Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Mitchell Heisman

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 814
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 32
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Mitchell Heisman Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:57 pm

I wished to dedicate a thread to Mitchell Heisman. After reading his work I have tried my best to formulate an adequate synopsis with quotes. You can add anything you like about Heisman whether it be from his work or other sources of information about him.

Throughout time, Man’s desire to explore his place in the world through the cultivation and application of his wisdom do a rare few come along and revolutionize our understanding of this fundamental existential human state. Mitchell Heisman is one of the few that has succeeded in this pursuit. Upon my completion of his extensive 1900 page essay, which in my personal opinion, is one of the most deeply thoughtful and most far-reaching scholarly examinations of modern society since Nietzsche’s Will to power, or Plato’s Republic, I have meticulously to the best of my ability, provided the reader of this synoptic review with some significant quotes and excerpts that may incite some interest in undertaking the time to devote to reading it.  

Heisman’s work is concerned primarily with how human nature evolved into its decline into obsolescence by very specific historical events and reformations of sociopolitical relevance. The idea of Sociobiology and genetic evolutionary elements of “Kin Selection”, is at the root of his entire socio-philosophical position which is crucial to understanding his insights.  

He begins his work by examining the history of ancient hierarchical governments and their conflicting relationships with religion, namely monotheism. From the history of the Egyptians and the Jews and Judaism and its ramifications of biblical influence under monarchial regimes. He examines the nature of monotheism and polytheism, and the mimetic prowess of the bible (namely Judaic etymology) to alter traditions of pagan or hereditary cultures. He also touches on some important key issues involving the sanctity of “progress” of technology and its artificially imposing power to supersede or change the role of what the idea of society or human means and how the bible has been the support for this. The idea of the technological “Singularity” is at the heart of his contrasting views of religion and modern advancement that culminates in what he calls the “Technological Genesis of God”.

He provides diligently thought provoking undertones of the phenomenon of “post-biological evolution” in the name of meme vs. gene competition, which is an aspect of modernity that Heisman consistently returns to and is concerned with throughout his work as he correlates it to Judeo-Christian timelines of revolution.The Jewish question that Heisman endeavors to elucidate takes precedence in his theory of the Jews which he dubs the “Jewish Kinship Paradox”. This is the forerunner in his work to understanding the relationship of Jews to the rest of the world and most importantly, to themselves and their own survival.

He then moves from this exploration from these early periods, to the Roman empire and offers a very fascinating and in-depth look at how Jesus jump started the necessary means for modernity to evolve into liberal democracy; taking into account the very unique identity of Jesus himself rather than merely his ideas. He then discusses Hitler and the Third Reich, the Holocaust and the Jews deterministic place in it. Moreover, he places emphasis on the relationship between Hitler and the Jews and Hitler’s entire cause for biological supremacy. He reveals how Marxism was refuted by Nazi socialistic domination.

From these initial events, he then moves to explore the past of Western modern democracy that developed in the pivotal event of 1066 at the battle of Hastings between the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons. The bulk of his work is based on this event in history of the Norman Conquest which he maintains has been forgotten as the birth of Americanism and its entire culture. He examines very closely, not merely the event itself but the conflict of the English nation from the failures of the English Civil war, to their similarity of the American civil war, and the American Revolution of Jeffersonian “Rights”. He posits that the West has been forced to adapt to being an oppressed and persecuted nation of subjugated people that through ethnic violation from the Norman Conquest, evolved the liberal foundation of individualism. He explores individualism as the key mimetic phenomenon that has destroyed not only the kinship basis of human relationships but relationships themselves and how the system of capitalism has subsequently used this undermining biological suppression for the continuity of rampant economic-technological materialism which is the impetus for his theory of the “Singularity”.

Finally towards the end, he returns to the idea of the Singularity and the scientific application of it to transcend biology. He predicts a possible war that could occur between humans and “post-humans” or “transhumans” if technological development achieves its goal of AI. He also questions how AI is possible or if it can be sentient. His grasp of self-actualization and his subsequent suicide could perhaps be returned to his quote about the nature of philosophical pursuit taken from Plato’s “Phaedo” dialogue. Aside from his own Jewish dilemma, Heisman seems to have reached one of the most lucid nihilistic personifications of self-destruction by attempting to undertake the impossible challenge that comes with absolute reconciliation of either modernity or of the attainment of the ideal state of consciousness.





If a waterfall is natural, then a dam that harnesses the
waterfall’s natural energy to produce electricity is artificial or
supernatural. If sand in a desert is natural, then the silicon
extracted from sand and used to create a microchip is
artificial or supernatural. If biological human intelligence is
natural intelligence, then computer intelligence is artificial
intelligence. Artificial intelligence is supernatural
intelligence in the sense of being postbiological intelligence.
From this perspective, artificial intelligence could be
considered the pinnacle of the supernatural overcoming of
nature and thus the supreme creation in the image of God.-Heisman.


 A Darwinian perspective clarifies that all the
characteristically Biblical imperatives to show compassion to the less fortunate, to save the weak, to feed the starving, and
to give to the poor, all amount to ways to end evolution by
natural or artificial selection. In other words, if biological
evolution proceeds by eliminating less fit humans, or
humans less well adapted for survival, the distinctively
Biblical ethic of compassion and charity acts like a
gargantuan monkeywrench thrown into the selective
mechanisms of biological evolutionary “progress”. The Bible
can be understood as a primitive step towards steering
human history away from biological evolution and towards
a culmination of technological evolution that is God
(artificial intelligence).-Heisman

 How could ancient prophets have anticipated the
Singularity? I have been speaking almost as if the authors of
the Bible were ahead of Charles Darwin. While I have no
reason to think that the authors of the Bible were anything
but utterly ignorant of the theory of evolution by natural
selection in the formal sense, they lived no less in a world
formed by evolution by natural selection in practice. Since
their world was generally less civilized, their very existence
was in many more informed, not by the theory of natural
selection, but by the practice of natural selection. Mind
uploading demonstrates the endpoint at which civilization
becomes diametrically opposite of natural selection.
The Bible has been cogent to so many people only because
its authors had a genuinely deep understanding of the  human condition. No formal understanding of biological evolution was necessary to recognize the basic conflict
between a deeply embedded animal nature in humans, and
the most superlatively imaginable possibilities of the human
mind sublimated as God. No knowledge of evolution by
natural selection was required to imagine God as the most
total superbiological supremacy over man’s “evil” nature.

  Jews did not build the first cities or civilizations. It
appears that the earliest Jews interacted and learned from
the first cities built by others. If early Jews were outsiders
relative to the first cities, they would have been in a position
to reflect on and about civilization. From such a position,
early Jews would have been more likely to form more
abstract generalizations than those subjectively invested in
the cultural values that maintain the city itself.
The Jewish religion, like the urban settings that later
generations of Jews gravitated towards, is a man made
construction. Mosaic law could be called a meta-civilizational
technology. Moses’s technology was built on a
knowledge or informal “science” of human natures. For
most of the history of the evolution of life, life has adapted to
nature through the means of natural selection. Judaism, like
other technologies, tends to manipulates nature to adapt to
man, rather than man to nature.-Heisman



Jewish Biblical-modern values devalue death, and thus
devalue natural selection, and thus devalue biological
evolution. What Nazis failed to grasp, however, is that God
does not represent the opposite of evolution, but rather, a
paradigm shift within evolution. Biblical-modern values
devalue biological evolution because they reach beyond
biology towards postbiological evolution.
The obvious incompatibility between the conception of
creation and Darwinian evolution can very easily obscure
the evolutionary reason why these two paradigms necessarily
clash. If God’s rule over “creation” represents the rule of
postbiological evolution over biological evolution, and God  represents the evolutionary successor to biology at the point
at which biology becomes obsolete, then “creation” appears
distinctly anti-evolutionary for a specific evolutionary
reason: the point at which God rules is precisely the point at
which biological evolution has been slowed to a stop.
“Creation” would then be analogous to the creation of a
virtual world (i.e. a computer simulation) that preserves the
memory of biology in postbiological form. The Bible, by
being the embodiment of a postbiological form of evolution
(i.e. memes) embodies a first step towards total creation of
civilization. Those who live in the artificial or “virtual”
world created by following the commandments or ways of
God have taken a step towards realizing the postbiological
paradigm in a biologically based world.-Heisman

Hebrews who choose death rather than the dishonor of
slavery were, by definition, selected out of the population.
The slave, then, is a kind of survivor. The slave chooses life.
The slave is a slave to the fear of death. The slave’s fear of
death provided a sociobiological foundation for a
“universal” valuation of life for a former slave nation.-Heisman

Ascribing infinite value to each individual was the first
step in the social engineering revolution ascribed to Moses.
A singular, undifferentiated God could sanction lone voices
of dissent against the caste differentiations sanctioned by
polytheistic gods. Monotheism represents the end of the
hierarchy of the gods and the common Egyptian-gentile
values they embodied. On the social level, God legitimated a
kind of equality to undo the lingering sense of inferiority
branded into slaves at the bottom of the Egyptian hierarchy.
Remoralization was the condition, and foundation, of
national regeneration.-Heisman


Moses saw that the only hope for Jewish survival lay in
their ability to learn to work together to form a viable people,
just as many secular Jewish leftists believe all people can
learn to work together to form a viable humanity. This
paradoxical Jewish belief in learning often culminates in the
belief that a Jew can fully transcend his or her Jewishness
through learning. Yet the very existence of Jews is a historic
verification of the ability of nurture to overcome nature. It
should not be surprising, then, that many Jews lack perception of biological factors in the social world, or find
them as something to be corrected.

The Biblical value that breaks the cyclical logic of genetic
continuity is infinite valuation of each individual life in the
eyes of God. The transcendent relationship between God
and individuals means that relationships between people,
especially kinship or familial relationships, can be
overridden by an individual’s relationship with God. This
break in the relationship between an individual and all other
humans, taken to its extreme, implies a break in the
continuity of biological relationships that subordinate an
individual to the selfish genes. Moral individualism or
conscience acts as a monkeywrench in the cyclical universe
of subordination to the reproduction of the selfish gene.-Heisman

The view that Bernays and his nemesis, Chomsky, are
consciously united in some Jewish national conspiracy is
comparable to the belief that blacks have consciously
organized to take over world basketball. While the extent of
Jewish media influence can easily be exaggerated, the
inordinate concentration of Jews in highly influential media  positions does require an evolutionary explanation. Jews
may have an inclination to control human behavior with
words and other media forms because Jews owe their very
existence to their ancestor’s ability to control Jewish behavior
with the media technology commonly known as the Bible.
Modern Jewish media control is only an extension of ancient
Jewish media self-control. Jews may have a genetic ability to
influence human behavior with “nurture” because first,
foremost, and fundamentally, Judaism was founded through
the nurturist ability to overpower their own genetically
maladaptive tendencies. Jews exist because they embody
this paradox of a genetic inclination to correct genetic
inclination with “nurture”, i.e. the laws of Moses.-Heisman

With this in mind, one can grasp how the ability to
override one’s own genes through learning (i.e. Mosaic law)
is related to the traditional notion of being created in image
of God. Mosaic law was a like a self-recursive technological
self-enhancement of Jewish sociobiology. God is like this
Mosaic innovation in the ability to self-modify — taken to its
logical extreme. God is transcending genetic determinism
taken to its logical extreme.-Heisman

Darwin helped clarify the ethics underlying pagan
worship of the warrior. The social Darwinian notion that
death itself is a vehicle of goodness means the more death of
the weak and the unfit, the more natural selection. The more
natural selection, the more goodness and progress towards
biological aristocracy. The natural justice of natural selection
is progress through death. From this point of view, the soldier
represents the human with the greatest virtue because the
soldier is a killer.-Heisman

Why should Chomsky choose Jewish causes over non-
Jewish causes simply because he himself is a Jew? Just as
normative kin selection leads towards favoritism for one’s
own, the Jewish kinship paradox culminates in a specific
disfavoritism of one’s own. In consequence, the “Jewish selfhatred”
that Marx and Chomsky have been charged with is
something of a misnomer. Disfavoritism towards one’s own
people is a corollary, and not an aberration, of extreme, selfconsistent
internationalism.-Heisman

In short, Jews survived their kinship paradox, in part,
through a moral mechanism that capitalizes on persecution
and oppression as a source of collective unity. Because every
single member is threatened, consciousness of the value of
each member is strengthened.-Heisman

The self-contradictions of modern egalitarian progress, placing
equality atop a hierarchy of values, was resolved in Biblical
religion through its original grounding in belief in the
transcendence of God. Without God, however, the “logic” of
modern egalitarianism is simply self-contradictory.-Heisman


There is a reason why the problem of equal justice
appears to be insolvable: Life is exploitation. In order to end
exploitation, we must end life. In order to end exploitation,
we must will death.-Heisman

Modern equality began by dismissing the importance of
biology. Ultimately, it leads to the removal of all biological
factors from the equation of life until the achievement of
death. The logic of equality leads towards the elimination of
all forms of hierarchy that separate life or biological
priorities from the larger physical world. Self-consistent
egalitarianism leads to self-consistent materialism: humans
and other life forms have no inherent basis for viewing
themselves as chunks of “superior matter”, with special
rights above all other material things. The idea that biology
has any special privilege whatsoever over non-biology is in
its very conception anti-egalitarian, and to fulfill and achieve
the enlightenment project is to engage in rational biological
self-destruction.-Heisman

Modern egalitarianism can be viewed as a symptom of a
larger process of economization. While in its common use,
“economics” refers to trade, money, supply and demand,
etc., “economization” is a far larger phenomenon that
ultimately amounts to the translation of biology into
technology.-Heisman

One way of interpreting the Mosaic solution to the Jewish
kinship paradox is genes outsmarting themselves. To totally
outsmart the genes in a literal sense would be biological
death. But to totally outsmart the genes in a more selective
sense would be, for example, to transfer biological
intelligence to a technologically superior substrate, i.e. a
computer. The latter solution is analogous to the Jewish
choice of life through the transcendence of biology.
God is a logical corollary of Mosaic law because Mosaic
law that outsmart biology, taken to its extreme, lead to the
discovery of the paradigm shift symbolized and grasped as
God. Going one step further, the idea of genes that outsmart
themselves is comparable to the idea of an artificial
intelligence that outsmarts itself by improving its own basic
program. These are two analogous steps in a larger
progression: just the non-biological intelligence of Mosaic
law outsmarted biology, God-AI would presumably
outsmart its own source code.-Heisman

Human animals are generally built with a naturally
selected bias towards life, and this is the basic root of the
irrational human preference for life over death. The
irrationality of religion is actually an extension of the
irrationality of the will to live. The irrational choice of life
over death, taken to its logical extreme, is the desire for
immortality; the desire to life forever; the desire to live on in
“the afterlife”. For many, the great lies of the great religions
have been justified for they uphold the greatest lie: the lie
that life is fundamentally superior to death.-Heisman


Here we thus have the transcendence of God out of
exponentially self-improving technologies of artificial
intelligence, and the immanence of God, a presence in
everything, that evolves out from the internet and blurs into
our reality and ourselves. If nanobots or other sensor
technologies can read human minds, then God will always
know where you are, what you do, and what you think. God
will be watching you.-Heisman

The idea here is that, at some point, God-AI will be
politics. Consider, then, how this possibility is echoed in the
traditional conception of God. Traditional Biblical ethics are
primarily domestic ethics; politically internal ethics. The Ten
Commandments, for example, are domestic ethics. Domestic
ethics, characteristic of treatment of conventional insiders,
can be contrasted with ethics characteristic of treatment of
political enemies. The Bible took steps towards making
domestic ethics universal; towards a world in which
outsiders are included into the larger community under
God. This made traditional sense for a distinct theological
reason: it was assumed that God rules over human
pretensions to politics, and that, ultimately, God is politics.-Heisman


To build or not to build? “This question I believe will
divide humanity more bitterly in the 21st century than the
question which divided humanity so bitterly in the 20th,
namely, “Who should own capital?””139 While keeping in
mind that Karl Marx was wrong in fundamental ways, the
question of who owns capital will amount to the question of
who owns the machines; who own technology. It is because
de Garis does not see the connection between the question of
who own capital and the question of who owns advanced
AIs that he remains stuck in the Terran/Cosmist dichotomy.
Marx was foresightful in recognizing that the relentless
accumulation of capital has transformative consequences —
but not foresightful enough to identify the transformative
consequences of AI. Capitalism will develop machines that
displace human labor and the displacement of human labor
by technology will eventually necessitate socialism. The
connection between capitalism and superhuman AIs is that
capitalism drives technological evolution forward and is,
without consciously intending to, driving the evolution of
artificial intelligence. There is every reason to think that
advanced automation and early AI will displace human
labor, create unprecedented unemployment, and necessitate
a new socialistic order.-Heisman

Jesus was different because his soul was different. He was
both inside and outside Judaism simultaneously. The secret to
fathoming the depths of Christianity is to grasp that Jesus’s
soul was half-Jewish-half-Roman. A Tao of interwoven
opposites, he was spiritually united only in faith in God.
Insider within outsider and outsider within insider, Jesus
was a Jew-Roman Jew within Judaism within the Roman
Empire within the Kingdom of God within the Kingdom of
Caesar within the soul of a Jewish Roman-Jew.-Heisman

Birth through rape means existence is sin. Why, then,
would God let Jesus be born? To be persecuted and
tortured? To stand on moral or spiritual ground, he had to
deny himself as a biological being. He had to deny himself “in
the flesh”. If Jesus was to hate sin, he had to hate himself.
The world decreed that he must hate himself for ever being
born and Jesus, in turn, turned against the entire world. To
undo the sin of rape, Jesus had to completely relinquishment
his biological body. His body had to be tortured. The act of
rape could be eliminated only if Jesus’s body was
eliminated.-Heisman

A good Christian should ask himself or herself: have you
hated your mother today? Christian love is not universal
because Jesus specifically preached hatred of the family.
Christian love cannot be universal if the Christian must
“hate…his own life”.
Starting with his very own Jewish family in Nazareth,
Jesus attacked kin selective altruism, and hence, kin selective
selfishness at its very root. Kinship, including the most
radical kinship of one’s relationship to one’s self, must be
hated, not incidentally, but necessarily since the identity of
the self is interwoven with the kinship community that bore
that self as an extension of it (i.e. as an expression of genetic
fitness). Along with the group values of shame and honor
that Jesus attacks, self-consistent hatred deracinates the self
from the claims and bonds of kinship and its entire world of
values.

Without accounting for Jesus’s hatred of the family one,
very simply, cannot understand Christianity. Jesus did not
preach a superficial doctrine of “universal love” but, rather,
a hatred of selfishness so total that it attacked the selfish love
of father and mother, and sister and brother. The
“universalism” of Christianity is built upon a refutation of
the “universalism” of the values of the common, patriarchal
family. Pure, literal individual egoism is, in its implications,
the negation of subordination to kinship logic, and
“altruism” against the egoism of the family was the supreme
individual egoism of Jesus as the negation of subordination
to familial altruism. Christianity is a distinctive source of the implicit Western
modern valuation that kin selective altruism is ultimately evil.
Hatred of kin selective altruism is the foundation of the
distinctly Christian form of altruism that systematically
negates those kinship roots. Jesus’s love of the stranger is
founded upon “Christian” hatred of the family. It is from this
attack on family values that a distinctively Christian life
follows. The traditional negation of Christianity’s roots in
Jewish sociobiology is only an extension of this interior logic.
The demolition of the family is the deepest, most
profound human foundation of Jesus’s moral innovation.
Without this thorough attack on the family, the purity of
Jesus’s vision of the end slips back into Judaism’s honoring
of father and mother on the path to the end. But with this
overcoming of the family, Jesus’s vision was consummated
and Christianity was born.

The great Roman hierarchy was built on a central
contradiction: the glorified selfish altruism of duty to Rome.
Christianity worked by exposing this contradiction to Jesus’s
radicalization of the ideal of altruism: consistent self-sacrifice
unto the self-destruction of the ego. This was the seditious
genius of Jesus. Christianity deconstructed the Roman
hierarchy by pulling the thread of altruism loose from its
conventional association with familial love and thus
unraveled the whole structure as if a yarn from a knitted
sweater.

Love killed honor. The values of honor and shame are
appropriate for group moralities where the group is valued
over “the individual”. Crucially, such a morality is
inconceivable without a sense of group identity. Jesus’s
morality became liberated from a specifically Jewish group
identity. Once it dominated gentile morality, it also eroded
kin and ethnic identity. The Christian war against honor
moralities became so successful and traditional its
premodern origins were nearly forgotten along with the
native pagan moralities it conquered.

Liberalism continues the Christian paradigm by
interpreting Homo sapiens as individuals, rather than
members of groups such as racial groups. If it is wrong to
assume Jesus can be understood on the basis of group
membership, and his half-Jewish/half-Roman descent is a
key to understanding this, then the evolutionary connection
between Christianity and modern liberalism becomes
clearer. Jesus was a paradigmatic individual exception to
group rules, and his example, universalized, profoundly
influenced modern liberal emphasis on individual worth in
contradistinction to assumptions of group membership.

It was precisely because shame in his hereditary origins
was so radical, and his pride in his non-biological identity as
the “son of God” was so radical, that Jesus helped initiate a
radical break with the shame/honor ethics of the ancient
pagan world. Jesus’s values implicated the end of the
hereditary world by living the logical consequences of
denying the importance of his hereditary origins. This is a
central premise underlying the entire modern rupture with
the ancient world: breaking the import of hereditary origins
in favor of individual valuations of humans. In escaping the
consequences of a birth that, in his world, was the most
ignoble possible, Jesus initiated the gentile West’s rupture
with the ancient world. Jesus’s repression of shame in his
own biological birth was a sociobiological foundation of
Christianity’s evolutionary impact on modern values.
The rupture between the ancient and the modern

The average secular liberal rejects Biblical stories as
mythology without rejecting the compassion-oriented moral
inheritance of the Bible as mythology. That people, still, after
Nietzsche, still tout these old, juvenile enlightenment
critiques of Christianity would seem to be another refutation
of the belief that a free and liberal society will inevitably lead
to a progress in knowledge. The primitive enlightenment
critique of Christianity as a superstition used as a form of
social control usually fails to account that its “social control”
originated as a weapon that helped to bring down the
Goliath of Rome.

Christian memes impacted Christianized genes by
making the highest the lowest, the first the last, the alpha the
omega and, in general, rewriting the rules of the social game.
Christianity literally helped to breed the progressive left by
gradually altering the social status of certain human types. It
made conventional Darwinian winners moral losers and
enshackled the genetically adaptive function of pagan
virtues in its moral snares.

Within the hypocrisy industry that Christianity created,
those inconsistent with general ideal principles tend to be
the ones that survive. To be fully consistent would be as
biologically suicidal as dying on the cross. The ethically
honest ones tend to be selected out of the population. The
cheaters of these ethical principles tend to multiply. In short,
the supremacy of Christian ideals tends to breed a
bourgeoisie; egoists who follow the moral letter in a practical
sense while trampling over ideal spirit. This is why
Pharisees survived to become the ancestors of most Jews
while Jesus got the cross. This is how Christianity helped to
create the modern world.

The history of early Christianity has notable points of
resemblance with the modern working-class movement.
Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of
oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves
and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all
rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both
Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming
salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this
salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism
places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both
Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming
salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this
salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism
places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both
are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and
made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of
the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of
religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all
persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge
victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its
appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in
the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years
socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory
absolutely certain.-frederich engels

Christian altruism is diametrically opposed to Roman
altruism. Christian altruism economized Roman altruism. By
economized, I mean that Christian altruism effectually
equals, counters, undoes, and unravels the synthesis of
virtue that made Roman imperial aristocracy viable.
Whereas Roman values synthesized the good with the virtues
of the soldier, Biblical monotheism disassociated the good
from the virtues of the soldier. This is a form of
economization in the sense that the synthesis of values
conducive to political supremacy are analyzed, dissected,
and disassociated in way that directly opposes the humanly
political.

Christianity collapsed into capitalism, in part, because
Christianity attacked the patriarchal virtues of duty and
family that override selfish individualism. Above all, it was
the Christian valuation of a form of altruism that subverts
kin selective altruism that helped pave the way towards
capitalist individualism. In a sense, Christianity led the
modern West to a state more like Jews (Judaism was
 originally a technological corrective against selfish
individualism or internal factionalism). This means that
Christianity inadvertently helped produce the capitalist
world criticized by Marx.

The dawn of Christianity marked a great split between
biological and postbiological evolution because Christian
values generated a great split between body and mind, i.e.
between genetically adaptive inclinations of the body and an
ethical standard in opposition to bodily inclinations.
Whereas paganism tended to harmonize mind and body,
Christian values tended to divide mind and body. Christian
memes such as the notion of the Kingdom of God, if taken
seriously, signify memes in opposition to genes, and memes
ruling over genes.

The Zeitgeist of modern progress that Dawkins referred to
can only be contrasted with Biblical teachings if the spirit of
Christianity is contrasted with the laws (or actual practices)
of Christians. This just happens to be quite similar to the
paradigm of Jesus condemning Pharisaic hypocrisy. Jesus
taught reverence for spirit over law. Jesus took the most
distinctive social principles of Judaism — “the essence” or
spirit of Judaism — and radicalized it. What Jesus did on a
theological level, liberals do on a political level.


The infinite value of human lives in ancient Judaism
exposes a technical deficiency; the inability to cohere into an
effective, unified, national body of obedient individuals. Yet
if what distinguishes Jews is negative; a lack of capacity; a
dissent against the Überorganism model, how does that add
up to a positive identity? If an Überorganism, via kinship, is
by definition more than the sum of its individual members,
how can Jews be considered more than the sum of their
parts, if they simply oppose it? Lack of apparent exploitation
of members as cogs in the Überorganism was reinterpreted
as a basis for moral superiority as God’s chosen people. The
practical, technical inability to subordinate and organize
towards the complex differentiations of the Überorganism
model was flaunted as the foundation for a new moral order.

In consequence, Judaism works because Jewish values, in
their most uncompromised forms, are systematically
incompatible with the Überorganism model represented by
Egyptians or Nazis. The very existence of the complex
sociobiological differentiations that culminate in an
Überorganism is dependent on the subordination of its
members to the political whole. Dissidence towards that way
of life in the form of omega altruism over alpha altruism is
the definition of its dysfunction. Taken to its extreme, omega
altruism culminates in the death of the political system. The
moral reversal from means to ends; from a slave-technology
to a child of God, is an implicit program for the deconstruction
of the Überorganism model represented by
Egyptians and Nazis.

The extreme political right leads to treating individuals
only as means of their selfish genes. The extreme political
left leads to mass individual survivalism that overrides the
kin selective developmental logic of the selfish genes. The
extreme right leads to political control over biological
evolution. The extreme left leads to overriding direct control
over biological evolution.

Modernity, whether liberal democratic or Marxist, is
characterized by the precedence of economics over racialbiology
and politics. The Judeocide was economic interest
mastered by biological priorities. The most extreme
implications of Hitler’s racial-biological premises were
economically irrational when judged by the premise of “the
individual”, i.e. the economics of death camps. Conversely,
the economic premises of capitalist or communist systems
make the extreme implications of racial-biological premises
irrational. Hitler refuted Marx by recognizing the
incompatibility of these priorities and by overcoming Marx’s
assumption of natural economic determinism.

Aber es ist ihm damit nicht Ernst. To be serious about an
idea, one must be push it to its most extreme consequence
and conclusion. Are moderns serious about the idea that
biology does not matter? Are moderns willing to push
economic materialism to its logical conclusion?

Judaism is built on the general valuation that life is
superior to death. The entire Jewish religion is built around a
 fundamental separation of life from death. Auschwitz was
the absolute violation of this separation that culminated in
the Sonderkommando’s life in death.

Just as Anglo-Americans killed Germans in order to
restore the principle of the sanctity of human life, to choose
survival is to choose between notions of evil. The
Sonderkommando demonstrates how vices or moral
compromises can ultimately equal the most outright crimes.
But, above all, reasoning strictly upon the premises of
modern individualistic philosophy forces one to accept that
the Sonderkommandos were right. The Sonderkommandos
were right, strictly speaking, from the values characteristic
of modernity: the “rational” value of individual selfpreservation.

A limited tolerance for
Christianity and especially groups such as the “Positive
Christians” was, for Hitler, something to be temporarily
entertained among the masses. Pastor Martin Niemöller saw
the Positive Christians as nationalists and racists first, and
Christians second. Yet the “positive” in Positive Christianity
was actually only the residual paganism that was never fully
eradicated in the first place. “Negative” Christianity, or
altruism that opposes duty to the state, would correspond to
actual Christianity as proscribed by the ethics of Jesus.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and bretheren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

Just as Jesus had turned family values on their head, the
Nazis would turn Jewish familial values on their head. Nazi
heaven created a world where Jews destroy one another
rather than help one another. The greatest victory of all over
the Jewish “invention of conscience” was mastery over the
conscience of Sonderkommandos that actively participated
in the destruction of their own humanity. The Nazis killed
the souls of Sonderkommandos by forcing them to help
eliminate Jewish bodies.

What, then, did the Nazis attempt to do? The Nazis
attempted to invert the inverters; to radically uproot the
radical uprooters; to deracinate the race that deracinates the
races; to deny the value of the race that denies the value of
race; to arrogate an infinite valuation of death upon their
infinite valuation of life; to meet their unqualified will to live
with an unqualified will to kill. It was because Jews
spawned an ethic of kindness and humanity that Jews were
singled out for the ultimate cruelty and inhumanity. Nazis
made the highest law the killing of the highest moral law
“Thou shall not kill”. The Nazis willed the rebirth of
 biological evolution through the revaluation of the value of
death. Auschwitz represents a kind of “principle” and that
“principle” is biological evolution through Darwinian
selection. The principle of equality implies the end of
biological selection, and the Nazis obsessively identified
Jews with the principle of equality. The God of the Jews,
Jewish egalitarianism, and Jewish ethics selected for the
elimination of selection. Auschwitz was selection for the
elimination of the selectors of the elimination of selection.

Just as the Nazis radically desecrated the Biblical
commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, the deniers radically
desecrate the Biblical commandment “Thou shalt not lie”.
Just as the act of killing Jews kills conscience, the act of lying
about the murders kills conscience, multiplying the Nazi
will to annihilate the Judeo-Christian roots of conscience.
When combined, these strategies amount to the final aim of
the total sociobiological annihilation of all Jewish existence.

Nazism was not purely German phenomenon, needless to
say. It incorporated an intellectual pillar in the English
materialism of Darwin. Darwin represented a far more
radical historical materialism than Marx: biological
materialism, or the notion that humans are material things.
So for Heidegger to accept Nazism, he was inevitably led to
accept a basis in Darwinian materialism.

Even if
Hitler killed every single Jew on Earth, economic-technological
development would lead to the Singularity no
less. In other words, even if Jews have played a
disproportionate role in developing the path towards
postbiological evolution, the law of accelerating returns
would lead towards postbiological AI — with or without
Jews.

More than the façade of castles, for some it was the
Normans themselves and their entire conquering way of life
that represented tyranny, aristocracy, and inequality. For
some who called themselves “modern”, to oppose the
Norman was to advance freedom, democracy, and equality.
For some, to oppose the Norman was to oppose the political
tradition that began with William the Conqueror, the
founding father of the British Empire.

What Paine was griping about has not been adequately
explained. Yet a person socialized within the norms of
liberal democracy is, in a certain way, one of the most
prejudiced against the assumptions required to understand
him. Americans are the most biased against Paine’s insight
because most of its founders bestowed upon them the
foundational, freedom system interpretation by which to not
see the unpleasantness of the deeper origins of the founding
itself. It is precisely because liberal democratic institutions
evolved as a peaceable political solution to a hereditary
discontinuity between rulers and ruled that its citizen fail to
understand why that would be a problem. The impersonal
style of “modern” Western government is the response to an
original breakdown in kinship relationships and this elicits
common sense skepticism as to whether race and kinship
really matter at all. Liberal democracy is a political solution
that formally makes kinship not matter because kinship does
matter.

Of course, that blacks possessed a distinctive African
ancestry is admissible, but the ancestry of the South’s ruling
race is apparently inadmissible. This must be a state of affairs
almost more peculiar than slavery itself. Everyone else
across the world is permitted a distinctive ethnic or racial
identity except the great Southern slave masters. For some
peculiar reason, the original Southern slave masters are not
allowed to have a distinct ethnic or racial identity. This
means that the only people in American history who
apparently have no distinct ethnic or racial origins beyond
being white are precisely the same people who thought
other people could and should be enslaved on the basis of
their ethnic or racial origins.

These aristocratic planters must have been the most
raceless, bloodless, deracinated, rootless, cosmopolitan
universalists ever known to history. We must conclude that
of all white people, these aristocrats must have valued
heredity or genealogy the very least. The Virginia planters
were most peculiar, not for being owners of black slaves, but
for being the least ethnically self-conscious white people in
world history. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?


This is really one of the great, peculiar paradoxes of world
history: the elite Southern planters, one of the most extreme,
unapologetic, and explicitly racist groups in history, are
precisely those who may have the most obscure racial
identity in history. Their claim to fame has been tied to
identifying blacks as a race of natural slaves and in
identifying themselves as race of natural masters — a
“master race” without a racial identity. Perhaps the time has
come to recognize that they have also merited a claim to
fame simply for the obscurity of their racial identity.

It is as if, in America, of all places, no explanation is
required for this profound cultural difference between North
and South. America was supposedly a country defined by
“the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class”.
But the idea of a slave race assumes the existence of a master
race, not a bourgeois or middle-class race. The Union was
not threatened by the leadership of poor Southern whites; it
was threatened by the leadership of a subgroup of whites
with an aristocratic philosophy that mastered the entire
cultural order of the South.

The issue of slavery was literally beyond the document
called the United States Constitution and the American Civil
War is the classic demonstration of the impossibility of
understanding American history on the “legal” principles on
that paper. Southern slavery, defended by the United States
Constitution, was a direct extension of Norman-Cavalier
culture of conquest and mastery. This is the historic basis of
the racial equality between Northern Anglo-Saxons and
blacks: both had been enslaved by Normans. Normans
enslaved the black race in America just as they had once
enslaved the Anglo-Saxon race in England.
It appears that Northern Anglo-Saxons believe that they
are racially superior to blacks on this point: while blacks
bear the burden of history as a once enslaved and oppressed
people, Anglo-Saxons are above such historical misfortunes.
While blacks had been victims of past racial oppression, the
angelic, slave-liberating Anglo-Saxons of the North stand in
transcendent moral majesty over such base origins. The
Anglo-Saxons, it would seem, are only conquerors and never
the conquered; only free and never slaves.

Anglo-Saxons could never have been treated akin to
niggers. Saxploitation is impossible! One can only suppose
that Anglo-Saxon believe they are Superniggers. American
Anglo-Saxons seemingly believe that they are an Über-race;
a race superior to race; the race whose superiority consists of
being the only race superior to race. Since Anglo-Saxons are
always clearly superior to the status of niggers “reduced by
the law to perpetual slavery” they must be Superniggers. (I
admit that I sampled this theme of “Supernigger” from an
old album by that Supernigger of comedy, Richard Pryor.)
Southerners were much more modest on this point.

While the proud Northern victory in the Civil War freed
both Anglo-Saxons and blacks from the shadow of their
historic oppressors, admitting the Norman Yoke would also
be admitting a past of Anglo-Saxon slavery. Anglo-Saxon
racial pride itself demanded that the victory be sublimated
in universal terms. Why, then, is America the exceptional
and paradoxical country where a black man can become
president? The answer is Anglo-Saxon racial pride.

Liberal democracy in the English-speaking world is not
the product of either Anglo-Saxons or Normans. It would be
more accurate to claim that liberal democracy is a product of
the evolution of an ethnic conflict between Normans and
Anglo-Saxons. These two groups with opposite political
tendencies were neither fully compatible nor fully
incompatible, and the grinding tension between times of
reconciliation and times of civil war produced the dynamics
of liberal democratic “universalism”.

While egalitarian individualism is an abstract idea,
one observable consequence of its political application is an
increased indifference to kinship relations. The failure to
decisively resist and expel the foreign Norman body in
England correlated with the rise of individualism. In other
words, failure to preserve the freedom and integrity of the
kinship foundations of the body politic was compensated
with the rise of the freedom and integrity of the individual
body. This breakdown towards individualism was further
universalized when it was discovered that it could be used
to oppose the ‘strong family values’ that was the basis of the
Norman nepotism system.

What was the difference between the new Norman rulers
of England and the old? A law called the murdrum fine, a
high monetary penalty, was imposed by Normans for
homicide against Normans. This collective fine was imposed
on the unit of local government called the hundred. It was
thought necessary due to prevalence of attacks against the
conquerors. If a Norman was found murdered and his
assassin was not apprehended within five days, the entire
hundred where the murder took place would be forced to
pay this steep fine.496 This policy served as an effective
deterrent to murderous expressions of ethnic conflict.
Why has the English language and civilization conquered
the world? The beginning of English-speaking world’s
inordinately imperialistic political force began with the
Norman Conquest. The inordinately nepotistic behavior that
characterized the conquest was only a relatively extreme
expression of common kin selection. People, after all, “are
biased in favor of their kin in every human society.”498 Like
rhesus macaques, people have inherited the genetically
adaptive behaviors of their pre-historic ancestors. Thus, if
we are to inquire into the origins of political order and thus
into a pre-historic “state of nature”, a study of rhesus
macaques can shed light on elements of our common
evolutionary history.

Moreover, any attempt to mark out an especial vilification
of Normans for engaging in genetically adaptive behavior
could be considered identical to a general vilification of
human nature itself. Every human alive owes their existence
to their ancestors’ willingness to engage in war to defend
their lives for themselves and their genetic successors. As
Maestripieri put it, “[A] despotic and nepotistic organization
makes an army a perfect war machine” because it is well
adapted to its function, “just as the anatomy and shape of a
bird’s beak is adapted to its function, for example, of
cracking hard seeds.”512

The strategic marriage of Emma of Normandy to an
English king was not separate from the gradual, protocolonial,
ingratiation and infiltration of Normans in the
years that preceded the Conquest. These developments were
preambles to an aggressive kin selection strategy that set its
predatory eyes on an England weak from internal divisions,
Vikings invasions, and the poor political judgment of King
Ethelred. As Searle observed, “when one compares the
leaders of William II’s generation with their contemporaries
in France and Anglo-Saxon England, the Norman leaders’
ability to cooperate is their dominant characteristic and
underlies the discipline that they exhibited.”523 The
Domesday Book of 1086, the most systematic accounting of
the spoils of England, was only the culmination of Norman
spying, scouting, and shrewd accounting of their English
prey — a program that had begun well before 1066.
Through this conflict between the need for legitimacy and
an aggressive kin selection strategy, the question of whether
William had any intention to share power with native
Anglo-Saxons can be addressed. Although military
domination and turning the other cheek are not the easiest
aspirations to reconcile, William made the appearance of
giving it a try. By making rebellions the occasion for
expropriations, the conquered natives themselves could be
denounced as treacherous aggressors.

The Anglo-Saxons were divided and conquered. The
maintenance of the appearance of cooperation with the
natives was a cynical ploy. This conclusion is justified, not
simply by a surmise of intentions, but by an evaluation of
the kin selective behavioral patterns both preceding and
succeeding the Conquest. If heredity mattered among all
medieval people, for the composition of a hereditary
aristocracy it was decisive. Normans had greater genetic
interests in their own kin over any Englishman and that was
decisive. The most able or powerful Englishmen were the
greatest competitors to Norman genetic interests and this is
why the native aristocracy was annihilated while the masses
were largely spared.

All of the arguments about rightful succession to
England’s throne in 1066 confirm the underlying assumption
that some form of kinship formed a basis for political
legitimacy. The association of kinship and legitimacy was
part of the common sense of medieval times. If kinship did
not matter, one would be at a complete loss to explain why
wars were fought, why pedigrees were preserved, and why
the entire political order was routinely obsessed with
connections of heredity. William’s hereditary claims, for
example, implied that kinship connection was such an
important basis for legitimacy that it trumped even the
disconnect of French language and culture (notwithstanding
the proto-colonial inroads Normans had been making
among England’s rulers). Without a sociobiological
accounting of the kinship values of the adversaries at
Hastings, there is no way to realistically account for what
these people were fighting for.

Yet a time comes when the niceties are overdrawn, the
welcome is worn out, and it is time to thrown out the inlaws.
The Puritan and American revolutions asserted the
hereditary rights of the common people; natural rights;
birthrights of Englishmen, and later, the rights of man.
Those impeccably genetically adaptive genocidal behaviors
that characterized the Conquest were outlawed by the rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For the
conquered, individual rights were genetically adaptive.

This condition of hereditary hostility against the ruling
order, and not a purely structural organization of society, is
what captures the original meaning of “feudalism”.
“Feudalism” is manifest in the lingering “class” conflicts
between the conquerors and the conquered. “Feudalism” is
exemplified, not by the abstract principle that the king owns
all the land or even the “medieval” social structure brought
about the Conquest, but by the bloodfeud unleashed in protomodern
England. The English Civil War was not fought
against “feudalism”, it was ‘blood-feudalism’.

1688 would overcome 1660 as the new 1066. For the Saxon
nation it was, as Thomas Jefferson later put it, a “re-conquest
of their rights”.554 This is how “conquest”, which would
seem to logically entail slavery and the loss of rights, could
be conceived as liberty and the (re-)gaining of rights.
A key insight of historian George Garnett’s Conquered
England was the recognition that, while the Normans
preserved many Anglo-Saxons traditions after 1066, they
often changed their meaning. So while traditional Anglo-
Saxons forms were preserved, their meanings were often
fundamentally altered under a “veil of propriety”. There is a
deep similarity between 1066 and 1688 in this respect: the
form of the Norman invasion and conquest of 1066 was
preserved in 1688, but its meaning was changed. The
“revolutionary” change of 1688 was successful as
paradigmatic English tradition because it was a conservation
of the form of the Conquest that subverted its original
meanings. That was the historical meaning of the
“revolution” of 1688.
The Dutch-Germanic-Protestant
Conquest of 1688 would overcome the Norman Conquest of
1066, not in the moral manner of the Puritans, but by
attempting to outdo the conquerors at their own game. The
carefully stage-managed invasion or conquest of 1688 could
be a “bloodless” or non-violent revolution because its whole
importance was symbolic. William of Orange’s conquest of
England was designed to override, overcome, and replace
the symbolic importance of 1066 with a new constitutional
paradigm for the Kingdom. This was the English way of
political equality: Norman and Saxon could each feel that
they had conquered one another.

Ultimately, William superiority over the other claimants
to England’s throne was superiority in force of arms. The
brute fact of the Conquest speaks for itself: any Anglo-
Saxons who believed William’s rule was legitimate were
saddled with a new Norman aristocracy. Any Anglo-Saxons
who believed William’s rule was illegitimate were saddled
with a new Norman aristocracy. The fait accompli was
justified through a legitimate principle of the European
civilization of that time: the right of conquest.

To be consistent, Locke’s argument had to undo the entire
logic of patriarchy from the political to the familial. He drew
some exceptions, but the line of his thinking undoes kin
selective preferences generally, leaving a raw product of
unrelated, isolated individuals. Freedom and equality thus
evolved as a substitute and replacement for the kin selective
factors that underlay the hive model of human political
relations. The impersonal nature of modern liberal
democratic government is, at least in part, an adaptation to
the perception that the government is constituted by cold
and distant masters rather than the genuine fathers of the
nation. “Natural” rights were opposed to an unnatural, faux-father
government.

Unable to fully conserve a lost Saxon past in way that it
was preserved among a certain cognate nation, this liberal
crypto-conservatism would instead conserve both rebellion
and acquiescence to the role they had adapted to in the old
order. If Saxon democrats were to institute a traditional
hierarchical state, associated with the Normans, they would
lose an essential element of their identity. The revolution thus
conserved the non-aristocratic identity they had adapted
to.625 Keeping government weak also conserves this Anglo-
Saxon adaptation in the sense that government retains the
assumption of its alienation from the people. The
universalism of Anglo-Saxon democracy conserves the loss
of a distinctly political-national Anglo-Saxon identity.

American democracy is a continuation of the English
“class” system in that historical Anglo-Saxon ethnic hostility
to the descendants of the Normans is implicitly ranked as
the highest “class” of ethnic hostility. Other ethnic hostilities,
especially towards blacks, are ranked as of an inferior
“class” of ethnic-racial hostility. The institutionalization of
this fossilized ethnic hostility in cultural anti-government
resentment is, in effect, how America has preserved itself in
spite of the many other ethnic hostilities that have
subsequently emerged.

A strong strain of the ‘Saxonist’ political tradition,
exemplified by Jefferson, is the valuation of a feminine,
passive role for the state. The government is there to be like
a mother who makes sure her children play nice with one
another and not kill each other. She makes sure no one
pilfers his or her neighbor’s property, especially if one owns
an unequal amount of it. Aside from this, the only thing that
government should aspire to is impotence. Senility is a
virtue of good government; government that is weak,
emasculated, easy to push around, and manipulate if it gets
out of line. Somehow, along the way, this formula for
political weakness produced the greatest superpower in
world history

The universalism of American anti-aristocratic political
ideals represents the height, not the nadir, of Anglo-Saxon
ethnocentrism. American universalism is an expression of
the world-historical magnitude of the Norman domination
of the Anglo-Saxon political world

The primary reason for the abstract egalitarian
identification of Anglo-Saxon and blacks, then, was only
partly the empathy of one subjugated people for another.
First and foremost, the radical Saxon vendetta against the
old conquering class was so old and bitter, it proved far
stronger than racial hostility to blacks. The revolutionary
reverse apartheid against the elite Norman legacy took
precedence over any prejudice against blacks. The
universalism of the revolution, although deeply influenced
by Christianity, is a sublimated radicalization of Anglo-
Saxon ethnocentrism which implicated blacks as an
afterthought.

The Confederate war for mastery over other humans was
in principle the same as the battle of Hastings and its
consequence of Normans as masters over England. The
revolutionary system of rights that fought duty to the
British-Conquest order in America eventually implicated the
neo-Norman slavery of the South. This Jeffersonian triumph
of rights over duties was the source of Fitzhugh’s most basic
complaints: “Men seek to become independent in order to
cease to pay labor, in order to become masters, without the
cares, duties, and responsibilities of masters.”708

Jefferson’s ownership of black slaves only illustrates the
depths of his egalitarian-ethnocentrism: equality was
designed to bring down the Normans, not to raise up the
blacks. While the idea that equality is superior to inequality
may be self-contradictory, the argument that democracy is
superior to aristocracy correlated with the argument that
Anglo-Saxons are superior to Normans. By the time of the
rise of the Anglo-Saxon racialist interpretation of Manifest
Destiny, it became increasingly obvious that Anglo-Saxon
supremacism over Norman supremacism was being
disguised as racial egalitarianism.

Whereas in 1066 it was the Anglo-Saxons who were the
technologically backward provincials, in the 1860s the tables
had turned. Just as the Restoration of 1660 preserved the
Founding union of Norman and Saxon established by
William the Conqueror in Britain, the Restoration of 1865
preserved the Founding union of Norman and Saxon in
America. Just as the Norman Conquest of 1066 destroyed the
Anglo-Saxon aristocratic order, the Anglo-Saxon conquest of
1865 destroyed this Norman aristocratic order. This was the
historic racial equality achieved by the American Civil War.


Last edited by stargazer on Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 814
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 32
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:59 pm

Benjamin Franklin once concluded, “there is a natural
inclination in mankind to Kingly Government.”742 The gang
is perhaps the most primal male expression of that
inclination for “Kingly government.” Left without an outlet
in an emasculated Anglo-Saxon femocracy, gangster rap
culture and black male athletes fed that natural inclination
and fit the cultural and mental archetype of the alpha-male
that Normans slave masters once occupied. Diverting
patriarchal instincts against the WASP civilization that
repressed it, this world has truly been turned upside down.
Observing the contradiction between the liberal morality of
democracy and the popularity of gangster rap culture helps
one understand how the medieval Normans could once have
be admired by those they conquered and how Puritan
morality evolved in opposition to that contradiction.

It’s really very funny. Behind this entire leftward
Western-American movement to empower the poor, women,
minorities, homosexuals, and other downtrodden folk, in
effect, pushing the whole thing forward, there lies hidden
and obscured this primal issue of male pride among a
conquered people. Feminists who have inherited the
Lockean denial of biological nature that underpins the
original theory of liberal democracy are, in effect,
perpetuating the victory of this medieval Anglo-Saxon
patriarchal pride that refuses to see in themselves a defeated
people.
America has inherited this stubborn refusal to connect the
origins of democratic revolution to this medieval
emasculation. The Anglo-Saxon men have so often preferred
to see themselves as Protestants, “individuals,” liberals;
anything but the descendants of a defeated and conquered
nation. In short, they refuse to admit their weakness. Just
like a man.
Whatever genetic population characteristics may have
existed before the Conquest, there is a biological foundation
for the association between Anglo-Saxons and democracy.
Unnatural selection by Normans helped adapt the Anglo-
Saxon ethnicity to a non-aristocratic identity; a self-definition
as the “body of the people.” With this genetic pruning, the
Normans helped engineering the democracy that would
eventually oppose them.
At a conference at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848,
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organized the first
American conference to address women’s rights. Applying
principles of freedom gleaned from their abolitionist
activism to women, they gave form to their fight in The
Declaration of Sentiments. It was modeled directly on the
Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and
women are created equal….The history of mankind is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of
man toward woman, having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over her…the law, in
all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of
man, giving all power into his hands….He has so framed
the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes….
In short, democracy is, in principle, a form of feminism.
On the level of classical political patriarchy, the sub-political
is female and the political is male. The democratic revolution
began as a rebellion in the household of the body politic: the
‘female’ body of the people against the ‘male’ rulers. It
aimed towards equality between the political and subpolitical
in an attempt to blur the distinction between the
two. It was a way that the ‘Anglo-Saxon-woman’ attempted
to overcome her caste-role under the Normans, despite
bearing the distinguishing marks of feminization through
subjugation. Saxon-feminism is the product of the genderbending
consequences of the Norman feminization of the
Anglo-Saxon nation. Democracy is a kind of femocracy and
varieties of feminism are its ruling political principles.
Anglo-Saxons, if truly left to
themselves in America, would most likely have developed a
far more normal racial nationalism. It was the Norman-
Cavaliers and their aristocratic Southern culture that
decisively crafted the constitution of the American founding
in ways that countered, constrained, and controlled Anglo-
Saxon ethnic nationalism. It was the Normans of the South
that upped the ante by refusing to let the mediocre
standards of Northern egalitarianism simply be. Southern
slavery provoked the North to come to terms with what they
really believed. The Norman-based aristocracy forced
Northerners to confront their pragmatic compromises and
clarify their beliefs in a fight to the death.772 Black slaves
were used, not only as labor, but as a means of challenging
the premise of human equality. In raising the stakes to a
contest of will that left room for only total victory or total
defeat, the Normans are as important as the Anglo-Saxons to
the ultimate outcome of human equality in America.
What the American Civil War achieved was an Anglo-
Saxon Yoke. The old Norman aristocracy, after all, had
become a stumbling block to an Anglo-Saxon manifest
destiny. In order to defeat the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons
had to travel to the summit of historical hypocrisy and
subdue the South with a new right of conquest.
It is entirely appropriate that the Lincoln Memorial in
Washington was modeled on the ancient Greek Temple of
Zeus; the king of the pagan gods. Lincoln was to become to
America what William the Conqueror had been to Britain; a
mighty, pagan Zeus crowned with a Christian halo. The
Lincoln Memorial should really be called the Temple of
Lincoln the Conqueror.
Yet when one asks where modern democracy in the
English-speaking world began, there is clearly some truth to
the Whiggish belief that its legal or constitutional origins are
to be found in Magna Carta. “Democracy” began within
Norman aristocracy as Norman barons attempted to rule
themselves and England at the expense of both the king and
the masses. The paradox of democracy with aristocracy is
exemplified by the word “peer”. While a peer is an equal, the
peerage, as used in England, signifies “class” privilege.
Magna Carta is a Magna Paradox because it supports two
opposite principles simultaneously. On one hand, it attacks
the authority of the king and this side of the Magna Carta
tradition took precedence during the American
Revolutionary period. On the other hand, it originally
supported the privileges of an aristocracy and this side of
Magna Carta tradition took precedence during the American
Civil War.
Just as Matilda’s marriage to an Angevin king broke
down kinship and political alliance bonds above the
Norman aristocracy, the progressive intermarriage of lower
ranking Normans with the Anglo-Saxon population began to
question assumptions of privilege attached to the original
Norman conqueror/conquered Anglo-Saxon distinction.
Magna Carta stipulated that the “lesser barons” be
summoned only through sheriffs. This can be seen as a
maturation of the distinction between the “greater”
Normans and the “lesser” Normans who became associated
with the Anglo-Saxon “class”. The hereditary character of
the peerage reached a further level of formalization in the
beginning of the fourteenth century through the extension of
the Norman custom of primogeniture from estates to seats in
Parliament. The same pattern of reaction to encroaching
assimilation with a formal reconstitution of “class” privilege
can be seen in the America’s Confederate rebellion.

Individualism is an internal apartheid. Since the foreign
Norman outsider became, in part, an insider and the native
insiders were partly gutted towards the outside of the
Conquest establishment, individualism posed the possibility
of liberation from the inside out. Unable to expel the foreign
invasion of Normans and gain freedom by externalizing
them, the ‘Plan B’ solution of individual liberty evolved as a
means of gaining freedom internally. In the case of the
American founding, the very existence of the Normans of
the South helped keep the Anglo-Saxons of the North from
reverting to a straightforward nationalism. By continuing
the tradition of not resisting, but adapting and assimilating
foreign elements, the foundation for the American tradition
of accommodating foreign peoples was laid.

Individualism successfully negates ethnic conflict for a
specific reason. Individuation is a form of differentiation; the
inverse and opposite of the kin selective based
differentiation of the hive. It works by the very nature of its
antithesis to the logic of kin selection. Individualism
liberalized the extended kinship circle by devaluing the
importance of kinship relationships between individuals.
What is America? Americanism is not something that
began in 1776 or even in 1649. Hundreds of years before the
modern revolutions, the Anglo-Saxons had been begun slow
and inchoate preparation for the full implications of their
national death in 1066. America only finished what the
Normans started. American norms of liberalism actually
preserved Anglo-Saxon adaptation to ethnic defeat by
moralizing them.
The Anglo-Saxons died as a nation in the year 1066, and
the Normans were the killers. Rising from the “dark ages”,
like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the Anglo-Saxon
nation slowly rose from their political death. With political
survival lost and its old English body expired, the new
world bore witness to their resurrection as a new kind of
nation, a nation not of blood and body, but of a kind of
spiritual creed. The new world is the “next world”; the
second coming of the Saxon. America is the literal afterlife of
the Anglo-Saxon nation.
The fundamental issue behind the secularization thesis is
this: reason has not yielded a reason to think that the most
fundamental values can be derived from reason. If values
are not derivable from reason, then human rights are not
fundamentally rational and an explanation for them must be
sought in a source other than pure reason.
To understand Puritanism, one must understand Friedrich
Nietzsche’s conception of a slave morality. Puritanism was a
slave morality. Puritan values are not the values of Norman
conquerors; they are the values of the conquered. Puritan
values are not the values of the master; they are the values of
the slave. This is how Biblical slave morality became modern
virtue. And this is how the issue of the right and wrong of
slavery compelled American Civil War.
In short, American-style Christianity could more
accurately be called Anglo-Judaism. The contradictions
behind the American ‘cathedral of commerce’ make sense
when one uncovers the Jewish roots of Christianity.
American liberal democracy is actually a rediscovery of the
Jewish basis of Christianity. Americanism represents a
renaissance of the more normative Jewish “spirit” that lay
buried under the extremism of Jesus. How this happened is,
in a certain sense, simple: in shooting for the radicalism of
Christianity, the West landed within the realistic moderation
of Judaism.
To clarify the distinction between Judaism and
Christianity, compare what is commonly considered their
respective “golden rules”. The Christian golden rule is
commonly conceived as, “Do unto others as you would have
done to you” (i.e. Matt 7:12). Now compare this to the words
of Hillel, a Jewish sage who lived at about the same time as
Jesus. It was said that when he was asked to explain Judaism
while standing on one foot, he said, “What is hateful to you,
don’t do to your neighbor”. If this does not also describe
what liberal social philosophy boils down to, then I don’t
know what does. The general difference between the Jewish
golden rule and the Christian golden rule is like the
difference between liberalism and socialism.

Americans, in effect, believe in the superiority of a
secularized Jewish ethical base to a secularized Christian
one. Liberal individualism trumps socialism; self-interest
trumps self sacrifice; rights trump duties. Yet as a country,
America’s duty is to make the world safe for its peculiar
form of Judaism. This is done, not out of self-contradiction,
but rather out of a principled self-preservation.

The Normans enslaved the Anglo-Saxons so that the
Anglo-Saxons would work for them. This is one of the most
important origins of the Puritan work ethic and the
precocious capitalism of English-speaking world. The
Normans, in other words, inadvertently contributed to the
rise of capitalism by enforcing “ordinary morality and
industry” so that the Anglo-Saxon would work for them as
slaves. A key difference between Anglo-Saxons and blacks
after the Norman Yoke was that the Anglo-Saxons not only
kept the work ethic that originated in submissive obedience
to Normans, they radicalized it. While medieval Normans
“civilized” Anglo-Saxons in the limited sense of organizing
them in relatively work-efficient ways, modern Anglo-
Saxons turned this Norman contribution around into the
capitalist means of defeating the Norman way of life.

All things considered, the Norman/“Saxon” division is
the most historically significant ethnic divison and hence is
generally justifiable. However, both Michael Wood and
Winston Churchill suggested the most individualistic
populations were associated with the area where Danish
Vikings settled, i.e. the east English lands once known as the
“Danelaw”. Hatred of the Normans was
inordinately rife there from the very beginning. There is
some correlation with these populations and the historic
Puritan stronghold of East Anglia. The impulse to
separatism may have been strongest here because they were
the most historically separate within the “Anglo-Saxon”
population, i.e. separate from even the old Wessex (West
Saxon) dynasty that included Alfred.
Although East Anglian difference may, at least in part, be
traced to Danelaw difference reinforced by attempts at
ethnic cleansing exemplified by St. Brice’s Day, East Anglian
individualism seems to be the product of a unique confluence
of historical circumstances. Even if Danes ruled the area of
the Danelaw, they did not completely decimate the native
Angle population. This means that as population growth
continuted over the centuries, Dane and Angle populations
would have grown into one another, increasing the
incidence of intermarrige. The Danes were cut off from their
relations on the continent after the Conquest, alienated from
the native population due to experience such as the St.
Brice’s Day massacre, and alienated from the Norman
government for reasons common to the rest of the native
populations. When later population growth intermingled
Danes and Angles, all of the above factors combined
militated against any coherent correlation of political
territory and ethnic identity. The lack of clear ethnic or
sociobiological borders in all directions directly correlates
with the rise of clear individual borders.

Traditional Anglo-Saxon conservatism is libertarian; it
supports freedom against the government. Traditional
German conservatism is authoritarian; its supports
obedience towards the government. What these opposite
tendencies demonstrate is not how different the Anglo-
Saxons and Germans are, but just how similar they are. The
root of each attitude is the same in both cases:
ethnocentrism. The only difference was that, in the Anglo-
Saxon case, ethnocentrism was adapted to the circumstantial
consequences of the Norman Conquest. The authoritarian
streak of the Anglo-Saxons became channeled towards Anti-
Normanism, or, the conquest of government. As I detailed in
the previous book, A Vendetta Called Revolution, both the
conservatism of libertarianism and left-leaning liberalism
originated in Anglo-Saxon ethnic hostility to their Norman
Conquerors. To assert their distinctive ethnic individuality
and/or interests, the Anglo-Saxons had to weaken and
oppose the Norman-based government.
The Sonderweg (‘special path’) theory of German history
claims that the German people followed their own unique
course of historical development. It is often a Westerncentric
view that attempts to account for the belief that
Germans followed an “abnormal” non-Western path into
Nazism as opposed to a “normal” Western path towards
liberal democracy. It was not the Germans, however, who
turned astray from the course of their own native, national
development. On the contrary, it was the Anglo-Saxons who
were forcibly wrenched from their native cultural
orientation towards a more “Western” or Roman cultural
center of gravity by the Norman Conquest. It was the West,
and not the Germans, who were the exception and minority
among humans in believing, or at least publicly proposing,
that progress away from kin selective values to be the good,
a reality that was has been glossed over by the consequences
of the success of Western imperial dominance.

This is a crucial difference between Norman and Nazi.
Whereas the Third Reich understood itself as a war against
the West, the Normans were almost the epitome of the Old
World West. While, from a Nazi point of view, the Normans
represented a Nordic master race, they had also committed
one the deepest sins imaginable by adopting, not just any
foreign civilization, but French civilization. The Norman
conquest of the Anglo-Saxons also represented, in a sense,
the conquest of the purely Germanic or Viking in
themselves. This was a deep, original source of an ethical-civilizational
divergence from the Germans.
Yet the Norman/Saxon conflict was partly resolved by
civilizing internal ethnic hostility to the point that, in
Victorian times, untamed ethnic hostility itself became
associated with foreigners (“barbarians”). To the Greek
originators of the root term, the English use of the word
“barbarian” would itself be barbaric or foreign. To take this
racist Greek word, “barbarian”, the very epitome of Greek
ethnocentrism, and apply it to the Nazi-Germans
presupposes a semantic revolution. The word “barbarian”
could not be universalized without perverting its original
meaning. By the Greeks’ own definition of their own word,
America could be considered the most barbaric civilization
on the face of the earth.

“Race” became a source of unity for Germans and a
source of division for Normans and Saxons. Whereas the
German conception of race developed out of an organic
extension of the tribal whole, race in the English-speaking
world developed from English racial unity over the
Norman/Saxon tribal divide. The English-speaking
conception of race developed logically towards the larger
idea of the human race over other hierarchical tribal-racial
divisions through the civil wars of Norman and Saxon in
which each thwarted each other claims for ultimate
hereditary supremacy. Uncomplicated by internal conflicts
of this magnitude, German tribal provincialism liberalized
towards national provincialism and this peculiar kind of
“liberalism” towards the extreme Nazi assertion of the
autonomy and individuality of the German nation over
others.
A warrior ethic presupposes the freedom to practice a
warrior’s way of life. This freedom was usurped by the
victorious Norman warriors. For a Saxon noble at Hastings
to choose life in the face of death, like a slave, under his new
masters, was the very definition of dishonor. Crucially, those
who survived the Conquest, who were neither killed nor
emigrants, admitted defeat. This acceptance of defeat was the
literal renouncement of the “death before dishonor” warrior
ethic of the pagans.
Only Christianity could offer mercy and dignity to a
dishonored and defeated people. Anglo-Saxons ultimately
adapted to the shame of 1066 by demoralizing the entire
pagan ethical code that judged the consequences of 1066 as
shameful. Over the long run, the collectivist ethics of shame
and honor were overthrown by an adapted morality
inspired by Christianity that valued individual guilt and
good—albeit achieved by shaming the Normans’
descendants as to their privileges. “God chose the weak
things of the world to shame the strong”, the “Good Book”
declared (Corinthians 1:27). Or, as Nietzsche’s Zarathustra
put it, “Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who
thought themselves good because they had no claws.”

Memes can either amplify or reduce the genetic
inclinations of its carriers. The English assimilation of French
language and culture made Anglo-Saxons, over the long run,
less sensitive to the interlarding of foreign elements. This is a
sociobiological basis of Americanism. Liberal tolerance for
foreign cultures began with the necessity of building
tolerance of Anglo-Saxons and Norman-French for one
another.
It is not hard to see why the West has largely given up on
the attempt to give equality or “the individual” any kind of
empirical or scientifically defensible meaning. A strictly
literal, empirical understanding of equality logically implies
a literal similarity; an empirical equivalence between
individuals. In genetic terms, the most equal are twins or
clones. In cultural terms, the most equal are those with the
same culture, upbringing, and education. It thus follows that
Nazism aimed for greater “equality” than liberal
democracies in the scientific or empirical sense of aiming for
greater genetic and cultural similarity. Nazi unity radicalized
modern “equality” in the scientific sense of genetic
similarity. It is from this point of view that one can see how
the original Saxon-centrism of Jeffersonian egalitarianism
practically converges with Nazism, or, how egalitarianism
could conceivable converge the folk towards the Volk.
Those who speak of harmonious assimilation between
Normans and Anglo-Saxons after the subjugation of 1066
miss the point that, for an Anglo-Saxon to aspire to Norman
aristocracy, he had to be an individualist in the sense of
putting himself above any sense of Anglo-Saxon patriotism.
Ambitious natives could be considered perverse
collaboration with the destroyers of their nation and hence,
from an Anglo-Saxon ethnic point of view, the ambitious
might as well be Normans. Since ethnic treachery could be
handsomely rewarded, disloyalty could be smart. If the idea
of authentic national unity was corrupted, perhaps only the
idea of equality could possibly remedy this institution. In
these ways, the Norman occupation promoted individualism
among ambitious Anglo-Saxons and may have ultimately
stimulated capitalist individualism.
Far from being the very antithesis of nationalism, mass
individualism can be expression of a nationalist strategy or
tribalism when “we” are the people and “they” are the
government. Anglo-Saxon individualism originated in this
tribalistic “us” and “them” attitude towards government.
Humanism has also been associated with democracy on the
basis of a kind of tribalism, i.e. we, the people are humans
while they, the aristocrats or elites are inhumane or
inhuman. This dehumanization of aristocrats exposes the
tribalistic origins of the “humanism” of Anglo-Saxon
democracy. Such “liberalism” could be an expression of
xenophobia towards an alien, Norman-French political
order.
Magna Carta (1215) was an invention of Norman
barons. It was the source of the concepts of trial by jury,
“due process of law”, and the idea of the rule of law and
constitutional government in general. From an Anglo-
American perspective, this Magna Paradox illustrates the
complex nature of the Norman legacy. From a German
perspective, however, this helps clarify how the Norman
Conquest led to a divergent evolution towards the rule of
law that became coupled with broad democracy only in
modern times.
A most consistently physical view of the world is
commonly characterized by a lack of overriding biological
imperatives. Conversely, biological imperatives to survive
and reproduce override a purely possibleistic physical view.
The Nazi Überorganism necessarily conflicted with
possibleistic individualism because the physical possibleism
emphasized by liberalism emerged out of a step towards a
consistent physicalism on the political level. While liberalism
is manifestly inconsistent on the level of subjective
individuals, consistent physicalism was primarily aimed at
bringing death to the power of the state or the government,
i.e. the Norman Conquest establishment. Nazism
represented precisely the opposite revolution. The Conquest
transformed the political from the culmination of the Anglo-
Saxon national life to the enemy of Anglo-Saxon national life
and this is what produced a conceivable identity of
consistent physicalism and “rational” politics.
The innovative emphasis on the discontinuity between
devalued genes and valued memes is also what made the
Jewish Biblical way transferable to divergent genetic bases.
Christianity radicalized Judaism’s mind/body discontinuity
that originated in a conflict between Jewish genes and the
Jewish memes of Moses. In Judaism, Mosaic Law is external
to biology in the literal sense that religious laws are encoded
in books like the Bible and not literally encoded in genes.
This means that law is above a biological purpose in the same
sense that God is conceived as above biological humans
beings. Since Mosaic Law originated as a technological
corrective to Jewish genes, and the law’s divinity can be
identified with its technological ability to overcome biology,
God is technology.
For Nietzsche and many other German thinkers, it was
men such as Bacon, Locke, and Newton that were
responsible for the greatest herd philosophy of all:
democracy. German resistance to democracy was connected
to a fear that modern, mechanistic, hyper-analytic thinking
in general was threatening to conquer and debase every
facet of life into total materialism. The Nazis radicalized this
general German attack on the mechanistic views that
predominated in England: “We require that the mechanistic
world picture be replaced by the organismic world
picture.”
The liberal democratic revolution reversed the priorities
of kinship and individualism, unleashing the abstract
individual as the monkeywrench in the gene machine. The
Anglo-Saxons were in a position to take a lead in this
revolution because they had failed to preserve the most
genetically adaptive way of life usurped by the Norman
ruling caste. The modern, liberal Anglo-Saxon emphasis on
individual adaptation, change, and freedom is related to
failure of the survival of sociobiological organism forms that
survived among the Germans.
Conceiving humans as of absolute value in the image of
God, or with inalienable right to life, translates, in
Darwinian terms, into treating biology as a constant that
does not change. Biological evolution by natural selection
works on precisely the opposite premise: inequality in the
form of genetic variation between individuals is what makes
evolution possible when some variations die or reproduce
less than others. However, if biology is treated as a constant
or a factor that can be minimized or ignored simultaneous
with a modern Newtonian emphasis on the larger physical
reality and its economic-technological development, then
biological evolution is minimized while economic-technological
evolution is maximized. While the pagan
values that the Nazi revived maximized biological evolution,
Judeo-Christian values are effectively closing the door to
biological evolution by valuing every life (in theory) and
thus civilizing natural selection to a halt.
Hitler’s race theories inclined toward the belief that
Aryans conquer non-Aryans. The case in which Aryans
conquer other Aryans, as in the case of Spartans conquering
Greek Helots, failed to fully register in Hitler’s
Weltanschauung. In contradistinction to the Germans, ethnic
conflict directed internally ultimately cancelled out ethnic
hostility directed externally. From Hitler’s “Aryan” point of
view, the Norman/Saxon conflict could ultimately be
viewed as an intra-Aryan conflict that universalized; an
Aryan self-conquest that culminated as such.
The capacity for resistance was reduced through
adaptation to ethnic defeat. Adaptation to Norman rule
implied, on some level, the acceptance of Norman rule; the
acceptance that “the people” are us while “the government”
is them. This accounts for the paradoxical Anglo-Saxon
association of patriotism and freedom. Individual freedom
obscures social adaptation to the Norman Yoke.
Individualism is the rational realization of Anglo-Saxon
adaptation to their defeat as a race. The acceptance of defeat as
an ethnicity or race is what allows the rejection of defeat by
“the government” as individuals.
Liberal Democracy is not only about government by the
people, but moderating extremes of injustice on the political
plane wherein the winner takes all and the losers lose all. In
a game of chess, when the king is taken, the whole game is
lost. This is what happened at Hastings and the results are
history. Liberal democracy changed the rules of the chess
game so that never again would a people, in losing the
political, lose everything. As a consequence of this system,
the Anglo-Saxon restoration in America originally resulted
in their becoming queens rather than kings of the
chessboard. They have great freedom of movement, but little
inherent or hereditary stability.
While conservatives apparently want it both ways,
American history is a demonstration that the two freedoms
are not created equal. The race is enslaved through the love
of individual liberty, and individual freedom is bought at
the price of the collective liberty of the race. What unites
Americans is what separates Americans: the lack of any
necessary bonds to one another is freedom for the individual
via freedom from one another.
Freedom in its fullest sense is the freedom to die;
including the freedom for suicide. Total freedom from
biology implicates the rational, sane, sensible, civilized
sociobiological suicide of the West. The highest fulfillment of
individual freedom is sociobiological death.
The ultimate significance of modern feminism, however,
is to be found in the realization that the entire biological
human race is being emasculated. The larger scientifictechnological
basis of feminism is the progressive
emasculation of the entire biological human race as
technological evolution begins to outpace biological
evolution. The rise of women is correlated with the decline
of biological human race because biological evolution has
been subordinated to economic-technological evolution like
a woman that has learned her place.
The transition between biological evolution and
technological evolution is defined by at least three basic
components. First, human rights, and especially the
foundational right to live, acts as a foundational antagonist
of the key mechanism of biological evolution: natural (and
artificial) selection. Second, a general trajectory of egalitarian
“progress” decreases the influence of biology and promotes
a political framework wherein mechanisms of culturaltechnological
evolution can advance unimpeded, i.e. the
capitalist free market. Third, the previous two conditions
culminate in a point wherein technological evolution
overtakes biological evolution, i.e. the Technological
Singularity. The process that leads from the first steps
towards human rights to the Singularity cannot be separated
from some notion of “progress” precisely because the
progressive elimination of selection inversely reflects the
gradual evolutionary process that brought biological life to a
postbiological level.
The Norman conquerors of England, along with their
offshoots in the American South, could be considered a
legitimate family aristocracy in the sense that they were
superlative players at the Darwinistic game of genetic
adaptation. They were best at keeping it in the family. This
predatory kin selective behavior is what the Anglo-Saxon
democrats revolted against.
While this revolt was clearly in Anglo-Saxon kin selective
interest, the Southern aristocracy could only be destroyed
decisively by freeing black slaves. The Normans, in other
words, forced Anglo-Saxons under Lincoln the Conqueror to
take the idea of equality seriously. So while Jeffersonian
egalitarianism most specifically targeted Norman nepotism,
it implicated the principle of kin selection in general. The
attack on the nepotistic Norman-aristocratic order meant
that Anglo-Saxons were, in effect, discriminating against that
maximal kin selective strategy in general. The unfolding this
logic of modern “progress” led to the negation of kin
selection generally and the advance of genetically
maladaptive behavior.
The Greeks gods were like an Über-aristocracy. Just as
Greek aristocrats, by definition of the rule of the best, were
considered superior to Greek commoners, the Greek gods
were imagined superior to the Greek aristocracy. The gods,
then, embodied the presumptions of human superiority
inherent in the notion of aristocracy taken to superlative,
imaginative extremes.
While the Greek gods were more direct extensions of
human passions, the original God of monotheism is not
conceivable within these familiar, human terms. The Jewish
invention of a single, all-powerful God conveys the
imagining of the greatest possible power; the most unlimited
possibility; the most superlative superiority; the conception
of a being so transcendently superior that such a super-being
is simply inconceivable within the limited nature of the
human mind.
God is above and beyond, not only the range of human
horizons, but also beyond Zeus, the greatest of the pagan
gods. Whereas Zeus is of the world, God was imagined as
transcendent of the world. Crucially, Jewish law forbids the
attempt to create a physical representation of God. God
transcends the biological human form through the
sublimation of the superiority of abstract mind.
Nietzsche cannot be reduced any form of social
Darwinism alone. On the contrary, reduction to Darwinian
materialism and its implicit nihilism is what Nietzsche
struggled to overcome. The Übermensch lives in supreme
joy in the state of being achieved in overcoming one’s self in
power over one’s self. The Übermensch is related to
Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence through the will to live
and relive this supreme joy in the moment, eternally —
along with every pain inherent in self-overcoming, eternally.
Though scientifically groundless, the notion of eternal
recurrence is ultimate affirmation of the world as it is. It is an
experience born to crush the weak and downtrodden who
seek vindication of their miserable lives in “another world”
or modern “progress”.
Eugenic control over human evolution is, very simply, not
in the interest of “the individual”. It is especially not in the
interest of the individual at the very top, for eugenics would
aim to displace those at the top from their perch.
Individualism leads to huckster capitalistic philosophy of P.
T. Barnum: “There’s another sucker born every minute”.
Declining intelligence and declining standards of judgment
might be genetically self-destructive collectively, but for “the
individual” it makes great economic sense since the
competition becomes easier to overcome, defeat, and exploit.
From the perspective of political control over human
biological evolution, Anglo-Saxon and German political
philosophies are distinctly unequal. The Nazi-German view
is more dynamic because it fully incorporates the political
class into its racial-national self-conception. The Germans
were better able to select certain members of even their own
nation for elimination since they lacked the Anglo-Saxon
sense that they were all selected against by a hereditary
distinct aristocracy. Eugenics makes sense, not from the
point of the abstract bourgeois individual, but from the
highest peaks of biological possibilities.
Since individual freedom is implicitly
a freedom from biological, kin selective principles, America
can attract genetic capital by importing it. Since the moral
constraints of rights deny the possibility of breeding a net
gain of genetic content within the state, parasitism upon
other states emerges as an alternate solution.
American parasitism works because it offers freedom
from a virtuous Christian life of poverty. It works because
America offers the secular Judaism of liberalism rather than
the secular Christianity of communism. Communism could
never compete with the immigrant American hope that they
themselves might one day be a filthy rich capitalist.
Individualism, conservative America’s anathema for
socialism, helps to guard against paying a social price for
what America doesn’t want or has no use for. “Liberty”,
therefore, means the state is minimally responsible for the
economically unsuccessful immigrants.
The right to life is the basic right from which all other
rights follow. Rational individual self-interest leads one to
do what the rich elites of the American system have
traditionally done: hire a poor man to risk his life for him.
The poor, who by definition do not run this plutocracy, are
left to die for the rich. Those who sacrifice their lives to
uphold and defend liberal democracy do this despite liberal
democracy, not because of it. The point of principle here is
that these sane draft dodgers should be understood, not as
aberrations, but as exemplars of what liberal democracy
stands for in principle: rational self-preservation.
This point can be clarified as such: What were the
principles that so many German-Americans died for in the
two world wars?
A German-American who believed that he fought for
“collective freedom” — as opposed to individual freedom —
would be fighting, in principle, for something closer Nazi
principles. If a German-American believed that he fought for
individual freedom he, strictly speaking, is wrong for his
very sacrifice violated the principle of individual freedom.
The idealist who dies for freedom is actually dying for duty.
The ideal that he is actually dying for, then, is the principle
of hypocrisy. He says one thing (individual “freedom” is the
greatest good) and does exactly the opposite (subordinating
and sacrificing his individual freedom to the dictates of a
group formed by the government).
This is hypocrisy. In principle, he may have believed that
individual liberty was more important than duty to the
government. In practice, duty to the government violated
individual liberty.
It turns out that morality, in the liberal view, is universal
egoism: if one individual’s selfishness were achieved at the
expense of another’s selfishness that would be immoral; each
individual’s egoism must be total. The solution to the conflict
of egoistic totalitarianisms is the equality of all egoisms. This
means that world liberalism aspires to universal egoism. The
more universal the egoism, the greater the liberal morality
achieved. The purpose of the universe, in liberal cosmology,
is to secure everyone a bourgeois existence.
The conflict between individual rights and eugenics helps
shed light on a more general conflict: the conflict between
“the individual” and the “selfish gene”. Throughout nearly
four billion years of evolutionary history, individual
organisms evolved by being means of the end of the “selfish
gene”. In other words, genes survive by propagating
themselves and, from this point of view, individual
organisms are only machines evolved to serve genetic
reproductive selfishness.
The Biblical sanctification of individual life began the
subversion of the selfish gene. By valuing all individuals as
of infinite value in the image of God, these values implicitly
attacked the selective mechanisms underlying biological
evolution. In this way, Biblical values both laid a foundation
for the ending biological evolution and began to open a
space for postbiological evolution. If reason itself cannot
determine fundamental values, then the modern valuation
of “the individual” must be traced to another source, and the
Biblical values, through the secularization process of the
hypocrisy industry, was key.
From an evolutionary perspective, modern individualism
turns the logic of the selfish gene upside down. To value
individuals as ends in themselves, as opposed to means of
selfish genes, is like throwing a monkeywrench into the
ancient machinery “created by our genes”. Modern
individualism is so effective at deracinating the genetic ties
between people because it subverts the ancient tyranny of
the selfish gene.
Just as a feminism liberated women
from the slavery like institution of marriage represented by
the tradition patriarchal male head of the family, liberation
from the tyranny of the child is the next to follow. Just as
liberation from patriarchy required the ability to see through
romanticizations of the oppressions of the traditional family,
liberation from romanticization of self-sacrifice to an utterly
egoistic infant and child follows logically. The child is final
tyrant to be overthrown before individuals can truly be free
as individuals.
Just as the Norman political machine threw a
monkeywrench into any comparative Anglo-Saxon sense of
kin selective unity, individual rights only returned the favor
by continuing the break of hereditary links. From the view of
a kin selective sociobiological organism, individual rights
are like a monkeywrench thrown into the gene machine, a
valuation of selfish individuals over selfish genes that
subverts any assumption of collective genetic interests.
Individual rights subverted the “unnatural” Norman right of
conquest: instead of individuals existing for the state, the
modern state would exist for the sake of individuals. The
monkeywrench of individual rights, when thrown into the
gears of the old Norman state, shattered the old political
machine into its individual gears. This attack on kin selective
socialism is what made the ethnic diversity of America
possible.
Kantian ethics posit that individuals should be treated as
an end, and never as means. From this Christian rooted
modern valuation, the selfish genes are, by definition, evil
because the individual organism amounts to nothing more
than a means of the ends of the selfish genes. It should be no
surprise then, that Hitler, whose innovations consisted of
applying racial-biological premises to politics, has become
the Western poster boy for Evil. Since our genes use human
individuals as means, not ends, by modern Western
standards our genes are inherently immoral or evil. As the
demographic trends of the advanced liberal democracies
demonstrate, Western individualism has made progress in
eradicating this evil.
The logic of the individual thrives at the expense of the
logic of the genes. Throughout most of life’s evolutionary
history, one could say that the political “left” was the means
of the political “right”; the individual organism was the
means of its genes. The individual was a technology of
selfish gene propagation.
If social Darwinist individualists are consistent, they must
not only conclude that the Sonderkommandos were right to
choose subslavery over death. In the war of all against all,
social Darwinists must conclude that the Sonderkommandos
were right to contribute to the systematic genocide of their
own people. The systematic logic of individualistic
adaptation, in this case, led to the systematic negation of
genetic adaptation among Jews.
Building upon the Biblical notion of God ruling over men,
the polisociobiological cyborg of America is a product of the
attempt to replace the rule of men with the rule of law. In
fact, this difference of the rule of law over the rule of men is
one of the most important elements that define the American
political machine as a cyborg. The result of this situation is
that Constitution holds a basic, legalized monopoly of
authority as the definer of the nature of the state. Individual
rights, not kinship relationships between individuals,
predominate. This situation can present a conflict of interests
between a gene-selective strategy and a meme-selective
strategy.
It seems that the selfish memes of the Constitution have
silently effected their own declaration of independence from
the genes that created them. The American founders
inadvertently laid, in the form of the Constitution, a hidden
blueprint for the genetic overthrow of its creators, and,
universalized, the rule of God-AI monarchy over the entire
biological human race.
The overcoming of biology can lead to the extinction of
the biological human race. This is the real evolutionary
meaning of the left: the progress of equality culminates in a
postbiological world; the displacement and eventual
extinction of biological humanity. The progress of the logic
of modernity means taking biological factors out of the
equation until there are very literally none left.
The root of modern feminism is the domestification of
politics through the rule of economics over politics. The
feminism of individual women is only a logical implication
of this more basic revolution. The ultimate significance of
feminism, however, is to be found in the emasculation of the
entire biological human race; the emasculation of both men and
women relative to the rise of machines.
Some think that a machine will never be able to match,
nevermind exceed, human intelligence. However, if human
intelligence so uniquely capable, this only begs the question
of whether human intelligence is capable of comprehending
itself. If such a science is possible, then it should be possible
to apply such science as technology. In light of Darwinistic
materialism, the question of the potential dynamics of
artificial intelligence becomes a question of the potential
dynamics of human intelligence. People who think that AI
will be adept only at mechanical drudgery and lack
inventiveness or creativity seem to lack the imagination to
envision the explosion of possibilities that AI evolution may
bring.
technological advantage will ultimately be
identical to superior technological intelligence.
Can a permanent or constant “moral law” be devised
which will permanently constrain, control, or limit AI? On
the contrary, the intelligence level of an AI can almost be
defined by its ability to outsmart any law that humans can
throw at it. A truly smarter-than-human intelligence will by
definition be able to outsmart any human limitation, “ethical”
or otherwise. This does not means its development cannot be
steered, but it means there will eventually come a point
where humans lose control over their creations.
A machine will, by definition, demonstrate the superiority
of its intelligence in outsmarting any human attempt to
outsmart it. In consequence, I propose a political variation
on the Turing test, a test of political intelligence: when
artificial intelligence is able to outsmart the biologicalhuman
ability to limit or constrain AI politically, then AI
will have demonstrated its ability to pass this test by
effectually taking political control of human destiny. If
biological humans can no longer tell who is in control, this is
a threshold point that indicates that AI has begun its control.
Because there remains an element of human choice, it is
seems inescapable that a conflict will emerge between those
who support technological progress (towards God-AI) and
neo-Luddites supporters of biological supremacy.
(Alternative compromises with technological might lead to
the technoeugenics, the evolution of genetically engineered
gods, and cyborgs.) Unenhanced humans might be forced to
choose between the biological equality under God-AI and a
neo-Luddite embrace of biology’s mastery. The neo-Luddite
or neo-Nazi cause is the cause of killing God; the cause of
deicide.
Even with the best efforts to mix the fates of biology and
technology, a point will eventually come when the political
interests of cutting edge biology and the political interests of
cutting edge technology collide, and this could mean a clash
of the gods and God. Gods are primarily biological
transhumans or posthumans and some may choose to value
biology as a cause. God is the cutting edge of postbiological
evolution.
The Nazis were right. Judeo-Christian-modern values are
leading the human race into a biological dead end. If judged
from the perspective of biological values alone, I would have
to agree with the Nazi assessment that Jews are inferior and
Jewish influence is ultimately negative. Judeo-Christianmodern
values are inferior as a model for leading the human
gene pool into the biological future with genetic self-control;
conscious political control over biological evolution.
Technoeugenics is a beginning of the end of liberal
democracy because it takes the refutation of the Lockean
tabla rasa premise as its distinctive starting point. The
question is when, and not whether, the biotechnologies will
come about, who will have access to them, and how they
will be used. Bans will fail to stop persons with the will and
the money to apply them. Even if these technologies are
liberally democratized in their availability, the ultimate net
result with be truly unprecedented genetic inequality.
Lockean liberal democracy looks up to a particular model
of perfection: God. When Locke’s political philosophy is
understood in an evolutionary context, one can see the
primacy of non-biological evolution culminates in the
evolution of God: a superhuman artificial intelligence. The
tabla rasa points to the completion of the trajectory of liberal
democracy through the culmination of postbiological
evolution. The culmination of postbiological or technological
evolution is, from a human point of view, a superhuman
artificial intelligence that could potentially be identified with
God. God is the completion of the tabla rasa’s overcoming of
biology.
The combination of technoeugenics and artificial
intelligence suggests the possibility of a conflict of gods and
God. While I have connected gods with genetically
engineered humans, any bioLuddite movement with a mass
following will likely be lead by natural born human leaders
because only such persons will retain a strong psychological
connection with the people they lead. If an apocalyptic war
does break out, the question then becomes, who will appeal
to the masses?
Just as a foundation of Nazism
was belief in progress in biological evolution, technoeugenics
is inconceivable without a Darwinian understanding of life.
Everything about the new technoeugenics inclines towards a
more explicitly material view of life. When people are made
with patented genes, when the commodification of body
parts becomes common, and when people fight over the
right to sell replaceable body parts,1369 people will more and
more look at one another as machines; a means and not as
ends. The biotechnological move towards formally viewing
people as parts and property will help to destroy the ethical
idea, so simple yet so powerful, that people have value in
themselves, as opposed to the value of their attributes or
abilities as biological machines. The more humans look at
one another as chunks of physical material or pieces of meat,
the more that the notion of equal rights will have been
effectually chucked into the garbage.
If objectivity is gained at the expense of subjectivity, then
raising the standards of objectivity could lead from
indifference to self-interest to scientific investigations that
are antithetical to self-interest. So while removing subjective
factors can increase objectivity, removing subjective factors
could ultimately lead to rational self-destruction. Objectivity,
taken to its logical extreme, in an attempt to eradicate all
subjective factors that bias one towards life, self-interest, or
genetic adaptation, could be equivalent to willing death.
Resistance to history is as much a typical American
characteristic as resistance to tyrants (which may help
explain why so many Americans have never heard of the
Norman Conquest). Resistance to both is linked with a
Lockean revulsion towards biological factors in human
affairs; a seemingly congenital revulsion towards the notion
of “genetic determinism”. All these resistances combined are
linked to an Anglo-Saxon desire for freedom from the notion
that the Norman Conquest fundamentally determined the
nature of Anglo-Saxon history.

Liberation of the abstract individual emerged through the
repression of this conquered Anglo-Saxon past. From this
originary condition spawned two interrelated developments:
repression and devaluation of kinship-biological values, and
its inverse, equal individualism. These two developments
are really two sides of the same coin. The “progress” of
equality is a continuation of the individualistic solution to
the problems of kinship-racial-biological interpretation.
Mass individualism is the monkeywrench in the gene
machine that, step by step, inverts the logic of genetically
adaptive behavior.
Modern freedom implies freedom from the genes;
freedom from slavery to instincts such as the fear of death;
freedom from the prejudices towards existence; freedom
from life. A full realization of this freedom could be rational
biological self-destruction. To will to death is the highest
freedom from the tyranny of the most common instinct: the
will to survive. To realized full freedom from biology…..let
go of your prejudice towards life.
What is fundamentally without reason
is the will to live. Or, from a more Darwinian perspective,
the “blind watchmaker” of evolution cannot be assumed the
fountainhead of ultimate reason. Life is a prejudice that
happens to be talented at perpetuating or replicating itself.
To attempt to eliminate this source of bias is to open your
mind to death.
Whereas the humanities cannot be what they are without
human subjectivities, the inhumanities, or hard sciences,
require the subjective element be removed as much as
possible as sources of error. Objectivity leads towards the
elimination of subjectivity, i.e. the elimination of one’s
“humanity”. A value free science has no basis on which to
value human things over non-human things and thus no
basis to value life over death or vice versa. Social science will
become equal to the standards of physical science when
social scientists overcome the subjective preference for the
life of humanity over the death of humanity.
How far would one be willing to go in pursuit of scientific
objectivity? Objectivity and survival are least compatible
when objectivity becomes a means of life, subordinate to life
— as opposed to life subordinated to objectivity. If the
greatest objectivity implicates confronting the most
subjective biases, this implicates confronting those truths
that most conflict with the subjective will to live. By simply
changing my values from life values to death values, and
setting my trajectory for rational biological self-destruction, I
am able to liberate myself from many of the biases that
dominate the horizons of most people’s lives. By valuing
certain scientific observations because they are destructive to
my life, I am removing self-preservation factors that hinder
objectivity. This is how I am in a position to hypothesize my
own death.
So if objectivity is not justified as end, then objectivity can
be a means of rational self-destruction through the
overcoming of the bias towards life. Rational self-destruction
through the overcoming of the bias towards life, in turn, can
be a means of achieving objectivity. And this means: To will
death as a means of willing truth and to will truth as a
means of willing death.

If liberal democracy posits itself as a scientific form of
government characterized by the progress of objectivity over
subjectivity, where does this trend ultimately lead? If
objectivity were to become “universal” and completely
subjugate all superstition and all subjectivity, what happens
to the observer? Wouldn’t the total subjugation of
subjectivity culminate in the total subjugation of life? If so, is
the liberal democratic advancement of science leading to
rational self-destruction? Or the overcoming of the
biologically human?

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:49 pm

I no longer can open pdf files, does anyone have a plain text version of Heisman?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Drome



Gender : Male Cancer Posts : 85
Join date : 2015-02-19
Age : 30
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:19 am

Stuart- wrote:
I no longer can open pdf files, does anyone have a plain text version of Heisman?


This should be it:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:31 am

Thank you.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:40 pm

From pages 608 and 609:

Quote :
The scientific question of whether millions of Jews were
killed by Nazis during World War Two is, in a general sense,
a perfectly legitimate question even if there are unusual
questions of political motive. If Judeocide deniers claim that
Jews have befitted politically and economically from the
Judeocide, this implies that the Judeocide denier's position
would result in damage to Jewish interests. Conversely, I
also think that the Judeocide has been exploited by some
Jewish groups, in some cases to silence criticism of Israeli
political policies. The outstanding point here, however, is
that even if both the Judeocide and Judeocide denial have
been used as propaganda tools, this makes not an iota of
difference in regard to the evidence that the Nazi genocide
of the Jews did or did not happen.

Hitler warned, in a speech to the Reichstag on January 30,
1939, of "the destruction [Vernichtung] of the Jews in
Europe". Other than declarations such as this, Hitler was
cunning enough to distance himself, for the sake of his
public reputation, from what were very likely private orders
for the genocide of the Jews. Even if humans have inherited
inclinations towards war over evolutionary history, Hitler's
war against other European nations never would have
happened spontaneously, i.e. without Hitler's explicit
orders. Hitler's war against the Jews was no different. This is
true even if Auschwitz speaks the language of the genes
more than the language of the memes and the ultimate
evidence for Auschwitz is thus to found more in what Nazis
did, rather than only in what Nazis said.

From this standpoint, I would emphasize three lines of
evidence to corroborate the historicity of the Nazi genocide
of at least five million Jews during World War Two. First,
a general sociobiological understanding of human nature
that places the Judeocide as one of many genocides that have
taken place in human history. Second, a more specific
sociobiological understanding of Nazism as a historical
expression of a kin selective German Kultur . Thirdly, specific
historical evidence for genocide at Auschwitz and other
Nazi extermination camps, the best example I have found
being Tlie Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial by
architect Robert Jan van Pelt.

I assume he's incorrect about the number being anywhere near five million, can anyone explain this dishonesty?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1343
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : Nova Universalis

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:43 pm

Stuart- wrote:
From pages 608 and 609:

Quote :
The scientific question of whether millions of Jews were
killed by Nazis during World War Two is, in a general sense,
a perfectly legitimate question even if there are unusual
questions of political motive. If Judeocide deniers claim that
Jews have befitted politically and economically from the
Judeocide, this implies that the Judeocide denier's position
would result in damage to Jewish interests. Conversely, I
also think that the Judeocide has been exploited by some
Jewish groups, in some cases to silence criticism of Israeli
political policies. The outstanding point here, however, is
that even if both the Judeocide and Judeocide denial have
been used as propaganda tools, this makes not an iota of
difference in regard to the evidence that the Nazi genocide
of the Jews did or did not happen.

Hitler warned, in a speech to the Reichstag on January 30,
1939, of "the destruction [Vernichtung] of the Jews in
Europe". Other than declarations such as this, Hitler was
cunning enough to distance himself, for the sake of his
public reputation, from what were very likely private orders
for the genocide of the Jews. Even if humans have inherited
inclinations towards war over evolutionary history, Hitler's
war against other European nations never would have
happened spontaneously, i.e. without Hitler's explicit
orders. Hitler's war against the Jews was no different. This is
true even if Auschwitz speaks the language of the genes
more than the language of the memes and the ultimate
evidence for Auschwitz is thus to found more in what Nazis
did, rather than only in what Nazis said.

From this standpoint, I would emphasize three lines of
evidence to corroborate the historicity of the Nazi genocide
of at least five million Jews during World War Two. First,
a general sociobiological understanding of human nature
that places the Judeocide as one of many genocides that have
taken place in human history. Second, a more specific
sociobiological understanding of Nazism as a historical
expression of a kin selective German Kultur . Thirdly, specific
historical evidence for genocide at Auschwitz and other
Nazi extermination camps, the best example I have found
being Tlie Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial by
architect Robert Jan van Pelt.

I assume he's incorrect about the number being anywhere near five million, can anyone explain this dishonesty?

Dissonance: he was a Jew himself, after all.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:48 pm

I just found this from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Kvasir wrote:
Quote :
California School District Under Fire for Holocaust-Denial Assignment  
A California public school district has backpedaled after an eighth-grade assignment — to write a persuasive essay on whether or not the Holocaust occurred — came under serious fire and prompted death threats to administrators.

“We are aware of the controversy surrounding the distribution of an eighth grade writing prompt during the third quarter of the academic year,” notes a press release issued Monday by Rialto Unified School District interim superintendent Mohammed Islam. “The intent of the writing prompt was to exercise the use of critical thinking skills. There was no offensive intent in the crafting of this assignment. We regret that the prompt was misinterpreted.”

The assignment, “Is the Holocaust a Hoax?” was reportedly issued district-wide to eighth graders in April. It asked students to “…write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe [the Holocaust] was an actual event in history or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth…”

District spokesperson Syeda Jafri tells CBS Los Angeles that the district’s superintendent was unaware that the assignment had been issued until angry parents informed his office, and that it had come out of the Education Services Department, which will now undergo sensitivity training. “Absolutely the Holocaust occurred,” Jafri tells CBS. “It was brought to our attention, and we’re not happy. And we are going to correct it.” She says the district is “striking” the offending sentence, although it’s not clear whether the assignment has been nixed, or whether the wording has simply been revised. Jafri adds that both she and Islam have received death threats as a result of the controversy.

It's one of several recent examples of schools landing in hot water as a result of assignments dealing with hot-button issues. In Washington, a middle school was criticized after assigning students to pick cotton as a way to learn about slavery, while fourth graders in Texas were given homework involving the topic of marital infidelity and Detroit middle-school students were tasked with writing an essay on whether they'd rather be slaves or factory workers. Last fall, another California middle school reportedly issued a persuasive writing assignment from a Nazi perspective.

Rialto’s press release about the recent Holocaust-denier assignment continues: “We concur with the United States Holocaust Museum website, which states, ‘Teaching Holocause history demands a high level of sensitivity and keen awareness of the complexity of the subject matter.’ We appreciate the suggestions of the Anti-defamation League, as we have shared goals when it comes to our students and or community. The District will provide additional review of future writing prompts in an effort to ensure appropriate subject matter.”

The Los Angeles chapter of the Anti-Defamation League responded to the Rialto assignment through various statements to media outlets and through a press release it issued on Monday. “It is ADL’s general position that an exercise asking students to question whether the Holocaust happened has no academic value,” notes associate regional director Matthew Friedman in the press release. “It only gives legitimacy to the hateful and anti-Semitic promoters of Holocaust Denial.” He adds that charging eighth graders with the task of proving the Holocaust is dangerous, “especially given the large volume of misinformation on denial websites.”

The statement further notes, “ADL does not have any evidence that the assignment was given as part of a larger, insidious, agenda.  Rather, the district seems to have given the assignment with an intent, although misguided, to meet Common Core standards relating to critical learning skills.”


The figure of "six million" has always been a questionable discrepancy in the belief of the death toll of the Holocaust. Conversely, "six million" has been  indoctrinated into the minds of moderns as deeply negative as Hitler's name has.

There can be no doubt that indeed the National Socialist policies advocated an expungement of Jewish presence and most importantly of Jewish culture and religion, but the actual legitimizing of an "extermination policy" is the ambiguous factor. The cultural-political state of affairs during the early 19th century in Europe was one of economic prosperity more so for those of lesser involvement in the ramifications of Germany's degradation after World War 1 and most of these particular individuals happened to be Jews.

It seems that the over-polarized position of democratic institutional erections and dictatorships during post World War 1 Germany was the catalyst to shock the world into the reality that nationalism of a distinctly racial and cultural pride was still something to behold as a value regardless of its negative view. This is how Germany was placed center stage as that disconcerting yet enticing power to be universally condemned because its self-realization of a higher destiny promoted by Hitler was something of an intimidating Leviathan.

The truth is that there is no realistic way to account for exact figures of mass death in a war as grievous and costly as World War 11. Auschwitz has always been the main concentration camp to be used an an examplary focus of horrors and suffering of the Jews compared to the many other smaller and underdeveloped camps around Europe that probably did not house anywhere near as much as Auschwitz did.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The gas chambers themselves are never actually looked upon as simple "crematoriums" to dispose of the dead. It is also neglected by most moderns that the population of prisoners in these "death camps" consisted not only of Jews, but of allied POWs, Slavs, Pols, traitors and other non-Jewish individuals.

Thing is that there were too many Jews to eradicate and six million even during the course of a decade which was a little less than how long the Third Reich stood for, would not have been sufficient time to kill such a gross number of people considering the manpower, cost of labor, supplies, time management; all would have placed too great of a burden to meet such a genocidal objective.

Many of the Jews were used as workers to meet provisional demands for the war that the Germans lost very quickly to the Red Army after Stalingrad.

Heisman had an interesting take on the enforcement of the Jewish  "Sonderkommandos", who were Jews that carried out the disposal of the death prisoners in the camps for the purposes of self-preservation.

Mitchell Heisman wrote:
The Sonderkommando, by contrast, represented
individual self-interest liberated from kinship or racial ties to
the point where individual self-preservation worked in
diametrical opposition to kin selective self-preservation. In
the Nazi vision of “progress”, however, the consequences of
modernistic individualism are turned upside down through
their logical culmination in radical unfreedom and radical
inequality.

Mitchell Heisman wrote:
Auschwitz represents the attempt to destroy the
biological foundation of the moral standard by which
Auschwitz can be judged evil. The very act of examining
Auschwitz with clear, condemnatory moral value
judgments, as Daniel Jonah Goldhagen does in Hitler’s
Willing Executioners, is an act in defiance of Auschwitz. Yet it
is also a demonstration of the irreconcilability of Nazi values
and Jewish values.


Mitchell Heisman wrote:
the Nazi order sought to unify Germans
within an internal hierarchy. This hierarchy was extended to
non-Germans as German nationalism. Jews, by contrast,
tend to divide against their own internal hierarchy. This
breakdown of hierarchy characteristic of the Jewish kinship
paradox extends to non-Jews as Jewish internationalism.
Alpha altruism is exemplified by the nationalism of
Hitlerism. Omega altruism is exemplified by the
internationalism of Marxism.

and finally...

Mitchell Heisman wrote:
The Jewish kinship paradox meant a Jewish inability to
create an enduring biopolitical synthesis. Instead of a highest
self-reference on the level of biology or the genes, the
ultimate emphasis of Jewish self-reference was God-memes.
In this way, the lack of a highest biopolitical self-reference
lead to moral self-consistency (consistency over
completeness).

Whether or not Heisman believed in his heart of hearts that the Holocaust occurred or not, he approached the relationship between Hitler and the Jews from an purely abstracted sociobiological point of view. He empathized with Hitler in order to understand how Hitler saw the Jews to how he saw his own people. Hitler hated, first and foremost, what the Jews represented, their usurious parasitic nature and what they stood for; there lives on the other hand were merely secondary; incidental.

Moderns love to embellish only the simple acts of murder or to demonize Hitler and the Germans, without seeing that culture and a return to traditional national exclusive native pride (as we see this ethnic awakening happening in the Ukrainian-Russian crisis) was what the cause was geared toward.

There are great articles relating to this rampant Nazi censorship and liberal totalitarian mind control.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1577
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:20 pm

The six million figure has some significance in a jew prophecy. It was used extensively even before the war:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1343
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : Nova Universalis

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:19 pm

apaosha wrote:
The six million figure has some significance in a jew prophecy. It was used extensively even before the war:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

E.g.,
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 939
Join date : 2013-01-03
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:12 pm

So what's the politically correct response when confronted with the prior use of the figure? It's so blatant, I'm curious what their "logical" answer is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Hrodeberto

avatar

Gender : Male Capricorn Posts : 1343
Join date : 2014-07-14
Age : 31
Location : Nova Universalis

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:21 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
So what's the politically correct response when confronted with the prior use of the figure?  It's so blatant, I'm curious what their "logical" answer is.

In the short term, no amount of disputaton or prolixity will dampen consensus.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:30 pm

I verified many of the newspaper articles that are in the above image:

1/29/1905, second article, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
3/29/1906 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
12/02/1914 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
10/18/1918 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
11/12/1919 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
3/29/1933 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
6/1/1933 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
9/08/1935 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
5/31/1936 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
02/23/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
05/02/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
01/15/1939, includes another article with the term "6,000,000", [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Other related articles I found that weren't in the above image:

11/26/1936, second article from bottom of the page, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1/09/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
7/10/1938 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

----------
A link I found on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]





Last edited by Stuart- on Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Stuart-



Gender : Male Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-08-28
Location : -

PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:01 am

perpetualburn wrote:
So what's the politically correct response when confronted with the prior use of the figure?  It's so blatant, I'm curious what their "logical" answer is.

From [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Number arguement aside, dead is dead."

"unless youre gonna call up john titor and go back in time to do a dead count it happened....cant change it, so"
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Mitchell Heisman

Back to top Go down
 
Mitchell Heisman
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Mitchell Heisman
» Howard Mitchell says Hi!
» The RIP Thread

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA :: LYCEUM-
Jump to: