded, impoverished and there was a chance to gain lebensraum while proving
loyalty to the new over-lords . It was the proverbial Behavioural Sink, just waiting for King Rat to arrive and tell them who they needed to hate,
just as it had happened in reverse with the Soviets a generation before. It was facilitated by conditioning, not natural inclination. On both parts.
The Ukrainians were not incited to violence because they believed that these people were in league with the Bolsheviks, but because they wanted to
ally themselves with the Nazis , claiming a cultural affinity with the ‘white Russians’, such as that espoused by Alfred Rosenberg and much of
VOMI. It was easy under such circumstances for the Nazis to incite violence, these people had been cultured in division under Imperial Russia, and
frequently incited to pogroms against the Jews. Those pogroms inevitably led to the development of militancy in those Jews as a means of defence.
So thus we see a constant backward and forwards of neighbours being turned against neighbours, not because it is a natural inclination to hate
difference but as a result of social conditioning.
The Jews, as we have already covered, are not a ‘race’, they are a disparate group of ethnicities, that happen to practice the same religion, and
as such are no less likely to be victims of their own religious group, as they are from any other group when the prevailing social order demands it.
Professor Karl Haushofer, Hitler’s advisor on geopolitical matters, who devised the Drach nost Osten philosophy of the Nazis, decided that to be
effective, Germany’s territorial expansion should be based on ethnicity, however, the economic needs of expansionism led to the devising of the
Nuremberg Laws and that old European stand by of socially isolating the Jews and seizing their property when the coffers run dry. Haushofer’s own
wife was Jewish demonstrating the selectivity of the Nazis’ so-called fanatic ‘anti-semitism’.
So if we apply this to the ancient world, the Jews of the Old Testament, the Kings of Judea, the Herodian dynasty, we see that there too is a
differentiation between those Jews who we can perhaps call Hellenised Jews for the sake of argument, and those that are ethnically, and linguistically
Semitic, as opposed to just retaining the old language ritually, but syncretically adhering to the over-lord’s gods and belief systems as a means of
control over the peasants, slaves and artisans. Which is why, in all conquered cultures, from the very first civilisation at Sumer, we see a rapid,
often traumatic, anthropomorphism of the deities depicted through natural artistic expression and craftsmanship when it is turned into economic
productionism for the benefit of state. This in turn, creates a middle, or merchant-class that are elevated, creating social stratification, with
administration over those with whom they were once equals.
Of course, with oppression comes sedition. It is a constantly repeating pattern that has resulted in a manipulation and anticipation of that pattern,
and more than a little pre-empting, with such uprisings being used as an opportunity to intercede, remove those that may have natural leadership
qualities, thus leaving a void that can be filled by those easily bought and controlled by the corporations wishing to gain control of the local
resources. Now, if we compare that patterning with a country like Switzerland, we can see quite clearly how social stability is maintained, and what
the Nazis aspired to. All difference is suppressed and contained, unwanted elements excluded and weeded out, with eugenics actively utilised to
remove any perceived genetic deficiencies, the Swiss are known to have practiced forced sterilisations right up until the mid-80s, and probably still
do, they are just very discreet about it due to it’s infringement of Human Rights laws and regulations. They are also, of course, a militant
culture with involuntary conscription for all males.
On which note, in regard to the points that Eidolon originally raised about the regimentation and rigidity of what is perceived as feminine and
womanly, it is worthy of mention that the Japanese held similar, though cultural distinct, ideas. They considered themselves as ‘racially’ and
culturally superior to the other Asiatic peoples and held a strictly regimented martial culture, the Samurai, that embraced pederasty as part of
What could be manlier than man-boy love? The widely practiced and frequently violent Way of samurai pederasty was celebrated as an ideal by
Hosokawa Yūsai, revered poet and first generation daimyō featured in this exhibit.
As the "flower of the samurai spirit," man-boy love formed the basis of the samurai aesthetic, in a discipline called shudō (the way of loving
"The list of shoguns, hegemons, and principal daimyō thought to have been sexually involved with boys reads like a Who's Who of military and
political history," according to historian Gary Leupp. Samurai connoisseurship of pretty boys led to vendettas and rebellion at the highest levels,
and possibly even war.
The misogyny implied by the homosociality of this age-structured form of domination was profound, with those exclusively devoted to shudō referred to
literally as onna-girai or "woman-haters."
As is often the case, just as the boy grows up to becomes a pederast himself, doing unto others as was done unto him, the women also help enforce the
rigid roles and defined ideals of femininity that were imposed on them through strict discipline and corporal punishment. The mother binds her
daughter’s feet or holds her down while she is circumcised. Such adherence to gender stereotyping, and the enforcement of conformity to those rules,
is usually within the gender, passed from parent to child, in defiance of natural inclinations, and based on social aspiration and it is often the
feminine complicity, using sex and progeny to improve their own status, that has led to the greatest social upheaval, and the eventual exclusion of
the female from the public sphere of influence and confinement to the domestic realm under a system of patriarchal control.