Building a tech startup from the ground up, good password hygiene, is Gen Alpha f*cked? Ft. Mohammad Eshan

Okay Frank, back it up! Keep coming! Lord's Room! Lord's Room! Frank just got himself a new Kia EV2. He loves everything about the car. How it looks, how it drives, its class leading range, and its highly impressive spec. Back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back! In fact, the only thing Frank can't get used to is how much bigger it feels than it actually is. Lord's Room! Lord's Room! Discover the EV2 for yourself at your nearest Kia dealer, Kia. Movement that inspires. Hey everyone! Let's do a new reading for sub-stack and for the supporters here. This may be a book that some of you have heard of by Maurice Samuel called "You Gentiles". It's pretty infamous. Antelope Hill has their own version of it. Let me show you how they describe it here. They say. There has been no shortage of writings detailing an incompatibility between Jewish and Gentile people from a variety of sources and perspectives. Many of these fade with the circumstances that sparked them, but a few make lasting contributions to the understanding of millennia of conflict. Preserved by his own stature as a titan of Jewish literature, Maurice Samuel authored "You Gentiles" in 1924, which persists as one of the most visceral and fundamental contrasts of Jews and non-Jews. Samuel's writes with confidence as a recipient of several awards for his writing, including the Anisfield Wolf Book Award, and the It's Sick Manger Prize. With reference to his own deep familiarity with the collective Jewish experience, Samuel makes no qualification for his belief in the spiritual racial and religious incompatibility of Gentiles with his own people. His thesis culminates in the ultimate rejection of any possible reconciliation between these peoples. So it's very easy for people to say that. Oh, that's just one person writing. Well, I mean, this is somebody who was very celebrated in his day. Wikipedia describes him. He was actually born in Romania. His family, then they went to England. He moved to Paris with his family at the age of five, about a year later to England where. Then they moved to England a year after that. He studied Victoria University there. His parents spoke yet at home and he developed strong attachments to the Jewish people in the English language in early age. This later became a motivation for the books he wrote as an adult. Eventually, he left England and emigrated to the United States, settling in New York City's Lower East Side. He served in the US Army during World War I. Jewish intellectual and writer Samuel was known for his role as a "plemesis" and "campaigner" against anti-Semitism. Most of his work concerns itself with Judaism or the Jews' role in history and modern society, but he also wrote more conventional fiction, such as the web of Lucifer, which takes place in the Borges' rule of Renaissance Italy. He, let's see, he and his work received a claim within the Jewish community during his lifetime, including the 1944 NSF. Both book award for his non-fiction work, "The World of Shalom Alecom." "Alecom." He received the It's Sick Manger Prize for the Eritish Literature posthumously in 1972. He was a radio personality, appearing on NBC Summer Program, "Eternal Light," "The Worlds We Live By." He did a radio show discussing the literary and cultural impact of the Bible. He died in 1972 at the age of 77. He had six fiction works and a ton of non-fiction works. The first one was "Ugentiles." The second one was "I the Jew." Never read "I the Jew." Some of the other ones are "Princess of the ghetto." "Jew on approval." "The gentleman in the Jew." "Certain people in the book." So, this is someone who was celebrated and someone who was known in the Jewish world. This just wasn't some random guy who read a book and someone found it and was like, "Oh, look at this." This is well known. And in 1924, this would be after World War I, Henry Ford is writing at this time about Jews in the United States and the International Jew. Also, in 1924, it's also the year of the first real immigration restriction. It was a clamp down an immigration that year that a lot of people took offense to. So, let me just scroll through here. Here we go. I got a copy actually reading of a printing of a book. Actually, from 1925, just a year after fifth printing, table of contents. The first chapter will be called "The Question." It's 31 pages. They're very short pages. It's like a small paperback kind of book. But I don't know if I'll get through the whole thing today. But yeah, why don't I start and let's see where this goes. There are audiobooks of this on YouTube and everything. And I think that I think I hypocrite did an interview with someone from Antelope Hill. Because Antelope Hill has their own version of this. If you're going to pick it up, get it from Antelope Hill. The promo code, PQ, 5% off, everything in order there. But yeah, let's get into this and let's read it. Let's see what his message is in 1924. Chapter one is titled "The Question." Let me take a sip real quick. All right. These last 10 years and more, I have been asking myself with increasing urgency and number of questions. Is there any significance in the distinction I have so long cherished, the distinction of Jew Gentile? Not to be found in the class of distinctions implied in American foreigner or Englishman foreigner. Is there between us, Jews and you Gentiles that is between the Jew on the one hand and the Englishman, the Frenchman, the American on the other hand, that which transcends all the differences which exist among yourselves? So that in relation to us, your Gentiles, in relation to us, your Gentiles first and afterwards, and without particular relevance in this connection, Englishman, Frenchman, Americans. Or is there nothing more implied in that distinction, Jew Gentile than in a general way in the distinctions Jew American, American Englishman, Englishman, Frenchman? In other words, are we Jews but part of the Gentiles, Americans, Englishman, Jews, Frenchman, or is there a deeper cleavage between us? Is this Western world divided primarily into two parts, you Gentiles, we Jews? From the outset, I shall be asked, "Even if you suspect the existence of such a primal cleavage beyond the reach of ordinary national or racial classifications, what purpose can you have in urging it upon the attention of the world? Has it any practical application? Does it in any fashion clarify the status of the Jew or give greater cogency to such claims of his as are still unsatisfied?" This question will be asked of me by many Jews, but in particular will be asked with the utmost insistence by those Jews who have based our recase for national rights, nationally quality, precisely on this assumption, that we Jews are people like all other peoples, similar needs and impulses, that we are Jews, you are Englishman, you are Italians, you are Americans, that we, the world's races or peoples, are all of us similar in our differences. Leaving on one side those who deny the existence of any distinctions at all, those, that is, who say that the Jew is either a Frenchman, an American or an Englishman according to the place of his birth, I would answer, "For me, the ordinary nationalist or racial classification, has not suffice." If I have long pondered this question of Jew and Gentile, it is because I suspected from the first dawning of Jewish self-consciousness that Jew and Gentile are two different worlds, that between you Gentiles and us Jews derlize an unbridgeable gulf. Side by side with this belief grew another, which is related to the practical aspect of the distinction. I do not believe that, situated as we are in your midst, scattered among you from one end of the Western world to the other, we have the right to retain our identity if we are but another addition to the Gentile peoples. This is imperant, this is. Nor, by the way, do I believe that we could have retained it so long had this been the case? If we are about one more people added to the long roster of people's living and dead, we have no claim worth while, under these circumstances, to continuity of separate consciousness. Consciousness. Such a claim could never have arisen had we remained secure, segregated on our own soil. It would have been our tacit birthright. But as it is, our existence is secured in an infinite expense of special effort on our part and of particular discomfort to you. Wherever the Jew is found, he is a problem, a source of unhappiness to himself and to those around him. It's an interesting way to put it. It's an interesting sentence for someone to admit. I wanted to say before I moved on, talking about the reason why I wanted to talk so much about who he was and how well he was believed to, in his community, how well he was known and regarded. It's because I just watched this documentary called Protocols of Zion and it's from like 2005 to 2006. And it's a Jew. His name is Mark Levin, not Mark Levin. He basically goes through the protocols and his whole thing is that, well, me as an individual Jew, I don't have the power to do this so this is pretty much all bull. When writings like this, when writings like 200 years together, when you have all the writings of Jewish philosophers over the centuries, you don't need something like the protocols of the elders of Zion. That is, I don't consider it. I don't take it seriously. I'm not going to read it. I mean, I've read it, but I'm not going to read it to you. I'm not going to have a serious conversation about it. When you read a sentence like wherever the Jew is found, he has a problem, a source of unhappiness to himself and to those around him. And it's from somebody who's prominent, somebody who sold a lot of books, somebody who had a radio show, somebody who was popular in his day, somebody who, you know, most Jews, I would say, and I'll just say New York and New York was me, if you remember from Racemore in High School, there were 60,000 public school teachers in New York in the 1960s and 60 percent of them were Jewish. So you're talking about, I think at the time 14 or 15 percent of the city was Jewish. These people knew who he was. This is not some obscure writer. This isn't a book that fell out of the sky. This is someone who is taking himself very seriously and not only taking himself very seriously, but he's taking us very seriously. That needs to be respected when you're listening to what he writes. Okay? All right. Onward. Ever since he has been scattered in your midst, he has had to maintain a continuous struggle for the conservation of his identity. It is worthwhile in the face of this double burden, our own and yours, to perpetuate what may be, after all, an addition of one unit to scores of similar units. Were these centuries of alternate torture and respite not a disproportionately high price for the right to increase by one page, the already overburdened records of the nations? Or at my belief, as it is, at least in expression, the belief of many fellow Jews that our right to exist is founded on our similarity to other peoples that where American or Belgian or Italian has a right to homeland, culture, history, parliament, we Jews have the same right for the same reasons and for no other reasons. Were this my belief, I could not find the heart to continue the struggle or to urge the struggle upon others? The effort is too severe, the price is too high, the garden is insignificant. Were we like other peoples, we ought to have done what other peoples under similar circumstances would do? A people driven from its homeland, a people who ground into dust and carried by winds of misfortune into every corner of the world has no right to inflict its woes and longings on others. It should cease to exist. It should rid the world of its unfortunate presence. Such would be my belief if I saw in ourselves only the replica with the proper variations of the rest of the world. But this is not my belief, for I see otherwise. Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from huge entrails. But a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts. That this duality is a fundamental and that all differences among huge entrails or trivialities compared with that which divides all of you from us. So what he's saying is, he's saying, this isn't a crack in the sidewalk. This is a chasm. This is the grand canyon. Or the distance across an ocean. I'm aware that this is a thesis which cannot be supported by diagrams, tables and logarithms. Basically what he's saying is it's not, I guess what he's saying is it's not logical. It cannot be urged with the apparent half-compulsion of social and economic laws. The cogency of what I have to say does not depend on reference to obvious and ineluctable laws, natural processes acknowledged and accepted. I am also aware that the weight of what we call, what is called learned opinion will be thrown against me, that my connection will meet with the ridicule of facile, common sense and of scholarship. Nevertheless, I said it down clearly that in the Western world there are essentially two peoples as spiritual forces, only two human sections with essential meaning, Jew and Gentile. Think about that. So in the Western world you have Germans, English, French, Spanish, people who've had empires, people who've conquered the known world. And what he does is he says there are only two, Jew and everyone else. So basically we're lumped in with each other. He's basically drawing the line, boldly, all of you and then us. But at least what credentials I have to offer since the presentation of credentials must always proceed the presentation of the thesis. What claim have I on the attention of the world? I can only answer that this book being a serious book must carry its own credentials and does not attempt to borrow importance from outside sources. I offer myself only as a Jew who has lived, observed and thought. My experiences and contacts have been somewhat more varied than those of most men, but this has little to do with my views. The truth which is spread over the whole world is also contained in any part of it. The laws of gravitation are implied as completely in the falling of a pebble to earth as in the rush of the sun against the counter rush of its companion stars. The law of Einstein works no less truly in the crawling of a snail than in the dizzy vibration of the fastest atomic subunit. These laws are more easily observed in the one set of cases than in the other. That is all. If I have touched a truth that has been primarily through contact with life, and I have regarded books as but a class of living things to be observed and interpreted in place in their setting. Life itself, observation of men and women, singly and in masses, and knowledge of their works among which books are important, a feeling for their desires, perception of their intent and cities, laws, theaters, games, wars. All this has been brought me to the conception I shall set forth. All scholarship, particularly that scholarship which deals with the manifestations of men's desires and fears, consists of unauthoritative marginal notes which are of interest chiefly as giving us some insight into the nature of those who jotted them down. It does no harm to know the history that is in the books, but the only authentic history is around us. It is made daily in newspapers, theaters, meetings, election campaigns, and it is less valuable to know that the waiter said at the simple Cisimus cabaret in Vienna when I was there three years ago then to know what Terrence reports a slave to have said in Rome when he was there two thousand years ago What if my neighbor the professor reads Greek rather than fluently Rather less fluently than did a certain thick-witted Athenian citizen who lived in the time of parachles and by no means as well As well as I read English is that proof of wisdom or understanding and supposing my neighbor on the other side the History the professor the famous professor of history knows rather Less about the Peloponnesian war than the intelligent college student knows about the world war Is that professor therefore a wiser than most men is his opinion on life more valuable? And supposing another scholar purports to tell us What the ancient Egyptians believed and from his account of this dead religion Pretends to teach the secrets of faith Can he tell me what John Doe or Isaac Levi believes does John Doe believe that Christ rose from the dead? Really really believe that as a plain truth as he would believe it and believe it if his mother Who may buried five years ago? She suddenly come walking into his house Rodded away and clad in her clad in her tattered serenments Believe it as simply and as terribly and As Isaac Levi believe that the waters of the Red Sea were divided as he would believe it if one day below the Williamsburg bridge He would have seen the waters split rear and fall again And if neither John Doe nor Isaac Levi believes as cogently as this then what do they really believe if they believe anything at all? And if the professor cannot answer these questions, what does he mean when he says that the Egyptians believe that a Sir a Cyrus rose from the dead? And what do his reports matter? There is no test or guarantee of a man's wisdom or of his reliability beyond what he says about life itself Life is the touchstone books must be read and understood in order that we may compare our experiences in life With this and see a report of the experience of others But such and such a one who has read all the books extent on history and art is of no consequence unless they're these arts of him and Indirect commentary on what he feels around him Hence if I have drawn cheap cheaply on experience and contemplation and little on books which others will discover without my admission This does not affect my competency which must be judged by standards infinitely more difficult of application Life is not so simple that you can give a man you can test a man's nearness to truth by giving him a college examination Such examinations are mere games. They have no relations reality You may desire some such easy standard by which you can judge whether a or not a man is reliable Does he know how much does he know much history much be out biology much psychology if not he is not worth listening to But it is part of the frivolity of our Outlook to reduce life to a set of rules and thus save ourselves the agony of constant reference to first principles No standard eyes knowledge is no guarantee of truth put down a simple question a living question like this should a have killed be Asked of ten fools five will say yes five will say no Asked of ten intelligent men five will say yes five will say no Asked of ten scholars five will say yes five will say no the fools will have no reason for their direction the intelligent men will have a few reasons for And as many against the scholars will have more reasons for and against but where does the truth lie? What then shall be the criterion of man's reliability? There is none You cannot evade your responsibility thus by entrusting your salvation into the hands of a pre-specialist a Simpleton may bring you salvation and a great philosopher may confound you And so to life direct as I have seen it working in others and felt it within myself I refer the truth I Refer the truth of what I say and to books I refer only in so far as there are manifestations of life Best that you can tell of what he's trying to say is that He's going to be going on experience His experience amongst Gentiles and Jews Part two of chapter one But another question more subtle and disturbing must be faced I have said there are two life forces in the world I know Jewish and Gentile hours and years if this be a truth we must not be driven from it from it if Like many other truths it is overlaid and obscured by the irrelevancies of life by the intersection and confusion of currents Here is the Gentile life force here is the Jewish life force What their origin was I cannot say I can only surmise dimly what circumstances reacting upon what original impulses produce the Jewish life force and the Gentile life force I can only affirm to the Jews in the main belongs to Jewish life force a consistent and coherent force a direction and human thought and reaction To you others belongs to Gentile life force a mode of life and thought distinct from hours But the borderline is not clear not all of us Jews are representative of the Jewish life force not all you Gentiles are all together alien to it We have lived for many centuries in close contiguity and If not in intimacy our prophetic books our most characteristic influence have been read to you for many hundreds of years Something in these books has developed here and there among you the latent individual impulse to our Jewish way of life and thought Essentially our prophetic books cannot change your Gentile nature But in straight predestined hearts they bring forth fruit Your outlook on life your dominant reactions are the same today as they were 2000 years ago all that has changed is the instrument of expression you live the same life under different faiths But something clings to you here and there resembling the original form of the faith we gave you Here and there are somber earnestness breaks out on the dazzling Calidoscope of your history and we for all our segregation have caught particularly of late something of your way of life as A few Gentiles have spoken in Jewish tones so more than one Jews speaks the language of the Gentile Jews live a Gentile life here and there while Gentiles While Gentile lives give expression to Jewish emotions Get the cleavages there abysmal and Undeniable in the main we are forever distinct Hours is one life. Here is is another such accidental confusions as make some Northerners darker than southerners does not affect the law that the southerner is darker skinned The law holds nonetheless for accident and contradictory cases You may even have Jews in your myths who did not learn their way of life from us and did not inherit it from a Jewish Forbear we may have authentic Gentiles in our myths in our midst These single protests are of no account. They are extreme and irrelevant variations and Of his little account are the occasion Occasional transferences of customs and conventions taken over in the mass We may have customs and conventions of yours imposed on our fundamental way of life Even as you have surface credo of a Jewish faith imposed on your way of life But in the end your true nature works itself into the pattern of the borrowed faith and expresses itself undeniably So we borrowing from you finally assimilate the loan and in time make it essentially hours Beyond all these are relevancies which hide at times But do not change the issue lies that clear and faithful division of life Jewish and Gentile Because I am mingled intimately with the Jewish world and with the Gentile world I know well how easily exceptions obscure the rule But I know just as well the unsounded the unsounded abyss between us What I've learned in your myth stands in my mind sharply severed from what I have learned in the midst of my people I listen to your life to the brilliant chorus which goes up from lands government cities books churches Morality's and in my mind I can no more confuse it with the tone of Jewish life than I can confuse the roaring of a Tempest with the deliberate utterance of the still small voice I repeat It is of life I speak of masses of men and women of The things they say and do do their daily selves as I have known them It is of life at first hand that I speak of yourselves as you are in masses and singly of my own people as I know them My conviction came first from this contact and from meditation on its meaning I learned this belief of mine not in books not in history, but in many Manchester, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, New York. So Gentiles, I concluded, have a way of living and thinking, wherever they may be. So Jews have a way of living and thinking. Had no books ever been written, where there are no histories to refer to, I would have come to this belief. I do not believe that this primal difference between Jew and Gentile is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever. Not a mere conviction, not a mere language, not a mere difference of national or religious allegiance. With the best will on both sides. Successful adaptations each other will always be insecure and transient. Waves of liberality may affect our mutual relationship from time to time. We shall dilute ourselves, you and we, with the belief that we have bridged the gulf. Many will pass their lives in that delusion. But as come to pass so often, the difference which is deeper than will, deeper than consciousness will assert itself. There is a limit to our moral and mental possibilities. We cannot climb out of ourselves. The complete and permanent reconciliation of your way of life with hours is beyond that limit. Some of you already asked on the question, if you believe that, why do you stay among us? Why don't you separate, especially since 23, 25 years after this, it's called 25. They'll have their own country. Of course, it is the frequent theme of editors, of popular professional optimists, and of gullible and fast-siled publicists that the path to reconciliation between Jew and Gentile is the path of knowledge, or rather of information. The more you know concerning our history, our customs, our belief, than nearer you will find us to you, the less you will dislike us. But this is futile and unreliable, amoebability. It is by no means even a general rule that the best informed people are the least accessible to anti-Semitism. The most backward countries are the most infected. Here is a cult or at least a feeling which sits with equal grace on the grossest of your peasantry and the most refined of your aristocracy. In the one case, it is fortified by superstition and the other case by all the information the scientific research into philosophy, history, ethnography, and anthropology can accumulate. Not that, in my opinion, the aristocrat knows us better than the peasant, the scholar better than the bore. But even if you should understand us, and I offer you this toward that end, we would not find mutual tolerance any easier. This book, therefore, cannot be presented as an effort to achieve an end which from the outset is declared impossible. I do not propose to combat anti-Semitism. I only wish to present what seems to me its true explanation in the hopes of changing some of its manifestations. I'm going to stop right there. So basically in this last paragraph, he tells you what the purpose of writing this book is. Basically, what he has said so far and what I have read is the Gulf cannot be. It can't be bridged. He says, "I don't even want to fight anti-Semitism. I only wish to present what seems to me its true explanation in the hope of changing some of its manifestations." So basically, what he would appear to be saying so far, we will read more another day, is that, yeah, the true explanation of what anti-Semitism is is that the Gulf can't be, there will always be enmity. And his only real hope in writing this book is to change some of its manifestations. And when he says that, he's not saying that for our benefit, the Gentile benefit. All right. So a little bit of the way through this, it's going to take a little bit to get through this, but it's really not that long a book. It's really only like 100 pages. So, yeah, but it'll be a nice thing to spread out and read over probably a couple of weeks. All right. So, be back in a couple of days. Watch out for some really fun episodes coming up. And one in particular that I think everyone's really going to like a lot. And make it pretty wide. All right. Take care everyone. Really, just take care of yourselves and take care of the people around you. Later. All right. Welcome back to part two of my reading of Maurice Samuel's Eugen tiles. We read chapter one, parts one and two within chapter one. And the one takeaway we should come away, should take away so far is that he's making the statement that the chasm between you and Gentile is too big. It will never be, it will never be bridged. It will never, in his opinion, it's always going to be a chasm. And there's no bridge that can bring the two together. I just want to say again, remind everyone, this is written in 1924. This didn't fall out of the sky like the protocols of the elders of Zion, which I don't, I don't take a seriously as a scholar of Jewish history, somebody who studies their history. I don't take that seriously. It means nothing to me. It's other than a curiosity. This is a book written by a man who was known in his time as a Jewish intellectual known within the Jewish community. Had a radio show. This was a serious scholar and a commentator on what he sees around him. And he makes that, it makes very clear in what we've already read that there's no science to this. This is what he is seeing. And this is, he's not putting together equations. He's not saying a equals b here, but not here. He's saying, this is just what I'm witnessing. This is what I feel within me. So let's move on. We shall not come to understand the nature of the primal difference between Jew and Gentile and Jew. If we attempt to treat it merely as a difference in accepted dogmas and philosophies, a religion in its formulated essence is seldom the real religion, the practice and belief. Creads which in their formulated essence are alien to a people may be accepted by the people, but the true nature of the people asserts itself. I actually agree with that 100%. He's basically saying anything you write down is, sure, this is what we believe, but it's really what you practice. It's how it manifests in reality. But the true nature of the people asserts itself. The form and dogma, the religion are retained, but the fabric, the institutions, the true reactions, which make the religion what it is outside of its sacred books. These are the indices to its actual force and significance. There is such a thing as conversion of a man's opinions. There is no such thing outside the field of long and laborious psychotherapy and individual cases as conversion of a man's nature. That is beyond the reach of conscious effort. Certainly beyond the reach of the missionary. Change a man's opinions and his nature will soon learn to express itself through the new medium. This, I preface to my observations on the difference between Jew and Gentile because I anticipate the commonplace illusion to the similarity of our creeds, to the identity of source and the origin of the founder of your religion. Christianity, the reality, not the credo, is not a variant of Judaism. Whatever Christ his chroniclers may have been. intended. Your nature is the same today as it was before the advance of Christianity. Within the framework of another creed, your instincts would have woven a similar design. So basically, what he's saying is Christianity didn't change those who call themselves Christians. It could have been something completely different. And we who call ourselves Christians would be no different. That it won't change that this belief structure on the outside will not change who we are at the base. And if not religious, this difference certainly cannot be in the nature of a philosophy or a Veltan shong. It is true that a man's nature dictates his philosophy and Veltan shong. Start that again, clear my throat. That's a word. Even as it does his religion. But we must also remember that our logic is nearly always at variance with our natures. A man's nature expresses itself only indirectly is never found in the face in the face value of his assertions. Surely we differ in religion and philosophy. But only if we consider religion and philosophy not as assertions, but as the practice or art of life presented in their name. Though you and we were to agree on all fundamental principles as openly stated, though we should agree that there is only one God that war is evil, that universal peace is the most desirable of human ideals, yet we should remain fundamentally different. The language of our external expression is alike, but the language of our internal meaning is different. You call that line in that part of the spectrum red. So do we. But who will ever know what that what that this but who will ever know that the sensation red in you is the sensation red in us? Life is fluid and dogmas are fixed and life trying to come to terms with dogmas does not easily break with them, but endows them with almost infinite plasticity. Under the same dogmas, a man will kill another or die rather than lift his hands and kill. One generation means one thing in a dogma. Another generation means another thing. And at last, even the elasticity of the dogma will not stand the strain. A sudden wave of emotion comes to reinforce accumulated resentment. There is a revolution and new religion is founded. New dogmas are accepted. Perhaps they do not answer the need. Perhaps they express only a passing fashion. Perhaps they are no nearer than the old dogmas to a reconciliation between philosophy and instinct. But they may take root and the process begins all over again. Instinct indoors for glacial ages. Religions revolve with civilizations. Let us differentiate then between a religion as a dogma and the same religion as a practiced art or way of life. We may compare religion with religion. This is legitimate and fruitful. But let us in so doing compared dogma with a dogma practice with practice. And even when we treat of dogma, let us be careful to distinguish between the dogma as proclaimed and the dogma as it is transmitted by the transmuted by the emotions. And certainly between the dogmas of your religion and hours is little difference. For we gave you the dogmas. It is absurd to assert that the soul difference between you and us is that you believe that Messiah has already come while we believe that he is yet to come or that you believe even in theory and the doctrine of forgiveness while we believe in the doctrine of retaliation. It's interesting, huh? Christians believe in the doctrine of forgiveness and he's saying that Jews, but their doctrine is one of retaliation. Even in theory, this difference is trifling in the face of the overwhelming bulk of common inspiration. The difference between us is abysmal. It is not a disagreement about a historical factor about a commandment which neither of us observes. In some of these dogmatic disagreements, we may find the key to our differences. They do not constitute difference. A few of them, those which have not been stretched to accommodate your instincts, but express them readily, were caused by the difference between us. They did not cause it. That primal difference, which I have sensed more and more keenly as I have tasted more and more of life, your life and our life, is a difference in the sum total of our respective emotions under the stimulus of the external world. It is a difference in the essential quality or tone of our mental and spiritual being. Life is to you one thing to us another. And according to these two essential qualities, we make answers to the needs and impulses which are common to both of us. To you, life is a game and a gallant adventure and all life's enterprises partake of the spirit of the adventurous. To us, life is a serious and sober duty pointed to a definite and inescapable task. Your relations to gods and men spring from the joy and rhythm of the temporary comradeship or enmity of spirit. Our relations to God and men when he, for those of you who aren't reading along, he says, your relations to gods and men, he properly makes a G small case. When he says here, our relations to God and he uses a big G, but he doesn't cross out the O. Why does it become so common in modern day? Our relations to God and men is dictated by a sober subject, subjection to some external principle. Your way of life, your morality's and codes are the rules of a game. Nonetheless, severe or exacting for that, but not inspired by a sense of fundamental purposefulness. Our way of life, our morality and code, do not refer to temporary rules which govern a temporary and trivial pastime. They are inspired by a belief, a belief, a true belief, a belief which reaches below assertion into extinctive reaction in the eternal quality of human endeavor. To you, morality is the right thing. To us, morality is right. For all the changing problems of human relationship which rise with changing circumstances, you lay down the rules and regulations of the warrior, the sportsman, the gentleman. We refer all problems seriously to eternal law. For you, certain acts are unbecoming to the pertinent ideal type, whether he be a knight or a decent fellow. We have no such changing systems of reference, only one command. And all your moral attributes are only varieties of Queensborough rules. Honor, loyalty, purity, these are sets of regulations. The best of you will not swear from them. You will die in their defense like the gallant gentleman you are. But you will not brook the question whether your system of honor is founded on right. Whether loyalty has relation to intelligence, whether purity has relation to the state of mind. Honor means but one thing to do the honorable thing. Whether be honoring dueling, among the honor among thieves, honor of women. Loyalty means the quality of being loyal independent of right or wrong. Purity means the chassis of the body or the denial of desire. As such, it is related to the game, not to God. For us, these distinctions do not exist. For we are serious in our intentions. We will not accept your rules because we are not, we do not understand them. We will not accept your rules because we do not understand them. Right and wrong is the only distinction we are fitted by our nature to appreciate. We are puzzled by your punctilios, your quaint distinctions, your gentlemen's coming, coming thoughts. We are amazed when you fight for them. We are struck dumb when you die for them. A song in your lips. Not that we, not that we do not know how to die for a cause, but we must die for a serious cause. For a reason, for right, for God. Not for a slogan without meaning, for a symbol, for its own sake, for a rule for its own sake. We will die for the right. Not for the right thing. This difference in behavior and reaction springs from something much more earnest and significant than a difference in beliefs. It springs from a difference in our biological equipment. It does not argue the inferiority of the one or the other. It is a difference in the taking of life which cannot be argued. You have your way of life we are. In your system of life we are essentially without honor. In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless. To us you must forever appear godless. from here. beyond both of us, there is nothing right nor wrong. There is your Western civilization. If you're sense of the impermanence of things, the essential sportiness of all effort, the game-someness and game-ness of life has blossomed in events and laws like these I have seen around me. It cannot, from an external point of view, near the yours nor ours, classified as right or wrong. Wars for Helen and for Jenkins' ear, duels for honor and for gambling death, deaths, death for a flag, loyalties, gallant gestures, a world that centers round sport and war, with a system of virtues related to these, art that springs not from God but from the joyous-ness and suffering of the free man, a world of play which takes death itself as part of the play, to be approached as carelessly and pleasantly as any other turn of chance. Cities and states and mighty enterprises built up on the same rush of feeling and energy as carries a football team and in the same ideology. This is the efflorescence of the Western world. It has a magnificent, evanescent beauty. It is a valiant affiance of the gloom of the universe, a warrior shountains of the ghastly void, a futile thing for us, beautiful and boyish. For all its inconsistencies and failures, without itself, it has a charm and rhythm which are unknown to us. We could never have built a world like yours. The efflorescence of our life, given free room, is profoundly different. We have none of this joyous game, game-someness. We fight and suffer and die, even as we labor and create, not in sport and not under the rules of sport, but in the feeling and belief that we are part of an eternal process. We cannot have art such as you have, a free and careless lyrical beauty, songs and epics. Our sense of beauty springs from immersion in the universe, from a gloomy desire to see justice done in the name of God. Morality itself, we take simply and seriously. We have none of your arbitrary regulations, your fine flourishes and discipline gallantries. We only know right or wrong. All the rest seems to us childish irrelevance. When God speaks in us, when His overwhelming will drives us to utterance, we are great. Otherwise, we are futile. With you, there cannot be a question of utility. We belong to the one mastering God. You belong to the republic of playful gods. These are two ways of life, each utterly alien to the other. Each has its place in the world, but they cannot flourish in the same soil. They cannot remain in contact without antagonism. Though to life itself, each way is a perfect utterance to each other. They are enemies. Moving on to chapter 2. Sport. The most amazing thing in your life, the most in contrast with ours is its sport. By this, I do not mean simply your fondness for physical exercise, your physical exuberance, but the psychological and social institutionalization of sport. Its organization is a prominent, predominant role as the outlet and expression of your spiritual energies. I will not go into the history of sports among you, contrasting it with its absence from our records and emotions. But surely there is something of extraordinary significance in the predominance of sports in your first-tie civilization. Their religious character and their hold on the affection and attention of the masses. The Overwhelming Significance of this manifestation of life has been ignored, is due essentially to the pomposity of historians who care for dignity and scholarship, more than for truth and who, often lacking the shrewdness, insight, cynicism, craftiness, vulgarity, affection, and live-wireness, in brief, the worldliness, to understand what is going on around them in newspapers, politics, and movements, think they can nevertheless understand history, which they seem to regard not as yesterday's acts of the people around them today, but as it's attached to a peculiar system, inaccessible to ordinary and uncultured intelligence. I need not go to ancient history. When I read serious accounts of the history of our own times and see what a seeming conspiracy of stupidity or historians ignore, the most potent manifestation of modern life, sport, football, baseball, and concentrate almost exclusively on such trivialities as politics, which no one takes seriously. I am filled with astonishment and despair. Such men cannot write true history, but some records there are, and however small the attention which serious historians had given to this, we must feel that the chief, chief-free passion, that is, the chief passion not inevitably aroused by the struggle for existence, the chief spiritual passion was sport. Witness the elaborate religious celebration of sporting events built on athletic contests, witnessed the adulation, the love that was poured out to athletic prodigies, witnessed the dedication of the highest most inspired talents to their glorification, witnessed it tremendous mass passions enlisted in sporting events and Athens, in Rome, in Byzantium, and elsewhere. But in this regard, as in most others, history is by far less important than contact with life. I need not study history or read books to know what sport means to you. I have only to feel the emotions around me. Read your newspapers, watch the records of your universities. The most certain, the most consistent, the most sustained, intense free emotion in your life is sport. And when here in America, as indeed elsewhere too, some of your professors and educationalists deplore and condemn the propondering role of sport in the schools, they fail to understand your spirit. Your spirit is sport, particularly your young men who are not yet absorbed in the struggle for existence and whose emotions are therefore for the largest part free must find in sport in games and contest the most satisfactory expression of their instincts. This is exactly why they have to keep us distracted, especially young men. Young men says here, your spirit is sport, particularly your young men who are not yet absorbed in the struggle for existence. That is why when it comes out that there is growing groups of young men who see that they have a struggle for existence and they decide to come together to talk about it and to organize. It's such a threat to them. They would much rather have you playing sports. Because they understand the struggle for existence. They don't want you to have, they don't want you to be cognizant of that. Because then you become dangerous. For the most part, of course, both professor and public, despite occasional jokes that their own expense and at the expense of the institution, sympathize with the attitude of the young men and encourage it not only by their energetic interest in organized sport outside, but by the passionate attention with which they follow the sporting records of the colleges. It is a commonplace that the scholastic achievements of the universities are both unintelligible and uninteresting to the vast mass of graduates and that academic work can in no wise compete with athletic achievement in taking the heart and interest both of these and of the general public. If this was released in 1924, you're writing it in 1922, 1923. What's your professional sports leagues at the time? Major League Baseball? That's probably the biggest one. Football has not become basketball, has not reached any kind of height, hockey's in its infancy. It makes you wonder why professional sports became so important because if college sports can occupy the mind of the young and do damage to it and they don't understand the struggle that they're in and the older, if they have professional sports to watch, if it's just right there on the TV or on the radio at the time, then they become subsumed in it and they don't see the struggle there. Maybe there's a reason why at one time basketball was a huge part of basketball was Jewish and they stopped playing and they bought the teams. And even those who can understand the concept of scholastic achievement. are also drawn more powerfully towards sporting achievement. I do not agree at all with the few critics of your universities who see in this state of affairs of the client of the spirit of the country and its of its educators. This state of affairs is not decadence, but the full and vigorous blossoming of your spirit. This is your way of life. What he's saying is he's saying that when you see some professors and academics come out and say really maybe the sports thing is distracting. What he's saying is no it's not being distracted and concentrating on sports and not taking taking anything seriously is who you are. We depend on that. The contention of the majority of your educators in the moral instinct is train them the football and baseball field and boxing, rowing wrestling and other contests. Is it a true one? Is trueer perhaps than most of them realize? Read that again. The connection of the majority of your educators at the moral instinct is train them the football and basketball field and boxing, rowing wrestling and other contests is a true one. Your ideal morality is a sporting morality. The intense discipline of the game, the spirit of fair play, the qualities of endurance, of good humor, of conventionalized seriousness, and effort, of loyalty, of struggle without malice or bitterness, of readiness to forget like a sport. All these are brought out in their sheerst and cleanness, starkness and well organized and closely regulated sports. Sounds like he's saying, "You love your rules." Stick to that. Because we're not playing by any. And on the experiences and lessons which these sports imply your entire spiritual life is inevitably found. It is therefore unjust to treat this aspect of your life flippantly. You yourselves often fail to recognize, except an unknowledgeed instinct, how deeply it is rooted in your life. And having sunnered it from the overt and organized homage which you pay to spiritual values in the church that is, you have split yourselves. Hence the comparative weakness of your organized churches which are founded on a misconception. Sport is for you a serious spiritual matter. It is the proper symbolization, the perfect ritual, wherein your spiritual forces find the expression, also find exercise and sustenance. They were cleaner-witted, who, they were cleaner-witted who, before the advent of Christianity, associated sport intimately with your religious life. Today you are practicing on a vast scale the troubled hypocrisy of unhappy converts who have been convinced in reason of a new religion, but whose proper and healthy instincts drive them to seraptitious homage to older gods. Or sport given its right place again in your acknowledged spiritual institution, the church, you would be happier, clearer, stronger. For the premise, once granted that life itself is but a joyous adventure, a combat, a passage at arms, you cannot do better than symbolize this premise in your athletic contest in Olympia. With local worship conducted on the village green and in the athletic halls and academies of the cities. The rigor of the rules or sacred rights, which attended the open association of sport religion, testifies to the profound inner compulsion which makes the two identical. Indeed, even when religion and sport have been sundered, there is more moral odium attached to bad sportsmanship, cheating in the game, cowardice, selling out, striking foul, and so on. Then to the contravention of a moral injunction bearing no sporting character. What's he saying? Basically, he's saying that we would have more outrage. As Gentiles, if we found out that someone was fixing baseball games, then we would a politician was cheating on his wife, a politician who considered themselves to be Christian. Kind of inarguable. You cannot therefore do better from your point of view than instill into your young a keen love and admiration of right sportsmanship and encourage your participation in sports governed by severe regulations. Trained with the sufficient consistency, they will carry into their adult life an ever-eminent sense of right and wrong according to your lights. And no better training could be devised, of course, than that which is associated with your powerful educational institutions. It is true that the system, even when seen from its own point of view, has its potential evils. Partisanship may become so keen that it thwarts the purpose of the sports institution. The desire to win or to be on the winning side may become so bitter as to overrule the moral sense and combats between champions as once between the principles of opposing armies may actually discourage individual participation. But every system, if it is a living thing, the subject of the danger. And even out of the evil side, you may draw good. If millions watch with breathless interests the combat of champions, that combat conducted under the truest sporting rules becomes a great influence and fine, gentlemanly athletes may become the teachers of the nation. And again, seen within itself, sport morality has as severe a discipline, if not from our point of view, any spiritual sincerity, as a god morality. It is as difficult and as exacting to be a gentleman as to be good. In many respects, of course, the two concepts overlap, though they are differently centered, both call for restraint for consideration of rules, both are in advance on moral anarchy. In thus characterizing your ethical concepts, I have already indicated the essential difference, which separates them from ours. There is no touch of sport morality in our way of life, in our problems of human relationship. Our life morality cannot be symbolized in a miniature reproduction. We have no play presentation of life. Our young, even like our adults, are referred at once to the first source, to the word of God, to the word of the prophet or teacher speaking in the name of God. Or to secularize the statement, our young, like our adults, are imbued with a feeling of the absolute in their moral relations. Our virtues lack the flourish and charm of the lists. Our evils are not mitigated by well-ment and delightful hypocrisies. Murder except in self-defense is murder. Whether committed in a duel, with all its gentlemanly rules, or in unrestrained rage, when we are set face to face, so how would they act in war? When we are set face to face with an opponent and one must kill the other, we proceed in the most effective way. We cannot understand the idea that rules of conduct govern murder. We cannot understand a man who attacking another insists that the other in self-defense shall strike only above the belt. That strange character, the gentleman thief, the gallant and appealing desparado who occurs with such significant frequency and your fine and popular literature, perhaps points my meaning best. The idea of a gentleman thief is utterly impossible to the Jew. It is only you Gentiles, with your idealization of the sporting qualities who can thus unite in a universally popular hero, immorality and ridder-shickened, that's a very long German word. It is probable, of course, that the majority of your Robin Hoods and Claude Duvales were nothing but low-Ruffians, devoid even of chivalry, but their significance is not what they were, but in what you make them in worship. The persistence of the types is evident today as much as ever, when popular fancy is charmed and youth-tempted into emulation by the raffles and loopings of the world of books. At no time have we Jews sympathize with this type. We are insensible to the appeal of the correct and the graceful as a substitute for our morality. Nightly or unnightly, courtly or uncourtly, sportsmen like are the opposite in our real life means nothing. We only ask, is it right or is it wrong? For the rules which you bring into life from the athletic field have no relation to the ultimate moral value of your acts and serve only to give you the moral satisfaction of having obeyed some rule or other while doing exactly what you want to do. Thus grown and intelligent as you may be, you govern the hunting of animals with the most curious and seriously taken regulations. You must not shoot a pigeon or a rabbit in sport unless such and such regulations are obeyed. It is unsportsmen like. You make a great moral to do about these regulations, but what in God's name is just to do with. right or wrong of killing defenseless animals for sport. You have attempted to infuse into business, which you have made the stark translation into modern social terms of the old kill and be killed chaos, and an ineffectual gallantry which will again give you the sense of playing the game while giving free course to your worst instincts. I mean that, apart from the necessities of the law, you attempt to bring into the field the business the curious punctilio of the fencing master, courtesy and pretenses, slogans and passwords which mitigate only an appearance of the primal savagery of the struggle. Service, the good of the public, a square deal, all the catchwords of the advertising schools which give a flavor of gamesome friendliness to a world that is essentially merciless. This is not intentional lying. It is not deliberate hypocrisy. You believe that homage to these forms constitutes a morality. It does constitute a morality of a kind. We on our part recognize no particular system that divides business from the rest of life. One is as honest in business as in anything else. For us business has not a specialized idealism or a court etiquette, a particularized code of honor. We are honest and truthful or we are not honest and truthful. It has nothing to do with our being in this game or in that game, a shopkeeper or a tailor or a banker. And because we cannot, by reason of our nature, follow you in these playful caracals or curvitzings. But drives straight to the purpose using the plain common sense and honesty or dishonesty of the occasion, you are bound to regard us as many of you do as lacking an etiquette that is in your morality. A similar division in other essential opinions illustrates the primal difference between us. Your attitude towards combat, tools, wars and all the virtues pertaining to it is one from which we shrink. To you courage is an end to itself, to be glorified, worshiped as imparting morality to an act. To us courage is merely a means to an end. Hence your courage is combative. Hours passive. Your is offensive. Hours defensive. Heroics play a great part in your idealism, none in ours. To fight is never a glorious business to us. It is a dirty business. We perform it when we must, and I suppose there is very little to choose between you and us in the matter of courage. But we cannot pretend that the filthy necessity is a high virtue. Dolce at decorum s. pro patria mori is not a Jewish sentiment. For it is not sweet to die for anything. And if we must die for it, we will. Nor do we glorify the warrior as a warrior, despite occasional individual defections of hours from that view. If my brother goes mad and attacks me and I must slay him and self-defense, how can I be happy over it? It is a cruel and miserable business to be finished with as soon as possible, to be forgotten as soon as possible. This is essentially the Jewish attitude toward war and warriors. I do not find it in the Bible delight in war and warriors. Our exultation and victory was not the glorification of the warrior, but only a fierce joy of having survived. We fought bitterly, vindictively, in order to kill, and our God was a God of war. But however this may be, I know with utter certainty concerning us as we are today that the conscious Jew, the Jew steeped in Jewish life, despises the fighter as such, abores war, and though he can die for his faith as well as anyone else, refuses to make a joyous ritual of combat. For when you Gentiles assert that you abore a war you deceive yourselves, wars disablimest to the sports and therefore the most deeply worship. Do you mourn when you must fight? Is a nation plunged into gloom when a declaration of war arrives? Do you search your hearts closely, gruelly to discover whether you yourselves are not to blame that this monstrous thing has come to pass? Is a tremor of terror go through you? Perhaps we are guilty. Do you clamor for the records of the long complications which have ushered in this horror? Do you go to your task of defense or offense, darkly, grimly, bitterly? No, you hang out your most gorgeous banners. You play merry music. Your blood runs swiftly, happily, your cheeks brightened and your eyes sparkle. A glorious ascension of strength marks the throwing down or the acceptance of the gauge. From end to end of the land, the tidings ring out and every man and woman, woman of metal, every red-blooded man and woman, itch is for a hand in it. Let me say clearly that I do not think all of you are fighting heroes. I have no doubt that millions of you in every country want to war reluctantly, but this does not contradict my contention. It only means that millions of you are not capable of living up to the ideal morality which you cherish. Not even the greatest coward, even the most unwilling conscript toys in his emotions with the adventures and triumphs of war. I speak throughout this book of the ideals to which you aspire and from which you draw your moral inspiration. And it is certain that war itself, independently of all aims and justifications, is a prime necessity to you. And a declaration of war is a long-awaited signal of release, greeted with extravagant and hysterical joy. It is not love of country which induces the flood of happiness, it is combat, the glory of sport, the game, the magnificence of the greatest of all contests. Again, they were cleaner-witted. Those of you who declared openly and frankly that war is a natural pursuit of noblemen and of kings, the highest and most life-passionate among you, the most exalted were to be dedicated above all others to your way of life. Only the basis among you were accounted as unworthy of admittance into the splendid company of warriors. The Skullian must not dare to aspire to combat of distinction. Today, as of old, you have nothing but contempt revealed in its true intensity in time of war for the true pacifist. Your nature is today what it was a thousand years ago, and the somber obscenancy of the British worker still survives the tacit rage of the Scandinavian berserker. And vain and futile and foolish are all those efforts to dam up and choke the extremist and most cherished outlet of your natural instinct. But in war as in all other games of life, you satisfy your morality by means of amazing punctilios. To kill thus leaves you clean, to kill otherwise is un-genominantly. And if you are these fine points in the conduct of war and of duels, there may lurk some true moral significance. But it amazes us that in the exercise of this punctilio, you find sufficient righteousness to ease your conscious altogether. Were you truly concerned with right and wrong instead of with the sporting right thing, with honor, what a flood of horror and pity of prostration would follow each of your wars, with what the frantic haste you would fly to the consolation of each other, with what tremors of moral terror you would examine again and again the catastrophic madness from which you have just emerged. Merciful God, you have just slain ten thousand, a hundred thousand men, fathers and sons, in the red rage of combat you have disemboweled them, suffocated them, drowned them, torn them limb from limb, blinded them, a million loving parents, children, friends of we, waken, sweating in the night out of a terrible vision of last despair, of contracted screaming agonies. And now when it is over, do you run to your churches and with streaming eyes fling yourselves at the foot of the priest and altar terrified, lest the murder you have committed might have been avoided. Lest at least some of the guilt rests upon your head, for surely it is even the faintest stream of culpability, the minute is blot, the grain, an all but indivisible fleck, and oversight, momentary impatience, pride, carelessness, leave you not utterly, utterly, utterly blameless, you have need of all the divine compassion, all the infinite forgiveness of God. But your wars have never ended since history records them, save with the same outbursts of pride and insolence as began them. Was there ever to Te Dam, turned into a cry of mech culpa, was ever a war entered in a history book, save as a glorious adventure, glorious and victory, glorious and disaster? And even if after 100 years of history and here and there, it's harnishes this, the, the stainless records of your purposes with a single plausible doubt, was there ever an awakening of guilt, a thousandth part as strong as the awakening of pride and happiness, which accompanies the recalling of the exploits of any war. However, remote, you have just passed through the wildest and most universal of all wars, search your memories in your press well. Where was the hushed humility, the awe, the shuddering amazement, which should have fallen on the world when the armistice was declared, it's talking about World War I. Did you not straight, did you not straightway send forth emissaries to bargain and barter to accuse and to denounce, and above all to maintain your dignity, what dignity pray? What was left of dignity to a single one of you? What was left of decency to any of you had joined in the furious and blasphemous revelries for those five years? You hate war? Nonsense, you enjoy it. If in the passing tiredness which follows the strenuous exertion, you pause a while to reflect. You do not dare to think into the root causes and evils, lest indeed you make warms. impossible. You take her with a few regulations, gas laws, flamenwar for rules, armed and unarmed ships, and similarly feudal trivialities. You call each other bad sports and a day later you are prepared, if the occasion offers to embark again on the exhilarating, exhilarating enterprise. Yet I say for all this, you can never be guilty in your own eyes, not one of you. Denunciation can only come from one who does not share your morality. Your conscience cannot be seared for you have done no wrong. Wars the high mark of your life, the true and triumphant expression of your instincts. And therefore, whatever church and religion may preach in the intervals between actual fighting, you remember all your wars with wistful and longing pride as the greatest events in your existence. The splendor of war, in preparation and in action and in recollection, in the rhythm of the training of the armies in the frantic excitement of battle in the glorious commemoration of monument and song and tapestry is the flower of your civilization, material and spiritual. In nothing are you as efficient as in war, in nothing as true to yourselves. Stranged to the utmost in this terrific game, you splendid faculties find full and vehement exercise and whosoever from under the shadow of God abraids you and discourages you is your eternal enemy. I cannot undertake while developing this theme to answer all of the objections which occur even to me. In part, of course, some of these objections are unanswerable and are, in my opinion, only overborn by counter-objections. In part, they are futile objections. But in touching on some of them, I may make my viewpoint clear. I shall be reminded that wherever war was declared, we Jews have responded as readily and as eagerly as you Gentiles. Statistics which are quite reliable and such will thumb matters bear this out. But I do not believe that we did so from motives that resembled years. Many reasons compelled us. We are everywhere, to a large extent, aliens. A sense of inferiority and status drives us to extremes of sacrifice and justifying our claims to equality. More than that, we Jews are so frequently and so vigorously reminded in all constitutionally governed and liberal countries that we ought to be grateful for permission to live there. That we developed a gratitude which is not only disproportionate but occasionally grotesque. Our children in schools and elsewhere are taught year in year out, contrast their present freedom and equality of opportunity with the oppression and bitterness which was the lot of their parents elsewhere. Frequently, the contrast as painted in their imagination is not a duplicate of the reality. However, this may be, these incessant and vehement reminders produced their effect. The child almost comes to believe that it was for this special benefit of oppressed foreigners that America became a free country and instead of accepting American forms of government level headedly with the proper degree of appreciation and criticism, he develops a suppressed hysteria of gratitude. This is not a healthy and natural feeling. Children should not be made to feel such things and if it comes to the matter of contributions to liberty, we Jews have done as much for the enfranchisement of men as any other people. But the Jew, the oppressed par excellence, begins to look upon America's liberty as a personal favor. Favour? No wonder then that Jews will rush to fight for America. Yet, despite the contradiction of figures, there is still a strong impression abroad that the Jews failed in their duty. We're slackers. This feeling rises from an instinctive appreciation of that as a difference between us. We Jews don't like fighting. Eugeantiles do. Moreover, because you like fighting, you are much more skillful than we in hiding occasional reluctance to fight. Indeed, it is obvious that the more fearful you are of taking a hand in the combat, the more you will glorify and idealize it. While the Jew who is afraid adds actual and over-dislike to his cowardice. Although I agree with a lot of what he has to say about how we fight wars. I don't agree that he is applying his scholarly academic. He is applying that to all Jews at this point by saying that they don't like war. That they are reluctant to fight. They are reluctant to fight for others. But when they think it benefits them, they will fight. Look at the pogroms. So many of them were started by Jewish revolutionaries and then put down and then they screened pogrom. Or especially the 1648, which was just them going on a murder of spree and Kemelnetski coming in to put it down. It just isn't true. Yet, I can look at what he said about how Gentiles think about war and agree with a lot of what he has to say. And remember, he's not talking about Northern white Europeans. He's not talking about Eastern Europeans. He's not talking about Western Europeans or Southern Europeans. He's talking about Gentiles. He's talking about West the West as a whole. But apart from this, we must not forget that what the schools of the Western world open to our children, your view of things is gradually being imposed on our alien psychology. Of the real and apparent successes of your effort, I write elsewhere in this book. But here, let me note that the Jewish child in your schools is made to feel that not, that not to like fighting is a sign of complete inferiority. Determined to become your equal, he essays often with success to become warlike in his attitude. But it is an artificial success. He does from an imperious sense of duty what you do by instinct. He fights by forcing himself to. He has not your natural gift and inclination for it. I don't agree. I think it is there. And I think that if he would have, I would need to, I mean, he lives on 1972. So I need to read some of his later writings on the founding of Israel. I'm assuming if he were to discuss Irgun, Haganah, Sterngang, the founding of Israel, subsequent wars, I would assume cope. But who knows? I would have to read more. And his books are out there. So maybe I shall. But onward, this is almost done. Of course, I shall be told in establishing this distinction among others that it is dangerous to generalize. It is curious with what finality this commonplace is supposed to crush to generalize. Suppose it is true that it is dangerous to generalize. Are not many necessary things dangerous, like bearing children and digging coal. A truth is nonetheless a truth because it is a dangerous truth, open to easy abuse. Nevertheless, the most serious truth can only be stated as generalities. And this most serious truth is among them, this contrast and attitude towards war, of view, and gentile. And as long as the contrast exists, it will be stronger than will, stronger than reason. As long as we are at opposite poles, we shall have to make continuous and strenuous efforts to get onside by side. All right, that's the ending of chapter two, sport, finish up chapter one, and finish all of chapter two. And on the next episode, we will touch chapter three gods. But I will say a lot of what he had to say made sense. And if you're honest with yourself, you will know it made sense if you're not just being reactionary and not wanting to agree with him because of who he is. Think about it. Take it to heart. Now I think that he's his saying that they are not a war like people. I tend to differ, especially when you consider this was written in 1924. And there was already violent violence being inflicted upon the inhabitants of Palestine at the time. So anyway, thank you for listening. I'll be back in a couple days and we will continue with chapter three. Take care. All right, let's get back into this. Sorry, I needed a few days off there. Recorded a lot. Also had a lot to do personally. So the last episode, we finished up chapter one and then we finished up chapter two, which was on sports. And more specifically on war. So chapter three is called titled gods. So, let's see what Mr. Samuel has to say. Chapter 3. Gods. This is the essence of our difference. That we are serious. You are not. The French shading of the word comes nearer my meanings. Vune pa, salut. Sorry, French people. Not as a matter of intent, but as a matter of constitution. This lack of seriousness thus uttering itself in your ethics and governing the character of your relations to each other must also govern your religion, your symbolized relations with the universe. And I have always felt in contemplating your religious experiences and declarations the same alienation from them as from your morality. Your feeling for Godhead partakes of the imaginative and lyrical playfulness which is your essential nature and whatever may be the formal creed in which your feelings are wrapped, their true nature cannot be hidden. Ugen Tiles are essentially polytheists and to some extent idle worshipers. We Jews are essentially monotheists. I hope my reading of Israel Shahak's 200 years together, that's 200 years together, my apologies, Mr. Sultianieson, but Jewish history, Jewish religion puts the bed that Jews are essentially monotheists. No, for the most part, their leadership especially is polytheist, their religious leadership. I would assert this even if it were not known that we have been singled out for centuries by our obstinate monotheism. I would assert it on the basis of my observations of the worlds I have known. Monotheism is a desperate and overwhelming creed. It can be the expression of none but the most serious natures. It is a fundamental creed which engulfs individual and mass and an unfathomable sea of unity. In monotheism there is no room left for individual prides and distinctions, no room for joyful assertiveness. I will agree with a lot of that there. In monotheism there is no room left for individual prides and distinctions. But a certain brand of monotheism that is fairly recent when you take into account the history of the church definitely leads open everything for individual prides and distinctions. No room for joyful assertiveness. I don't even really know what to make of that. Monotheism means infinite absolutism. The crushing triumph of the one. The crushing annihilation of the ones. So if you're just listening to this as monotheism means infinite absolutism. The crushing triumph of the one capitalized. One's is lowercase. To the serious nature it is inconceivable that this world should be at the changing mercy of opposing and uncontrolled forces. That God's a varying power and purpose should be making a sport of their own with us and themselves. To the sporting nature, the gasly unity of all life and power, the grim and semperternal settled predestination of all effort is when accessible and intolerable thought. We choose rink capable of polytheism. You Gentiles are incapable of monotheism. Let's see where he goes with this. Given, in the most explicit terms, a definition of monotheism, which you have tried to sincerely as lies in your power to accept, you still fail to make it your own. If life here is a sport and a heroic epic, the origins of life must be the same. Let the exceptions among you proclaim what they will. I know that the creeds of your masses as I have heard them expounded from pulpits and homes as I have read of them in books and in periodicals are polyistic creeds. Of the three and one, the three is stressed. The one is reluctant concessions to the dogma. For where there is the happy and imaginative Gentile spirit, there cannot be the complete and unconditional prostration of the individual. The utter breakdown of self which is revealed in our prayers before God and our feelings toward him is an experience which you are too proud to share. Most of our prayers are helpless repetitions of our helplessness, the stammerings of a child overwhelmed, over mastered by contemplation of the supreme unity, capital U unity. You cannot pray thus at no time, even in the presence of the gods, do you lose your self-possession, your dignity? You too pray, but your prayers, compared with ours, are requests. Your offers of service to Christ, the God, are the offers of a vassal to a powerful superior. Our prayers too beg something, but requests of ours are folded in an abasement, a humility which would be revolting to you. Hence it is that you have never, in these many centuries of Christianity, produced utterances like those of the prophet of Job and of David. Your inspirations come from other sources, not from the one source. Your gods are universal gods of the world, not of the universe. The universal aspect of divinity, its attributes of infinity and eternity, its omnipotence. These find only your formal acknowledgment. And emotionally you are unfitted to give them the true acknowledgment of complete and almost incoherent abasement. That language is alien to your spirit. The terror of the infinite cannot touch you. The eternal you know as it were by symbol and formula, but not by horrified experience. Your very professions of humility are like proud trumpet blasts. Your Habsburg burial ceremonies and annoyance by priests are but artistic flourishes which bring into graceful relief the true soldierliness of your character. I do not remember even having met the exceptions which must exist among you. I do not remember ever having heard a Gentile pray with that abandonment, that objecteness that as it must seem to you, fulsomeness of homage which characterizes our prayer. Only they who, like us, are broken under the burden of realization of the infinite, can pray thus. Only they who in dreams and in waking ecstasy and above all in instinct have been touched with the rage of the undeniable power of the undeniable power can utter such adoration of ours. Our very anthropomorphisms reflect the difference in our spirit. With our personified God we hold speech such as you would never hold. When we translate infinite extent into infinite individual power we shadow forth a being charged with an intensity of existence, the concentration of life and force which you are unable to apprehend, being too free and spirit to attribute to any outside force such untrammeled and unapproachable tyranny. So your gods too are play things. Firepower is in the tempestuous game of life. All your mythologies were tale of adventure for your very gods are not serious. And most fascinating are the tales of those gods which you fashioned when you're first brilliant blossoming in Greece started out of your turbulent soil. Who could conceive the mythology of Greece as a product of the Jewish people? That grace, that sunny charm, that adventurousness, that quarrelseumness could gods like these ever have sprung from us? The emptiness of life and space and time brought forth out of your free and bounding imaginations, a host of beings which you imagined with infinite loveliness and stone. One God for heaven and one for the bowels of earth and one for the sea and gods for music and tragedy, gods for commerce and for voyaging was not this a charming game, a game of children. And anyone say that this was a serious and desperate attempt to become in concept, one with the universal spirit of life? Alright, let me just stop right here so I don't forget what I'm going to say when I finish this chapter. Because I'm only going to read this chapter in this chapter, rather short. Yeah, I'm sorry, Mr. Samuel, for the Western tradition, the Greek tradition, the Aristotelian tradition, being that of homogenous societies in which people live free and people be the shire. What you're telling me? me is, is a yes. You want a homogenous thing too, but your goal is to enslave humanity. And that's what you get from your quote unquote monotheistic God. It's literally what he said in the first chapter. It's Gentiles against the rest of the world. It's Jews against the rest of the world. There should be Germans. There should be French people. There should be the English. There should be the Americans who broke off away from, you know, broke away from that and started their own thing, the Japanese, the Chinese. And they all should live where they live, how they wish. And they should only interact with other people when they want to or need be or a hand is outstretched. But you don't outstretch the hand, do you? You bring the sword. And I'm not talking and I'm talking about a metaphorical sword too. Whether it be briefcases or checkbooks or loans. Up until a certain point when you took over governments and now you have nuclear weapons. I get it. It's you against everyone else. And you think because certain groups don't want to go forth and subject everyone to their whims. You think you're better than us. Just understand that. It's exactly what he's saying here. This is exactly how I'm interpreting it. If somebody else has different interpretation, please, please put it in the comments. But this is what I'm reading. We have this monotheistic God. You guys, you're you're out there doing it's polytheism. You're doing everything you want. You know, you have this group over here, this group over here. And you're never going to be able to beat us because you can't come together like us. And plus your whole attitude isn't to subject the other like ours is. Continuing. Compare with this our own first groupings, our own first clumsy expression of the universal spirit which sought utterance in us. Even as an absolute tribal ruler, our God was one, was master, a serious God. And out of that God unity, which we felt even in our primitive limitations, you at last that concept which touched with undying ecstasy the lips of our prophets and cast over the life of the entire people for all time the shadow of omnipresence and omnipadence. Even when our God was a jealous God, his jealousy was absolute. He would brook no no homage, no homage, but to no homage, but to him, no acknowledgement, but of him. But the jealousies of your gods were only the jealousies of sport. They did not seek universal mastery and exclusiveness, only superiority to be premise, premise, inter, inter-paras was the ambition of your gods with mastery each in his own domain. But our God sought universal dominion in our hearts, such dominion has made all other homage inconceivable. Your gods gave you loveliness and joy in battle. You liked your gods and served them with alternating loyalties, you pitted one against the other, appealed from one to the other, plotted with one against the other. Your gods were kings and prinselings, mightier than you and more splendid. But no God of yours was the king of kings in your soul. Your gods have never grown up nor any single one among them. Nor have you grown into your God, but have always remained external, proud, and warlike and free, paying homage as of old, but retaining the mastery over yourselves. You do not know of a God who is all, a God in whom you are, a God who has reduced you to the dust, to the infinitesimal, in whom you are breaking foam, a bubble on an infinite sea, it breaks and it was born in this gone forever and ever. And so, despite occasional exceptions, which I acknowledge freely, the dedication of all life, all being to gods will and way is alien to you. You are not naturally steeped in God. You salute him and bring him homage. Your relations with your gods are occasional, even if inevitable. You cannot compare that with the imminence and intimacy of Godhead in Jewish life. God is a commonplace experience in Jewish life. He is the tacit, continuous miracle of all our days and nights, thoughts and experiences. We cannot conceive of a duality, religion and life, the sacred and the secular. A Jew is a Jew in everything, not merely in prayers and in synagogue. In the eyes of a piousist, a Jew who does not follow the rules and regulations of the synagogue, who even denies all dogma is not a non Jew. He is a bad Jew, a sinful and rebellious Jew. In the Orthodox world of Jewry, every act and incident in an acknowledged Jewish phenomenon is an acknowledged Jewish phenomenon, acknowledged that is openly by prayer. The whole day is saturated with God or with Jewishness. Our Jewishness is not a creed. It is our self, our totality. Indeed, it may be fairly said that the surest evidence of your lack of seriousness and religion is the fact that your religions are not national, that you are not compromised and dedicated and masked to the faith. For what value has God for you if you do not surrender to Him, even formally all your gifts and faculties, all your skill and emotion. This is an amazing duality of allegiance. One is an Englishman first and then a Christian, an American first and then a Baptist. Your most generous, generous loyalties, your radius sacrifices are inspired by your nationalism. Your faculties are nationalism. You claim this is typically American. This is typically British. This is typically French. You cut this off at once from God and the best of yourselves you hold without you withhold from Him. But in the Jew, nation and people and faculties and culture and God are all one. We do not say I am a Jew, meaning I am a member of this nationality. The feeling in the Jew, even in the free thinking Jew like myself, is that to be one with his people is to be there by admitted to the power of enjoying the infinite. I might say of ourselves, we and God grew up together. If you want to understand exactly how people like Benjamin Netanyahu and all of these Zionists who do not believe in God can be so obsessed, can be so cult like, can be so fanatical. This is how? What does he say here? I am a member of this nationality, the feeling in the Jew, even in the free thinking Jew like myself. What's he saying by free thinking? He's not, he's not orthodox. He's not part of some hyperreligious sect. He's a free thinking Jew. An atheist. God is just from everything I've read and even things I've heard anecdotally, some Jews say, they're God. They all are individually their God and as one their God. That's when you come to that realization that's so much to think about. So it builds up a great nation, millions of human-being, schools, armies, art galleries, books, legislatures, theaters, immense newspapers is not this, the all and all of national achievement, the best and strongest in you to have done this without your God as a central idea by taking over our newspapers. It's almost like they're just mocking. Like, look out, you're not even taking this seriously. You're so unserious that we just walk in and take it. We just buy it with money. And you allow it. Let me read that sentence again, because he follows it up. Well, "Tab builds up a great nation, millions of human beings, schools, armies, art galleries, books, legislatures, theaters, immense newspapers is not this the all and all of national achievement, the best and the strongest of you. Tab done this without your goddess, the central idea. Is that taking your religion seriously?" No. Many nation that takes its religious seriously is a nation of priests. Not too long after this, he's going to see a nation of priests as he describes it. You will tell me the such things have been among you that you have had national religions, national gods. I did not believe it. I have certainly seen no evidence in any record which has come to my attention. For we must distinguish between a patron or tutelary god and a national god. The first is especially a sign power. The second is to complete reflex of the people. A god who is born with the people who is the race on detra. About whom the people would not have come into national existence. You have had patron or appropriated gods. We have a national god. In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew. Is your god an Englishman or an American? There is no real contradiction between this confessed anthropomorphism and my claim that we choose to understand and feel the universality of God. In anthropomorphism, we merely symbolize God. We reduce the infinite, temporarily, to tangible proportions. We make it accessible to daily reference. For neither we nor you can carry on the business of ordinary living on the plane of constant abstraction. It is not because of your anthropomorphism that I accuse your religious feelings of being trivial. It is because of the manner of your anthropomorphism. It is because of what your anthropomorphism produces. And thus, by natural reaction, we and our anthropomorphism are all the more personal because in our abstraction, we are truly abstract. Because we alone are dedicated to the infinite, our god, when anthropomorphized is our own god. I might say that there is no Jew who does not believe in God. The free thinking Jews, the agnostic or atheistic Jew like myself simply does not anthropomorphize him. In his religious emotions, the atheistic Jew is as different from the atheistic Gentile as the confessing Jew from the confessing Gentile Christian. For if gods are the rationalized explanation of religious emotions, they differ in acceptance and denial even as these emotions differ. And of course, by religious emotions, we only mean one aspect of all emotions. Your emotions, your life-free actions differ fundamentally from ours. Why? I can't tell. But as in morality, you are free or sporting and very gated. So your gods are many, varied and manly. And our gloomy and merciless monotheism, intolerant and abstraction and in personification is the eternal enemy of your gods. I don't know that there is much more than I can already say that I've already said. The fact you should go and read this for yourself. It's a very short chapter. You can find PDFs online of this. Read this chapter yourself. And remember that when he gets to the end, he's going to say, "I'm an atheist." And then you can start to begin to realize what we're up against. Alright? Thank you everybody for tuning in. It's off to you in a couple days. Say "care." Bye. Alright. Let's knock out another chapter of Eugeniles by Maurice Samuel. The last one was called Gods and considering some of the comments I got. Yeah, that raised some people's eye. But having read this so long ago, I'm trying to remember what this chapter is about. So I'll be rediscovering this while you're discovering it if you've never read it before. Chapter 4 is called Utopia. The dreams of men concerning the latter days are a common index to their ideals of life, for no one will think of the future except as his own. These dreams, like their close kin, the night dream, are extraordinarily difficult of interpretation. Much more difficult than the psychoanalysts would have us believe. But on occasions, there are presented with unmistakable clarity and directness by the prophet. By the prophets. The functions of the prophet as a seer and a foreseer have been confounded for this reason. The true prophet sees into the ultimate longings of his group, longings which may even run counter to the day's desires. These ultimate longings are shifted into the far future, beyond the reach of temporal complications and compromises, and he that unveils a man's in most longings when his credence is having foreseen the true finality of life. I have chosen Plato's Republic and our own Hebrew prophets as the basis of contrast between your dreams of the latter days and hours, between your longings for perfection and hours. I have chosen Plato because of all the seers who have sprung up in your midst, he is the most universally adopted, and of all Utopias, your thinkers refer to his most frequently. That is to say, he comes nearest to your desires. Hence in discussing him, I am discussing you. I have used the phrase of all the seers who have sprung up in your midst because it is true that you still mention the Hebrew prophets more frequently than Plato. But it is of singular and final significance that as soon as you develop pre-intelligence and desire expression for it, you turn from our prophets to your own. The overwhelming bulk of your intelligent discussion of life and the end of life centers around the free philosophers or seers, and among these you have made Plato pre-eminent. Plato's analysis of the ideal life still approaches your dreams most intimately, investigating the true nature of morality. Plato bodies forth his ideal of a perfect state, and with the license of a dream giving free range his imagination unfolds step by step his famous republic. No considerations or practicality or a feasibility were there to check the career of his fantasy. The republic is to him life as it should be and as he would like to see it, the apotheosis of human aspiration. Contrast this with the visions of his almost contemporaries, the Jewish prophets, and in this contrast you will find again the key to our essential difference. The republic of Plato is an institution organized with infinite ingenuity and dedicated to the delights of the body of the mind. It draws its inspiration from the purge or the jua-the-viv of the ideal man of a perfect physical, of perfect physical and psychic health. You would seek in vain that extraneous compulsion of a god which the Hebrews called inspiration. There is no somber passion driving to creation, no intolerant demands impossible of fulfillment. It is not God creating men in his mold that is man creating God or the gods in his mold. Gods that are companionable and comprehensible. He sets before you a pretty intriguing little model, a city not too big to lose the characteristics of a city which, sunned from universal humanity, untouched by the universal hunger, restricts supreme goods of the possession of a comfortably secluded group. It is a city for the prosecution of the happy and artistic life. The harmonies and symmetries shall be carefully guarded. The satisfaction of body and of mind wisely and cleverly pursued. Nay, in that supreme human product, they shall even be astounding triviality, a censor. There shall even be a censor. There is a wealth of ingenuity devoted to these questions. How shall children be initiated into the art of war? Special cowards and heroes be treated. What about the plundering of the slain and the perpetuation of deeds of battle in monuments? Now is it not of the greatest moment that the work of war shall be well done? Or is it so easy that anyone can succeed in it and be at the same time a husbandman or a shoemaker or a laborer or any other trade whatever? Although there is no one in the world who could become a good drought player or dice player by merely taking up the game at unoccupied moments. Instead of pursuing it as his special study from childhood, and will it be enough for a man merely to handle a shield or any other of the arms and implements of war to be straight way competent to play his part well that very day in an engagement of heavy troops or in any other military service? Is it not the greatest moment that the work of war should be well done? This is this in a vision of human perfection for it never occurs to play to the perfection if inhumanity precludes the possibility of war. In treating of God, he says, surely God is God in reality and is so to be represented. But what can we make of his ultimate good? Is not his God merely a good thing, as right is for you, the right thing? And what can we make of his God when, after talking of the goodness and dignity of God, he goes on to talk of the gods and of how the poets are to be arranged for not treating them respectfully in that they make them laugh or portray them in undignified occupations and postures? Well does he say, the inquiry we are undertaking is not trivial one, but demands a keen sight. He does not say that it demands the aid of God or of a loving heart or hunger after righteousness, but the very question of God is a trivial one for, as one says in this book, it is urged neither evasion nor violence can succeed with the gods. Well, but if they either do not exist or do not concern themselves with the affairs of men, why we need concern ourselves, why need we concern ourselves to evade their observation? It's amazing that he's already admitted that he's an atheist, but he just keeps bringing up God. This graceful skepticism, which strikes the opening note of the book, sets the tone for the entire theme, what is justice? What envied? Does any man that loves a true justice, not the game ever asks this question? Can anyone truly believe that the subtlest and skillful analysis of justice will help one jot in creating love of justice, desire for justice? A vision of the perfection of mankind and children being trained for war. Contrast it with this. In that day, there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day, shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, "Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, my inheritance." Before with the better known passage, and it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountains of the Lord to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths." And he shall judge the nations, and shall rebuke many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn any more war. I think I've said before, and Israel's Shahak pointed out in his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, that for people who don't believe in God, they're addicted to this book. Because they take that book to mean that it's talking about them. That is it? Is it talking about someone named Maurice Samuel from Romania, from Europe? Is it talking about a European? A vision of the perfection of mankind with sensors and with carefully groomed gods. The limit of his imagination. But this, and the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters covered the sea. And this, and it shall come to pass afterward that I shall pour out my spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. Your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions, and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days I will pour out my spirit. Referencing spiritual. What spirit is he looking for? And because his world is not God's world and the world of his self-creative gods, he must sit down and argue anxiously what is justice. But he that really loves justice asks no questions. He cries instead, "Seek good and not evil that you may live, and so the Lord the God of host shall be with you as you have spoken. Hate evil and love the good and establish judgment in the gate, and let judgment run down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream. And when baffled by the inadequacy of his human standards, your philosopher refers just to the categoric imperative. He betrays the triviality of your world. What is that categoric imperative that helpless compromise and confession? What man recognizes it will bow to it? That phrase itself is its own denial. For he that refers mankind to a categoric imperative is himself neither categoric nor imperative. But even the devil here in Trumbull when the prophet thunders thus say at the Lord, there is the categoric imperative. For me, conscious of being Jewish and of the meaning of being Jewish, it is impossible to write this contrast without bias as if this book were merely an intellectual exercise. Because I am Jewish, I look with ultimate aversion on the world which finds supreme and ideal expression in Plato's Republic. And though I may repeat that this is no question of right and wrong in these two worlds, you are ours, I cannot but feel profoundly and vehemently that ours is the way and the life. I can feel how many of you would love to meet him right now. Yet I would pay what tribute I can to the dreams of one like Plato. I have at least touched your world closely enough to have caught some of the beauty of its freedom. There is a Jewish legend which tells that when God brought the law, his law to the children of Israel assembled at the foot of Sinai, after he had offered it to all the other peoples, only to have it rejected, he left them no choice but said, "Either you take my law or I will lift up this mountain and crush you beneath it." Or any of you who are familiar with satiriology and the New Testament thinking what I'm thinking, who's been crushed beneath it for rejecting it. I attached no psychological significance to the fable, the practice of interpreting fable psychologically is as a rule a dishonest one, but quoted as a handy illustration. We are not free to choose and to reject a play, to construct a refine. We are a dedicated and enslaved people, predestined to an unchanged relationship. Freedom at large was not and is not a Jewish ideal. Service, love, consecration, these are ideals with us. Freedom means nothing to us. Freedom to do what? Yet in glimpses I understand the charm of your life and sometimes lose myself in the fascination of your Plato's dream. Such a world as he foreshadows a world of sunlight, exercise singing, fantasy, a world of graceful and elastic bodies of keen, flashing minds of clash and effort, war in heroes and monuments, a life wheeling and dashing and splendid formations, rejoicing under free and loving sky, a life without brooding and gloom, without the intolerable burden of this unrelaxing eminence. Men and man's effort, man's love and agonies are ends in themselves, to be exploited for themselves, the coming and going of men and nations and gods are without ultimate significance, a dance of atoms, a passing ecstasy without thought of the sinister beyond. Beautiful, but not for us. While this dance goes on, while nations and gods enter the game and leave it, we continue through all time and apparition, almost a dread reminder of infinity. He is so jealous, it's ridiculous. He's so jealous that you and I can look upon beauty, that these things mean so much to us. And he rejects them at a hand, hope, singing, being able to imagine. Your dreams of perfection are only a piece of your present life, the transient become permanent. The skies will be blue forever, your dance will never end, your bodies will always be strong, your wits keen, your battles glorious. The game will reach its limit of in enjoyment. But for us, this is not an apotheosis. This is not a vision. For us, the end is ecstatic unity, the identification of man with God. You get the idea that God has basically every, you know, there's the glory of God, which is to be worshiped, but there's also the wrath of God. There's his, as church fathers have written in the past, his terribleness, the catastrophic things he can do. And you get this idea that that's the only part of God that they want associated with them. He's saying that that's the only part of God that he wants to associate with. He doesn't see joy in God. He only sees the God once things done a certain way and only a certain way and everything outside of that is sin. And that's what he wants the world around him to see him as. You would like to play with your gods forever. We will return to God to the universe. Yours is a sunlit afternoon with the combat and swaying forever in a joyous struggle. Hours is a whole world with the spirit of God poured through all things. Your ideal is Plato's Republic. Hours is God's kingdom. Yeah, I just don't know. It's baffling. Some of the, some of you have commented that this is just frustrating. And it is because you can't relate to it. And then that's this whole point from the beginning. We're not going to be able to. That's it. Be back in a few days. All right. Take care. There's a short one. Bye. All right, everyone. Ready for chapter five of you Gentiles. This one is called loyalty. Whenever friendly tribute has been paid to the higher ethical nature of the Jew. Let me start over again. Whenever friendly tribute has been paid to the higher ethical nature of the Jew, it has always been made to appear that the Jew obeys the law of a common morality more strictly than does the Gentile Jews and friends of Jews have wanted to make it appear that if we differ from you ethically, it is that we are more self-sacrificing, more generous, more loyal, more honor, honor, honest, etc. I do not desire to make it appear so. And in the foregoing pages, I have tried to avoid any such implication within our system. We need to better within our system. We need be need we need be neither better nor worse behave than you within years. Not only is most of this just such an inversion. He just writes it in such a way as to be like, oh, look, look how smart I am. He's writing in the 1920s and basically what he's trying to write in old English or trying to write in 100-year-old English prior to this. We get a, I'll even give you a grant to your smart. You're smart. We may transgress as frequently as you, perhaps more frequently. I cannot tell. It is on the nature of the systems that I base to the distinction. We deny your very system you hours. So that casually we must seem immoral to you, you to us. That is why even the lowest type of Gentile despises the Jew, the lowest type of Jew, the Gentile. For it is well to remember that criminals do not deny a system of ethics. They only transgress it. So the criminal, the subverter of a nation of morality is a horrible creature as, which I have already intimated, to the coward the pacifist is particularly a borant. This must spring from the fact that for the professional criminal it is essential that humanity should be moral. His very existence as a criminal would otherwise be impossible. Indeed, he has more reason than anyone else to foster a sense of morality and mankind. For the more exceptional he is, the better for his trade. Hence, his greatest enemy is not the policemen. For the policeman maintains a social order, which is his prey, but the moral anarchist. And since the Jew is to the Gentile order, and since the Jew is to the Gentile order of conduct, a moral anarchist, the Gentile criminal who has come into contact with Jews will be the aptest to hate Jews. It is for this reason, I think, that criminality is so closely allied to anti-Semitism. This is for the moral anarchist. And since the Jew is to the Gentile order of conduct, a moral anarchist, the Gentile criminal who has come into contact with Jews will be the aptest to hate Jews. Wow. In the attitude of the public towards literary and stage censorship, I find the clearer illustration of this distinction between the breaking of law and the denial of law, a play which is in decent, maybe so for one or two reasons. Either it deals with sex within the frame of morality or it denies the validity of this morality. In the first case, which covers most successful plays, we have no attack on current notions of what is right and wrong in the sexual relationship. We have indeed complete acceptances of the current principles of sex morality. But with this acceptance and principle goes a generous denial and practice, plays of this kind cover countless breaches of morality with a knowing wink, a tolerant appeal to human weakness. It is ludicrous to deny that the desire to tickle and provoke the sexual appetite and covertly to encourage its promiscuous satisfaction, governs these plays. But it is not made a principle at all. It is the breaking of the law and not the denial of it, hence such plays, except when they become too obvious in their purpose and thus become an overt attack and mass, are tolerated by the censorship and encouraged by the public. But the play which has little sex appeal yet seriously denies the validity of accepted sex morality is dealt with promptly and severely and among those who condemn it most vigorously will be found those who frequent, assiduously, the first type of play. I see nothing incongruous in this. Nothing illogical even. For the first type of play is perhaps the safety valve to human nature. It remits us our unavoidable allowance of license without which morality would be come an insufferable imposition. But the second type of play breaks up morality completely. To the system of law, the amoralist is more dangerous than the criminal. The. Well, yes. But why? I would say the amoralist is more dangerous than somebody who seeks to destroy morals is more dangerous than someone who seeks to steal. But why does he think that such? The naked chorus girl is less dangerous than the naked truth. Such a danger, a danger not merely of malpractice but of essential denial is the Jew in your morality. And against the Jew there is a union saccharity of all classes and conditions of men, the prince, the labor of the professor, the saint, the thief, the prostitute, the soldier, the merchant. There does not seem to be a single country with a history which has not been anti-Semitic at one time or another. Why? Why? If there is a country in the world where Jews have not gone, there's no anti-Semitism there. But once they show up, anti-Semitism appears and I've heard Jewish philosophers say this. They say it. I think he even said it in a previous chapter. There is no country today of which the Jew can say in this country anti-Semitism will never become triumphant. Your dislike of us finds uneven and unequal expression is lulled into rest for a time. At times is overborn by generous impulses but it is equality inherent in the nature of things. Nor is it conceivable to me that as long as there are Jews, and Gentiles, it should ever disappear. Well, why? For your system of morality is no less a need to you than ours to us, and the incompatibility of the two systems is not passive. You might say, well, let us exist side by side and tolerate each other. We will not attack your morality nor you hours. But the misfortune is that the two are not merely different. They are opposed in mortal, though tacit, enmity. No men can accept both or accepting either to otherwise then despise the other. No single attribute or virtue shows our mutual enmity more clearly than that of loyalty, which among all the attributes contributing to your morality is perhaps the most dearly cherished, the most vehemently advocated. It is impossible for me in writing of it to take up purely analytical attitude, analytic attitude. But I believe that the prefaces and aversions, which I hear express will at least serve to make clear the irreconcilable difference between Jewish and Gentile morality. The abstraction, loyalty, is not related to good or bad. Loyalty is preached naked as a virtue for itself. It is proper and right to be loyal. To do a thing out of it is proper and right to be loyal. So he already said he's an atheist. What is his philosophy? He has no philosophy. His philosophy is to call himself an atheist and then say that he obeys God. How do you deal with someone like that? To do a thing out of loyalty, loyalty to a man to a group to an idea is in itself a sort of justification. To develop a loyalty is in itself commendable. To the Jew, naked loyalty is as incomprehensible a bewildering thing. That men should be called upon to keep a quality of this virtue on constant tap to be applied on instruction to this or that relationship is not merely irrational to us. It is beyond the apprehension of our intelligence. We can understand love born of a natural relationship but the quality of love differs essentially from the quality of loyalty. Loyalty is demanded as an independent quality as a thing in itself. It is cultivated. Love cannot be cultivated. He quotes cultivated there. It is stimulated and forced. It is not demanded essentially that you love. It is demanded that you be loyal. Very often indeed, loyalty is demanded and the word demand for love would be too obviously ludicrous. For the application of loyalty as to you is seemingly in the case of an association of shoe salesmen as in the case of country itself. It is expected in your world that a man should be loyal to his country, to his province, to his city, to his section of the city, to his college, to his club, to his business associations, to his fraternity, to every chance group in which events may bring him. So, where you're born, your country, that's a chance group owes no loyalty. Where you live, what section you live in? No loyalty city, no loyalty. Section of the city, no loyalty. College, no loyalty. It makes sense. Club, well, he says fraternity up here. It has to be loyalty business associations. It's not a blind loyalty. So, every chance group into which events may bring him. In the first instance country, the distinction between love and loyalty is startlingly clear. Love of country is a profound spiritual quality. It may go hand in hand with a dangerous and exalted morality. But loyalty merely says, "My country must triumph at all her undertakings, whether they be right or wrong or rather, there is no such thing as my country wrong." And in loyalty to king, class, or church, the same distinction or substitution as observed. Loyalty is a rigid code of behavior, not an emotion. He's just going black and white. You can have a loyalty to your country, but he doesn't even know how to set. I don't know that he knows how to separate country from government, because nation is people. Government is government. How many people have a loyalty to the nation, but don't have a loyalty to this government? It's all black and white. In his estimation. But the real nature of loyalty is only seen in its application to those relationships which are much more fortuitous than those of country church class. And these loyalty is clearly revealed as a fictitious and artificial regulation, with no roots in moral conviction. Let us take the case of a young man who is faced with the choice of college. He may have preferences, but there is no compelling association which identifies him with any one institution. The choices decided, finally, by some quite irrelevant influence. He goes to any one college as he might have gone to another. Well, what if his father went there, his grandfather went there, his grandfather went there? I mean, but once he is there, loyalty demands that he regard this college as the best in the country, perhaps in no particular, for particular is occasional too tangible, but at large the best, the finest, the noblest. I never felt that in any college I went to. What's the three? Of this college, he must think and above all speak as impassioned in devotion. He must defend its name against all aspirations without investigating their foundations. If he even stops to consider the plausibility of these aspirations before denouncing them, the quality of his loyalty is already second rate. Or he is just a nuanced thinker. The scholastic reputation of his college may be less than mediocre. Its staff may not number a single scholar of note. Its alumni may be an indistinguishable mob of obscure failures. Worst of all, its football and baseball teams may be the laughing stock of the locality. That does suck. As somebody who has been on a, at least high school team that was the laughing stock of the locality, it does suck. So what? But his college is the best and noblest in the country in the world, the astonishing feature of all this being that not only his schoolmates accept him to say, expect him to say and seem to believe so. But that everybody outside the college convinced of its worthlessness also expects this of him and considers him rather a cat if he acquiesces in what to them, maybe obviously true. I don't, I've rarely been around somebody who made their, you know, I mean, I know you can see people who make their college and where they graduated from and people even do this with the military, where that becomes their, their identity for the rest of their life. You know, if you see an older man and he's, you know, wearing the hat of the ship that he's served on or something like that, he's obviously made that his identity. I don't know how I feel about that. I mean, I, I just have to say to each his own because I, I don't feel that way. There has to be a reason why I'd be loyal to something. Not just because I've sunk money into it or something like that. It's, it makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm different and maybe he's right. I don't think he is. At least so that most of the people listen to this. This obligation of loyalty must pursue the man to the end of his life. 40 years after he left his college, he will be regarded with suspicion as something less than a gentleman if he should be discovered that his alma mater was and is an extremely inferior and uninteresting institution. It may be all that, you know, but a man's got to be loyal to his college. Who's he talking to? He heard, he heard one person say this to people say this and I mean, basically this to me just sounds like a straw man that he's, that he's erected and he's burning down. I mean, sorry. Which is true of college loyalty. What is true of college loyalty? Is true of other loyalties. A man who joins the army and has assigned to any regiment must have loyalty for his regiment, which means that he must seem to lose the faculty of discrimination and criticism as soon as the regiment he was accidentally assigned to was under consideration. Should he in later life become a member of a fraternity of a business association of a poker club, he must be loyal. He must be loyal even at large with that in organizations be loyal to. He must be loyal to the paper manufacturing trade to the cleaners and zires to the transport business. And if he goes down into a factory to earn by the sweat of his brow and under the bitter duress, a bare livelihood, he must once be loyal to his employers. But the application of loyalty is sometimes pushed to extremes, which are nothing short of grotesque. One finds in surface cars, one finds in surface cars, one finds in surface cars notices like this, be loyal to the Bronx to Bensonhurst to Wapping to Watt Pendleton to Charlotte and Berg to the ring to the Marshall Kauska to Montmartre. Sometimes I have wondered if you live in the Bronx and your loyalty to your neighborhood grocer, how long are you supposed to yearn for him after you have moved to Brooklyn and how soon may you with the seamen with seamliness develop a loyalty for your neighborhood grocer in Brooklyn. He's he's fucking out of his mind. I'm sorry. He's out of his mind. He's a madman. Now you can make the argument that maybe people should be loyal to their local grocer. Maybe someone wants to make that argument. It's not me, but how many people do you know who, like, you know, there are believe me, when I left Atlanta, there were some things that I missed. It wasn't that I was loyal to them. It was because they were convenient and I liked them. There has to be a reason for me for me to be loyal. Or are you supposed to leap into your loyalty is that once as into a bathtub and be immersed in them without a moment's loss. And similarly, how if you attend two or three colleges in succession or are attached to a number of regiments in succession or change your business or your fraternity or your poker club, it is clear to me that the very quality of loyalty and its place in your life again, bespeaks the sport origin of your morality. The success of a football team depends not on the physical aptitude and fitness of its members, but also on their spirit. They're a spirit they core. There must be atmosphere for sporting effect. It is as important as physique and must be cultivated as aciduously, as carefully, as skillfully, as artificially. Whichever team you join, your loyalty is essential to its success and your loyalty must be instantaneous and unconditional. Neither curtailed by delay nor mitigated by reflection. Your loyalty has nothing to do with ultimate moral values. It is part of the game. And life is to you a game on the football field in the college and the factory on the battlefield. The game alone can make loyalty a transportable quality of this kind. The game alone can give birth to the concept of loyalty. In our life, the Jewish life loyalty is unknown. There is no equivalent for it among our attributes. We understand love, which is serious, profound, which must be treated, therefore we do dignity, but we do not understand loyalty, which is trivial, gallant, gamesome, conventionalized, believe people when they tell you things that you instinctively know or true. If someone you do not trust, this is me speaking, no, if you're just listening, if someone you do not trust says something and you go, instinctively you're instinctive to go, yeah, I don't know about that. But isn't it weird that when people you trust when they speak the truth, you know it. You know they're speaking the truth. You may actually say things like, oh, wow, they just told them themselves. They just revealed themselves. They said that quite a part out loud. They can't hide it. Yeah. As students, we Jews are accused of lacking the right attitude toward the college. It is perfectly true that we have not the loyal attitude as you have it or despite occasional efforts to the degree in which you have it. We are apt to see the college as an institute of learning. We go there to study under competent teachers. What has loyalty to do with this organization? We may develop love for the place. It may in later years become a beloved memory or it may not. But we cannot attach an immediate combative value to our connection with the college and instantaneous regimental pride. We cannot attach a moral value to the prescribed set of sporting emotions and thrills which are supposed to be a proper part of college life. Maybe it's just my experience and my lifetime. But if anybody knows like back then, this is written I think in 22, 23, 19, 22, 23, 24, if you know that it was different on college campuses back then that people were almost demanded a loyalty. Let me know. That'd be interesting history to look into actually. Continuing, we are unquestionably an alien spirit in your colleges. I would say everywhere within our society. For your colleges are the most coherent mouthpieces of your morality and that morality is not ours. Your college is a miniature world in which you first develop the sporting instincts which much must accompany you through the real world. We with our proper exception see the college only as a center of study and incidentally occasionally valued friendships. The idea of a rivalry with other colleges in which each student must defend his own college seems as childlike. It is not to the purpose to the purpose at all. It is not serious. College to them is also a place to set up secret societies so that they can push Zionism and get get us into world wars. That seems kind of important. But I have touched on the college only as a single illustration of the predominance of virtue of loyalty in the concept in your concept of the proper human relationship. All your societies have added into teams with a fictitious morality to correspond. It has little to do with direct utilitarianism. One might object saying this morality like any other is merely the adjunct of the economic or biologic struggle. What we call morality is merely the assistant illusion in the struggle for existence and in this regard Gentile and Jew are alike. But this is an irrelevant truth. There was a time when among you Gentiles one man would courteously challenge another to mortal combat without real motive without enmity without passion. What? So it was when no excuse for combat was available you dropped even the pretense of an excuse. Do not answer that this was a passing phase for I say that when men actually kill each other from mere sport it be tokens are profound almost eternal instinct. That instinct today finds expression in equally moralist relations, equally passionless associations and enmities. Your range of life in such wise as to get the maximum of sport out of it and for the purpose of sport it does not matter to which team you belong England or America Harvard or Yale the Black Watch or the Old Guard the neighborhood association of Wigan or the Rotarians of Los Angeles the Goodrich rubber factory or the sunlight soap garden club the Alpha Sigma Moo or the 95 club the progressive Republicans or the decorators association the United cigar makers or the fascist. There's good fun in all this it is exciting jolly sporty it puts Russian gadi into life but we Jews are no good at it. Just as we are inaccessible to the meaningless as a narration of college loyalty so are we bewildered by the fast and furious games of your general life we Jews cannot play the game perhaps you will answer that it is you who taking the chance relationships of life as the all in all of existence are really serious that it argues seriousness in a man if he gives the every passing association all faculties all his emotion such an argument would be a quibble a woman may take an absorbing interest in dress to the exclusion of everything else one could hardly call her serious serious absorption and trivialities is not serious this then you may answer me but all life is triviality which would reveal clearly the difference between your outlook and ours no one saying that no one said that oh man this truly is a look behind the curtain so if you want to read this book if you want to get it for yourself go to anilop hill and get it they're they're Kevin McDonald and forget who who does the the intro for it let me see you judge oh sorry about that should have this pulled up anilop hill oops sorry there we go yeah the um there is and there's a forward by Kevin McDonald so yeah okay so that's it there's a forward by Kevin McDonald so you might want to check that out it's 150 pages over there and I have a promo code that's not why I'm showing anilop hill it's just that this is a you know there's a company that I like and you can use my promo code it's Pete Pete you and you get 5% off but yeah if you want to follow along with this and or you know just this is probably a book you should have it's a good reference but yeah I'll continue this on in a couple days we will look at chapter six which is discipline all right everyone take care see you a couple days all right let's knock out chapter six of eugen tiles by more e Samuel I know you all are enjoying this so much, but a lot of you have heard of this, haven't had a chance to read it, so we'll read it together. Chapter 6 is called discipline. Do you get the idea there's going to be a lot of projection here? Or I don't know. We shall see. One of the best illustrations wherewith the contrasts your adaptability to discipline and our lack of it is to be found in the difference between your behavior in church and our behavior in our unmodernized synagogue, the Orthodox synagogue. In church, all is ordering to quorum, rhythm and regime. In the synagogue, all is chaos. In the church leaders and responses are carefully prepared, carefully followed and observed. It is clean and neat, charming and exact. You behave well. You do as you are told, in mass. You create a spear of the core in the church. There is a suggestive hypnotizing decency in the train, the correctness of your service. In the synagogue, all is disorder. We talk during service. We answer at a turn. And when we answer in mass, one begins earlier, another ends later. It is babble itself. People walk in and out, some take longer than others to get the recertain prayer, and the ones who read more rapidly chat in the interval. Part of the congregation is standing, part sitting, somewhere prayer shalls, others do not, and the prayer shalls are not all alike. Sometimes there is so much babbling that the voice of the cantor or leader cannot be heard. One of you at our services would be amazed. Our own young generation, which has picked up your ways, is disgusted. And the last couple of generations has seen reformed synagogues conducted on your models. He's specifically talking about Catholic and Orthodox here, and more of the high church. If you know that term, it's actually in high church and low church. And yeah, I would say there's middle churches too, but I don't want to dive too deep into that. So yeah, I think he's talking a little more about high, he's talking about high church here. Taking this illustration as one fairly may of model discipline and lack of it, we may say, as is often said, you Gentiles are disciplined. We Jews are not. And it is not in church and synagogue alone that we find this contrast. It persists equally clear cut in all branches of organized life. Compare any Gentile institution when an uncorrupted corresponding institution in Jewish life and you will observe it. At your secular public assemblies, the same decency and unified restraint at ours, the same scrambling irregularity. Jewish meetings never begin on time, never end on time. So you're on your own schedule, your own clock. You don't show up on time. So comments I've made about being like another group, pretty much land. Okay. In your clubs and societies, order in harmony in our as noise disorder and wastage. Your programs are observed with fair strictness. Our programs are merely points to the part. In your homes, call and even system systematization in ours, boisterous affections, formlessness. And despite much effort, we cannot introduce your rhythmic exercise of disciplines to our life and retain our individuality. We can imitate you, excellently. Produce a substitute as good as the original. You can definitely imitate. And you get full of some people. But the institution then no longer has Jewish spirit. It is a Gentile institution artificially maintained by Jews, like our reformed temples. And in these, the Jew gradually learns to present a Gentile exterior. But wherever we are unrestrainably Jewish, we shock you by our uncouthness. We lack social grace, the discipline and distinguished social grace of high society, as well as the mean and spiritless punk, punctiliousness of your middle classes in the colleges in the street, in the surface cars, in the clubs, in the army. We betray ourselves. Indeed, your very breaches of discipline differ from ours by a certain conscious rebelliousness which is partly homage. Our breaches of discipline are off-hand unconscious and insulin. Okay, so if you're my age, and I mean it's a classic, so I think a lot of people have seen it. The movie Catty Shack. Wouldn't it Rodney Dangerfield? Rodney plays a guy who, you know, it wants to be part of this club. And this club is orderly, has a way of doing things. And he comes in and he wrecks it. And the whole point of that movie is to make you think that Rodney's the good guy and the other ones are the bad guys. I think what really reveals it about the movie is when he reveals what he does for it living. He's made his money by building low-cost housing. And he implies in nice neighborhoods. So I think it's funny that Rodney Dangerfield and his character in that movie basically reflect what he's saying here. And carrying this still further, we choose the most clannish of people and helplessly disorganized. We have never achieved comparative unity, not even in a single territory, much less throughout the world. All organizations are small, but never too small to be unwieldy because of dissension and worse than dissension because of unameneability to regular discipline. To those who have known the comparative evenness of your organization's political, religious, social, commercial, we are an unsightly people and every effort to impose this sense of form on us only accentuates our formlessness. This distinction between us again points to the root difference between us, your triviality and our seriousness. The fact is, of course, that in true discipline and effectiveness, we are by no means your inferior. No one would dream of ascertaining that our religion is not more effective than yours in compelling obedience or in perpetuating itself. Remember, he's an atheist. I'm probably going to say this over and over again. But remember, he's an atheist. What is the purpose of this religion to an atheist? Why does he keep talking about it? The mere fact that we are persisted for 80 generations in maintaining a racial and spiritual identity in the face of so much persecution and more significant of so much infiltration of blood bespeaks essential discipline of amazing rigor and power. Do I want to get into Kassari and leave that? We talk enough about that on 200 years together and other places. Disorganizes we are, we have outlived the most ably organized nations. We have failed to imitate the Roman Legion or the Order of Jesus. We have survived the first and shall no doubt outlive the second. We have not your skill, your German or English or American skill and wealing perfectly vast masses of perfectly subordinated men. Yet I have no doubt that when Germany and England and America will know, well, long have lost their present identity or name or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours. Well, who's responsible for Germany and England and America losing their present identity or name or purpose? For true discipline should always be seen in relation to a purpose. Your discipline is Goose Step Discipline. Remember you wrote this in the early 1920s. It is the hypnotic discipline of imposing rhythms possible only in the absence of the individual discipline. There is hypnotic charm in your discipline, but it is not effective as soon as the organization crumbles, the individuals are lost. We have never been the victims of organization. Your organization discipline moreover is a necessary part of your sport life. Games cannot be conducted without discipline, discipline is the essence of a game. When two perfectly disciplined beings are opposed, the game is at its best, and the same feeling runs through all your manifestations of life. the game of nationalisms, the game of society, the game of commercial success. The most startling and compelling monuments of your gentile genius are not individual productions, but productions of mass. Most of the wonders of the ancient world were wonders springing out of the great organized rhythmic effort and your chief wonders today, those which dominate your general life are like these. Great buildings, great countries, great ships, great wars, great pyramids, the Olympic, the colossus of roads, the hanging gardens, the Eiffel Tower, and the Woolworth building, the Red Cross, the Catholic Church, Babylon, New York, the Daily Mail. These are the distinctive triumphs of your civilization, the final appeal. An individual ingenuity is subordinated to the production of your mass effects, your discipline monsters. What single individuals can alone affect play? What single individuals can alone affect plays a very minor role in your way of life. Mass and rhythm in teamwork, the game, that is your ideal. It is not ours, and we are impressed only superficially and transiently by their productions. The individual is our climax as to mass's years, 100,000 men labored for 20 years to build the great pyramid. One man wrote the book of Isaiah. You will answer, one man also wrote Hamlet and the critique of pure reason and the Republic. But I ask, our Plato and Shakespeare and Kant in your life what the Bible, the Talmud and the rabbis are in hours. To our very masses, Jewish masses, the wonders of the world are Moses, Elijah, the Rambomb, the Vilniaga, Gown, the Dabna Maghid, the Haseed in the neighboring village. These actually dominate our life as governments, mass radio exploits, armies and warrants dominate yours. We are the people of the book. But we were the people of the book before a million copies could be printed in a single day. The attractability of hours to your disciplines is one of our chief and to you most unpleasant characteristics. It is best noticeable in our new arrivals in Western countries. Those who Eastern in Eastern ghettos have lived a more nearly Jewish life. It is much less noticeable in our modernized types. Through here, though here, still noticeable for despite our clever imitativeness, we do not retain our natural character and cannot hide consistently. But betray ourselves at intervals in the colleges and the army, at least here except during the great war, for in peacetime only the Westernites, Jews, join the army. In business associations, we irritate and discuss you by our obterate, seeming singularity. We don't fit improperly. We don't keep a straight line on the social or public parade. We don't cheer in unison. We don't bow at the waving of the wand. We don't play the game. He's separating pillow settlement and Eastern Jews from Western Jews. And he's degrading and he's insulting in his own way the Western Jews. And he's raising up those who came out of the stettles. Those who didn't even know that there was a continent called America until the early 19th century. You can read about that in Israel Shahog's book Jewish History Jewish Religion. When the first Jewish book, when the first Jewish history book outside of their own history was written, they did not include America because it was impossible that America existed. He's basically saying the Jew who has been Europeanized is not as good as the one who hates you. If you've been following 200 years together, you understand. There is a reason why when German and European Jews came here. You hear this all the time. Oh, Jews were kept out of golf clubs. They weren't allowed to join golf clubs. You know who kept them out? European Jews. Because they thought that the Eastern Jews to pillow settlement, the Jews that came from Russia, I will not say Russian Jews, but the Jews who were in Russia, Ukraine, paleo settlement, Poland. They looked down upon them. Well, why? You're reading it. We're reading it together. This is comprehensively irritating in the highest degree. In your irritation, you have ascribe these infractions to our savagery. You have said we are not fit for civilization. We have not the ability to subordinate the individuals of the community, or if we have the ability, we have not the desire. Not having the ethical impulse. With us, you have said it is every man for himself. We are too impudent. Individually, we cannot behave as gentlemen should, unobtrusively, submissive to the code, tacit, unassertive, regular. This is what you mean, saying we are undisciplined. But the fact is that we consciously despise the code itself. It is not that we recognize its validity and refuse to submit to it out of individual and selfish reasons. It is rather that the whole game discusses us and your seriousness in it most of all. It is to us a ludicrous and not an impressive thing. To see 10,000 grown-up men, a large proportion of them actually fathers, marching in step up and down a street or across a field. This blaring of the trumpets is beating of the drums, this left-right, left-right, this rhythmic snappy form forers. This intoxication of united mass movement, which sends you Gentiles, frantic with excitement, is a laughable exhibition to us. Foolish Gentiles, we say contentiously. To us, 10,000 fools are no more impressive than a single fool. Where you see the flash of swinging ranks, a mighty lifting and falling, power magnificence, we see only 10,000 serious face men engaged in astonishing antics with astonishing skill. The best that you can say about what he's saying here is that, "Sure, yeah, we're a tight-knit group, but we all do our own thing." And we really only come together to defeat you, to fight you. Whereas you've got your defaults as to be as one, but you have this discipline about you that doesn't allow you to do the things we're willing to do. The drill of your regiments, the drill of your colleges, of your social usages, your clubs, all impress us alike with their triviality. We did not understand it. Perhaps you will reply that this contempt is merely rationalization. We despise discipline because we lack it and secretly we aspire to acquire it. But in fact, it is the most severely disciplined Jew who most heartedly despises your disciplines. It is the modernized Jew who has thrown off the discipline of Orthodox Judaism who comes nearest your spirit. It is the Orthodox Jew the most Jewish Jew who least understands you. Remember, he's saying he doesn't believe in God. Why is he siding with the Orthodox Jew? Does the Orthodox Jew believe in God? And it is this Orthodox Jew, this ghetto Jew, who apparent individualism deprives his mass life of all forming discipline. It is the Orthodox Jew who seems of all Jews to be least accessible to your orderliness. It is this Orthodox Jew who nevertheless submits to an amazing discipline unknown to most of you. I have said that the obstinate maintenance of our identity and our religion through 80 generations of oppression bespeaks a rigorous and effective discipline. But what that discipline is in practice, you do not realize. The Orthodox Jew submits to an unrelaxing regime which you Gentiles would find intolerable. It governs him in all his actions from birth to death. It controls and directs with an iron hand, his daily occupations. It pervades with obsessive eminence every moment of his time, every moment, every function. The Orthodox Jew begins a day with long prayer, closes it with long prayer. He cannot take a glass of water without a prayer. He cannot satisfy his physical needs without a prayer. He stops for long intervals, afternoon and evening, to pray. The discipline extends to his relations with his wife. It imposes on him the obligation of study. It binds him to daily and hourly use of a language, Hebrew, artificially maintained. It intersperses his years with numerous fasts and feasts, each with its enormous burden of ritual and tradition. All this over and above the fierce discipline of the world's enmity and contempt, the discipline of mere existence in an alien and unfriendly atmosphere. Much of this religious ritual covers eventualities, which you would regard as secular, diatetic laws, sanitary laws, sex laws, social laws, for all life is religion to the Jew, and all life preceding from God must be governed by him. But when the ritual is reduced to what even you would call the religious, it still presents a bulk of tyranny to which you would never submit, a discipline which you are incapable of suffering, a discipline which demands incessant vigilance, lest a prayer be omitted, a discipline that details, that, that, a discipline the details of which it takes years to acquire and into which one must be trained from childhood. And what is most relevant in this connection is that this discipline is a corporate discipline. It is directed to a common purpose outside of the individual to the perpetuation of a people through its religion. In our religious ideology, the selfish salvation of the individual soul is a very minor theme. It is, I believe, an acquired dogma, and its irrelevance is proved by its unimportance. For prayers are largely common prayers. We pray little attention to the afterlife, and even our dreams of an afterlife are associated with the Jewish people as a whole. What does that mean? As individuals, we sometimes pray for personal benefits. But so infrequently that we could omit these prayers without changing the bulk of our ritual, most of our prayers are prayers of glorification. They link the people as a whole to God's service. They praise God for the burdens He has placed upon us, and with passionate iteration, they thank Him for having made us different from you. Again, He has said He does not believe in God. It does not need a Jewish scholar. It needs only an intelligent Jew who has lived in an orthodox or semi-orthodox environment to appreciate that all this tyranny of discipline was bent to one end, to our preservation as a distinct and separate people. We feel that we are not merely different from you at points. It is a totality of difference and of separation, which they don't want. We have carried out with us into exiled the complete atmosphere of our national life. Our holy festivals are largely national, and even in those which are predominantly religious, there is the continuous minor theme of our separate nationalism. One holiday celebrates the liberation of the Jewish people from Egypt. Another the deliverance of the people from the Ageadic Greek oppressor. Another the confusion of a national enemy. People others celebrate the time of the Palestinian harvest, the Iranian tragedy of it, with appropriate prayers and ceremonies. And even in our pure religious festivals, the memory of our national institutions, our temple, our hereditary priesthood, maintains an unbroken background of suggestion. In 8070, when the temple was destroyed, and it was destroyed. So were the birth records. Think about that. They're all gone. Nobody calling themselves a Jew can prove that they have any connection to that land. Have any connection to the historic Judaism, to that temple, to that registry. It's all gone. And what these recurrent climaxes in our religious life dominated by the national consciousness, the general center of all our religion repeats this theme from day to day. The discipline of our religion of our Jewishness is a corporate discipline, the subjection of the individual to the mass. I repeat this to remind you that contrary to your accusation, the intractability of the Jew to your forms of discipline does not spring from individualism or from lack of a social consciousness. Conscience. We are disciplined more bitterly than you, and we bear the discipline without the assistance of narcotic rhythms. We bear our burden like civilized adults. Nor do I see any contradiction between this fearsome assistance on separate national existence and our dedication to a universal ideal. We believe and feel that for such an ideal we alone as a people possess the special aptitude. The Orthodox Jew bases it on divine will and choice. Others like myself know not on what to base it. A special racial psychology, the results of inbreeding, the results of accident, but believe it nonetheless. May repeat that again. Others like myself, he's not an Orthodox Jew, but he does this trick where he's trying to, when he talks about the Orthodox, he's trying to include himself in there, although he says he's not. But by continually bringing up the Orthodox, you have a tendency to relate it to him, but he's not. There's a lot there. We shone that further that ideal by losing our identity to mingle with you and be lost in you would mean to destroy the aptitude forever. Thus, universal ideal and national identity are inextricably bound up to the maintenance of this high union we have given, consciously, seriously without kings and courts, without medals and reviews and orders, without cheering and without drills, a bitter and obstinate devotion, more exacting than anything you have known and in its deliberate effects. More successful. What's the next time? The reckoning. All right. We will save that for next time. This is just a bundle of contradictions. It's extremely difficult to figure. I think the best comment I've gotten so far from somebody who's been reading along and listening to this is he's just a bitter, angry and just someone you wouldn't want to be around, which is all well and good, but they insist upon being around us. I like him and insist upon being around us. So I thought to Johnson says individually, you know, you make choices. You grew up, if you grew up in a certain area, you're going to know some people who were Jewish and some you're really going to like and some you're going to be like that, whatever. But really what it all comes down to is how does it grew back? If they're acting in their own self-interest as this whole thing that he's written here so far is self-serving, then there's a lot of questions. Anyway, that's it. I'll be back in a couple of days with chapter 7. Yeah, chapter 7. Take care. My apologies. I've been really busy and I know it's been about eight days since I did chapter 6, but I'm back. Ready to read and let's continue with you Gentiles by Maurice Samuel. chapter 7 is called the reckoning. I've spoken of Jews and Gentiles in mass. Certain of you will assuredly object. You cannot deal with masses as with men. You cannot indict a nation. The objection is futile. Not only has it been the universal practice to indict and to punish masses as if they had personality and to treat nations as such, but you're doing it today. everywhere. I think it's interesting because he's getting ready to indict us as a whole, specifically probably Americans as a nation. I don't know wonder how he would have felt about indicting Israel. I would almost guarantee that every Israeli and every Jew would have to be judges an individual. And I believe that fundamentally the practice is just, despite the objections of the few whom I shall answer here, particularly consonant is to practice with your Gentile philosophy. Here is your nation, X. It is composed of militarists and pacifists and mobs. The government is militaristic, whether it represent a minority or a majority. Well, now it represents in its militarism, especially in the Western Asia, if you want to call it the Middle East, it represents Israel. Choose. And the militaristic government engages the whole country in its acts. It's responsible for a war, for oppression. How shall we treat that nation? Sing a lot the militarists and pacifists go into the workings of it, separate out the constituent elements. You cannot. Every member of that country is a member of the team. Must take the good with the bad, must pay the debts contracted by the government. It cannot be a nation otherwise. I'm going to apply that to Israel, Mr. Samuel. And I guess you have to apply it to this government too, because Israel is taken over. And we've pretty much all added. Social engineering is the social engineering regime has been rough. And I know people don't like to hear this, but we have been victims of it. We've been subjected to it our whole lives, our parents, grandparents, all of us. How else would we, how else would this government support such a disgusting, anachronism like Israel? This from your point of view. And from the point of view of the workings of justice, it happens to be less defensible. When the whole of a nation reaps reward or punishment, a rough general justice is executed. If it is only the will of a minority, which has brought on catastrophe and the majority must pay, then it pays for having suffered the will of the minority. Well, I mean, it makes sense, you know. We've been suffering the will of a minority for a while, though. Had the German masses foreseen defeat and its consequences, Germany would never have gone to war, militaristic, militarist minority or none. The masses which obeyed their masters, readily or solently, must pay for the obedience which gave their masters strength. And the same is true of every other nation, which is guilty. I mean, I think, I believe in metaphysical justice, we allowed ourselves to be taken over by a foreign entity. And we're paying for it. I know a lot of you won't believe that and won't accept that, but pretty true. If you think about it, if you once you get past the cognitive dissonance, all extenuation is irrelevant. How shall the majority learn that it must not acquiesce and indulently in the will of the minority? Shall it not suffer the consequences of its indulence? A slow, almost impossible process. But assuredly, a just one for the impident or corrupt acquiescence of the majority made the minority effective. But if, on the other hand, a nation suffers for the will of its majority and the minority suffers with the majority, then very clearly effective justice is being wrought and justice clearly is to payments supposed to alter the will of the nation. You'll look at Israel now and probably, you know, yeah, just hold this, hold Israel up to a mirror. I think a lot of people on our side, even people listening to this, watching this, I think Israel's like winning. I don't know how anyone who's paying attention could think that. That's why I'm not blackpilled. That's why I want to allow people to blackpill me. I know more than a lot of people. I will not say I know more than you because that would be speaking generally, but I know more than a lot of people. We've seen this before. We've seen this in history. As long as there are nations and groups, these laws must hold. And as soon as these laws collapse, nations and groups will cease to be. It is not meaningless to say this nation is parsimonious. This nation is treacherous. This nation is cruel. It is a relevance answer. You must judge by the individual, not by the nation. When we say, "Scotumen are parsimonious," we simply mean that out of a thousand Scotchmen, a larger number are parsimonious than out of a thousand Englishmen. A Scotchman whom I do not know has therefore more probability of being parsimonious than an Englishman whom I don't know. If therefore I have to choose for generosity between two men and Englishmen and a Scotchmen, both of whom I do not know, I would choose the Englishman. I stand a better chance of being in the right. Naturally, the entire assumption may be wrong, and that is another matter, but it is ludicrous to deny the tendencies or characteristics in nations in nations exist. Yeah, let's just keep applying this all to Israel. Modern day is real, which didn't exist when he wrote this. Only the shallow demagogue insisted a thousand Englishmen, a thousand Frenchmen, a thousand Germans, a thousand Jews picked up at random or ten thousand or a hundred thousand would react similarly to the same stimulus. Assuredly, if I have the opportunity to check up on the individual, I will do it. But if I must take him on trust, I shall sensibly assume him to possess his race characteristics. As for you Gentiles and us Jews, we have both acted on the assumption that the mass must be treated by a general law. The instinct of the Gentiles to distrust the Jew of the Jew to distrust the Gentile, we only make exceptions. There is nothing inconsistent in the anti-Semite who says some of my best friends are Jews. Oh, Dagger. I say, therefore, that in the conflict between us, you have fought us physically while our attack on your world has been in the spiritual field. Again, love one an atheist talks like that. It is a nature of the Gentile to fight for his honor in the nature of the Jew to suffer for his, whether because we are so inclined by first nature or whether because we have so become, we have so become through lack of land and government and army, this is true. You revel in force, we despise it, even where we can and do exert it. It's amazing to me that like it's like what he's saying with that last sentence is, everything that Jews have done since the founding of Israel, since they first started going there, Irgun, Haganah, the Stern gang, everything is happening in Gaza, West Bank now. They despise doing it. Just has to be done. And so, since we have lived among you, you have instinctively appealed to brute force and combating our influence. When the reckoning has drawn up your guilt cries to heaven, whatever have been your relations to each other, we Jews have at least been the common denominator of your brutality. Compared with each other, you are gentlemen, warriors, democracies. We set side by side with us, your bullies and cowards and mobs. In vain, do you, do, in vain, do your quesant, majorities washed their hands. Their quesant is their effective guilt. I care not that your minority struck the blow. I should not equip the majority even if I could give judgment and impose punishment. That you are unable to meet us on the spiritual level is made evident by the following. We are disturbing influence in your life, not through our own fault. If you remember, the essay, Israel, the psychopathic nation, all of the Jewish philosophers, especially ones that came after this, French school guys, Levinus and Ashkenazi, they all said, we are never wrong. And even when they say, try to quote them, when we say, when you say we are wrong, we believe more that we are innocent. First, we are not in your midst. by our own will, but through your action, and second, which is more to the point, we do not attack you deliberately. We are unwelcome to you because we are what we are. It is our own positive way of life which clashes with ours. Our attack on you is only incidental to the expression of our way of life. You too have this field open to you. As surely as we are a spiritual discomfort to you, you are a spiritual discomfort to us. As surely as we attack you peacefully, so you waste us peacefully and weaken our numbers. But you do more than this. You bring the attack down to the physical plane where we are defenseless. You do with us as your animal whims dictate. You rob us, you slay us, you drive us from lands to land. And while one of you drives us, drives us forth, the other shuts the gate in our faces. He can say this 17, 15, 16, 17 years after the 1905 revolution in Russia. We never attack you peacefully. From the first day of our contact since the first of our communities in exile, you have made us the sport of your brutality. I think that's hyper-hyperboly, but you know, you could always ask why? If you feel that way, there is at least one clear note in Gentile world history, one consistent theme, the note of our agony, the theme of your cruelty, because you, because Jews go into cultures that they clash with. One of something that when Thomas and I did the the JQ series, talked about how when Jews were in Spain, a Jew and a Catholic, the fact that they could live without murdering each other. Just doesn't, it doesn't compute if you understand historical Catholicism, not what you see now, and Judaism. And then when they're given power, like many Muslim, Muslim, where they've been in Muslim nations and they've been made, they've been made police or they've been made, quote, unquote, peacekeepers. What do they do? They always end up abusing Christians. Christians let them into Christians, have let them into their society. I mean, you're reading 200 years together. They did everything they possibly could. Ten, 12 conferences on how to deal with these people in the 19th century alone in Russia. They institute laws and they don't even really keep to them. Don't really enforce them. But I guess because you don't let them get away with everything they want to do, that's cruel. I guess because you, your society that you've built for Christians or Englishmen or Germans or Spaniards and the system is designed for that, because you don't allow them to come in there and change that, that's cruel. Even from your point of view, you have been guilty. On our side, at least the fighting has been clean. We have not misrepresented you. On your side, the fighting has been dirty. From the Donna civilization you've lied about us, you have accused us of murdering children that we might use their blood for ritual purposes. You have accused us of poisoning wells. You have accused us of precipitating wars. You and war is the breath of your nostrils. And you accuse us today of fomenting a worldwide conspiracy to seize the government of the world. Israel toe off the book, Pass Over of Blood, precipitating wars. What was the what was the parisham? What was the Balfour Declaration? And worldwide conspiracy, what is out? Do not answer us that a minority does this. Does it matter to us that a minority of America preaches in the clan, virtual disenchantment, disenfranchisement of the Jew? Well, you might want to, you know, the clan was pretty, pretty much neutral, not neutralized, but they were sleeping around 1913. Leo Frank. The clan didn't even, Jews weren't even on their radar. It's a Leo Frank. So, I don't know. Does it matter to us that a minority of America preaches in the clan, virtual disenfranchisement of the Jew, that a minority in Germany preaches death to the Jew, that a minority in Poland slew hundreds of us. Don't get me started on Poland. I ask an accounting of you as you ask it of one another. As the Allies ask it from Germany, as Germany asked it from France, from you as a whole. Do you see the hatred for, I mean, just the seething hatred for Germany? Yeah, just these crazy national socialists just, you know, came together and just took power and, you know, directed their hatred at these people because they were jealous of their wealth. They were jealous of how smart they were. That's it. For this minority which spreads these lies, there is a complacent majority which tolerates or accepts them. And it is because, in your opposition to our way of life, you stoop to such lies that your masses respond with physical force. I care not how ignorant a Jew is. You will not get him to believe of you. Believe of you. Of you such foul untruths as millions of you believe of us. Yet we have more cogent reasons for hating you. And as I hold you all responsible for these lies, so I hold you all responsible for the cruelties in which they issue. And I know that soon enough these crimson sleases will be opened again. And we shall believe from a thousand wounds as we have bled before in the Ukraine or in Russia, in Poland or in Germany. And who knows when the same will not come to pass in England and America and France? What guarantees have we beyond the guarantee of public opinion? And from a public opinion which tolerates a slaughter of hundreds of Negroes, how far to the public opinion which will condone the slaughter of Jews? Let us spark but carry far enough down into the recesses of your animal natures. There's the there's calling us, Collium. How you gloted among the allies over stories of Germans blown to pieces, cuts to pieces, and in the central powers over stories of Englishman, Frenchman, done to death, your comic journals made Mary over them. A good joke from life and Englishman shaking his head saying Molly, I don't think this ear bayonetal go through more and two Germans at a time. Your women applaud them. Your children scream for blood, democracy, vied in beast, in beast reality with aristocracy and royalty. How shall we trust you? You mean like how Randy fine says he wants to see more dead children? And celebrates it. He's not the only one. Wait, Don Bacon, a allegedly agentile, says that we need to amend the first amendment to for anti-Semitism laws. If we are willing to forget the past is not your past, your present is not the blood libel alive today. Blood libel, there it is. One more for the bingo card. And it's companion viper, the elders of Zion. Well, yeah, he's, as he mentioned Henry Ford yet, this Henry Ford was talking about the elders as I on. Well, poison work forever in the blood and never break out. Did not hundreds of thousands of Englishman, Frenchman, Germans, Americans, Read these legends without protesting, without seeking to punish the libelers. Do we not know how easily your morality fits your mood? Kill the Jews. Kill the Jews, the Christ Killers does indeed ring strange these days, but does a damn good dose of lead for the Jewish Bolsheviks sound very remote? Huh. Well, I mean, the Bolsheviks, I don't think there were majority Jews, majority of the thought leaders were definitely overrepresented, according to Eury Sleskian in his book, The Jewish Century. But is, are we going to deny that the war on the Orthodox Church and on Christians that the Jewish Bolsheviks carried out? See, he's so close to the event now. There's no internet, none of this. You know, these just, this is, this is still going on as he's writing. This revenge against Christendom. In Russia. And if arguing from the individual to the mass, your clans and your awakening magiars, your chestertins and your doubtettes shall call us Jews, sharks and swindlers. Shall we not answer with better warrant by the millions of hour murdered by the acquisition and the crusades, by the smoking ruins of the Ukraine and the swinging body of Leo Frank, Dasterds, murderers and thieves. There it is. There it is. The acquisition and the crusades based, they were based. I'm sorry, the acquisition is probably the greatest legal system in the history of mankind. And the crusades, one of these days maybe the Inquisition will have to cover the crusades. We have talked about it. But that as, that is the end of chapter seven. So I will leave you with that and I will try to be back seriously in a couple days with part eight. Once again, I apologize for how long it took me to get out part seven. Take care now. Thank you. Bye. All right, everyone. Once again, my apologies. I wish I could get these out quicker, but I have been insanely busy. Let's do chapter eight of Maurice Samuel's Eugen tiles. And the title this is, but as moderns. All right. Let us have done with recollections and recriminations, you say. You have spoken hitherto of conditions, which are vanishing, a Orthodox Jews mostly of old customs and emotions, which are dying out. You yourself are not a North-Edox Jew, nor are we metta evil Christians. We see the Jew gradually modernizing. He becomes more like us, more difficult to recognize as a Jew. Granting there are occasional relapses. We are still moving toward real tolerance. The present age is not like any age before it, and the modern Jew is not like any Jew before him. You have lasted two thousand years in exile. You will not last forever. All those ceremonials of yours are breaking down. You're discipline. You're defensive mechanisms. At least in America, England, France, Germany, Russia, you are changing, becoming like us, taking your share in all our activities, sports, civic duties, achievements, arts. You have spoken hitherto in the terms of a world which is fitfully dissolving. You've ignored the liberal Jews, the radical Jews, the modernized Jews, the Gnostic Jews. Now becoming the dominant element in Jewry, and approaching us, mingling with us, solving the problem without deliberate effort. Do not your own radicals renounce their Jewish connections? Will not your modernized Jews be the first to denounce the thesis of this book? I have already said, anticipating this objection, that there is the same difference between the Jewish atheists and the Gentile atheists between the Orthodox Jew and the believing Gentile. I have said or implied that the religion itself is but practical expression of the difference between us, not the cause of it. It is true that the expression of a view serves to strengthen it, as the exercise of a faculty serves to develop it. But expression does not create a view nor exercise a faculty. Even conscious adherence to the Jewish people is but partial expression of our Jewishness. It was not the conscious desire to remain a people which gave us the world's winged door. It was our unavoidable commonality of feeling which made us and continued us as people. Repudiation of the Jewish religion or even of Jewish racial affiliation does not alter the Jew. Some of us Jews may dilute ourselves as some of you Gentiles do, but in effect modernization seems to have done nothing to decrease the friction between us. Interesting. The dislike continues, and though your masses may not know why they dislike us, there must be a sufficient reason. It is Germany, the mother of the modernized Jew that gave birth with him to modern anti-Semitism. Where the all-dustensible reasons for disliking the Jew collapse, new ones, more self-conscious, were substituted. When modernization removed the old superstitious form of expression, the professor replaced a priest, science religion. We are just liked on scientific grounds as we were just like the unreliigious, but both the scientific and religious reasons were rationalizations. The true reasons under "lay" these analyses. Nor can the revulsion of the war with its release of primitive instincts be blamed for this. German anti-Semitism attdates the war. The higher anti-Semitism has nothing to do with either conscious, religion, or localizations like patriotism. It is true modern anti-Semitism. It is the old dislike of the Jew, trans-valued into modern terminology. And it has been evoked by the appearance of that new phenomena. The Westernized Jew. For many Jews were fooled by appearances. They took the word of the Gentile literally. The Gentile said, "We dislike you because you are different from us in religion and in usages. You are separate. You are old fashioned." And the Jew, believing these charges to mean what they say, abandoned his customs and his usages, took to baptism, became externally similar to the Gentile, thinking thus to evade the issue. It failed. For no sooner had he made this change in himself than the Gentile-shifting ground, went from the religious to the ethnic. That is not why Jews stopped being religious. If you're listening, following the 200 years together, series, the Stetel system kept most of the Jews as basically slaves to the higher elite Jews. As soon as they had a chance through rising democracy, laws that gave people more liberty individually, they jumped at the chance to get away from their elites. Maybe there were some who were like, "Oh, the Gentile will treat us to. " Now, now this. he's just seaving. And for sooner had he made this change in himself and the Gentile-shifting ground, went from the religious to the ethnic. Well, why? Is it because there is just something inherent there? Okay, yes, but what is it? If they didn't like you when you're religious and then you gave up your religiosity and now you're just ethnic, what's the problem? What happened in Germany is happening elsewhere? As fast as the Jew modernizes so fast does dislike of him adapt itself to the new situation and find a new excuse? Where the Jew is disliked it is the modern Jew who is disliked equally with the old fashioned. The clan, the consul, the dearborn independent, the DWA gross, the action from say no longer preached a modernization of the Jews as a solution to the Jewish problem, know Jew however modern or radical is acceptable to the anti-Semite. It is now a racial question. But you still have an answer. You say these new forms of anti-Semitism are hangovers. We have had anti-Semitism with us for a long time. It is hard to get rid of the effectling or long after the cause disappears. But in time, again, why? This idea, for I am convinced that the modernized Jew as long as he retains the quality of the Jewish people that is, as long as he inherits predominantly Jewish characteristics, is as objectionable to you as the Orthodox Jew was to your fathers and for the same basic reasons. The effort of the Jews to enter your modern life to become part of it has been essentially ineffective by which I mean that And through hundreds of thousands, though hundreds of thousands of us have taken on your garb, speak like you look like you share your countries, institutions, games do all we can to avoid friction, yet we fail to offer in cross-section the same significance as any cross-section of hundreds of thousands of you. Our ability to imitate extends only to inessentials, appearances, surface desires, and ambitions. We fail to be Gentiles. The modernized Jew still stands apart from the modern Gentile world, and his effective contribution to his life is as disastrously different as if he put on the philacteries every morning. The old racial seriousness, sombrowness, still persists. In a hundred years of modernity we and able race have given little more than mediocrity to your way of life. Our best work has been the old true work of our people, fundamental and serious examination of the problems of man's relations to God and humanity. In the arts we have been second-rate, third-rate. While in moral effort we have exceeded any living race and have produced an overwhelming number of revolutionaries, and socialists, and iconoclasts of the true prophetic type, we have in science bell letters and the plastic arts been a thoroughly minor people. And even if in these last fields we have done comparatively well for our numbers, which I doubt, our preponderant contribution of fundamental moral effort still makes modern Jewry a secularized replica of old religious Jewry. Again, why? The astonishing thing is that this took place despite desperate conscious efforts on our parts to become like you. We joined your armies and fought in them beyond our numbers. Well, that's questionable. Yet Jewish pacifism and pacifism gave the tone to your world's pacifism. We have joined your capitalistic world. Oh, man. Oh, he's really going to do this. All right. We have joined your capitalistic world in deliberate emulation and rivalry. Yet Jewish socialism and Jewish socialists are the banner bearers of the world's armies of liberation. Three or four million modernized Jews, a ludicrously small number, have given to the world's iconoclastic force its chief impetus and by far its largest individual contribution. American England put together with their almost 200 millions have not played that role in world iconoclasticism, which a handful of Jews have played. Had we produced vigorously in art and science, we should have flooded the arts, galleries, and the libraries. But in these, we have shown no special aptitude. We may have done as well for our numbers as England, as France, or Germany. Though even this I doubt, well, it just gave it a couple more decades. And you had the libraries and the art galleries and the trash we see there. We modern Jews of the Western world are this fundamentally different from you. The occasional in you, revolution against the game is dominant in us. Your instinct is true than you know. The dislike of your modern world for the modern Jew is as relevant as the dislike of your old world for the Orthodox Jew. He's basically saying that Jews had nothing to do with capitalism. Technically they have nothing to do with capital. They're not creators for the most part. They're subversors. They subvert other people's businesses, worm their way in, or they financialize everything. So, he's basically saying, it's almost like he's saying that capitalism, which if you look at it and especially once you start getting into the late 1800s, you see who the most prominent quote, what capitalists are, then you, and you see that he's celebrating that it's a socialist and a sterateicals that's who the Jews are. Yet, Marx clearly said we need capitalism. Yeah. It's kind of remarkable. He doesn't really have a, he's either lying or he's just clueless and has allowed himself to be blinded. This is probably the most famous chapter out of this book. So let's knock it out. That was such a short chapter. I can only leave you with 12 minutes. Let's run through this. We, the destroyers, chapter 9. If anything, you must learn and are learning to dislike and fear the modern and assimilated Jew more than you did the old Jew, for he is more dangerous to you. At least the old Jew kept apart from you was easily recognizable as an individual, as the bearer of the dreaded Jewish world, Jewish world idea. You are afraid of him and loathed him. But to a large extent, he was insulated. But as the Jew assimilates, acquires your language, cultivates a certain intimacy, penetrates into your life, begins to handle your instruments. You are aware that his nature, once confined safely to his own life, now threatens yours. You are aware of a new and more than disconcerting character at work in the world you have built and are building up a character which crosses your intentions and thwarts your personality. The Jew, whose lack of contact with your world had made him ineffective, becomes effective. The vile is uncorked. The genius is out. His enmity to your way of life was tacit before. Today it is manifest and active. He cannot help himself. He cannot be different from himself. No more can you. It is suitable to tell him hands off. He is not his own master, but the servant of his life will. For when he brings into your world his passionately earnest, sinisterly earnest righteousness, and speaking in your languages and through your institutions scatters distrusty yourselves through the most sensitive of you, he is working against your spirit. You Gentiles do not seek or need or understand social justice as an ultimate ideal. This is not your nature. Your world must be fashioned as to give you the maximum of play. Adventure, laughter, animal lyricism. Your institutions frame themselves to this end, your countries and ideals flourish most gloriously when they serve this end most freely. All ideas of social justice must be subservient to this consideration. The game first, then ultimate justice only as it can serve the game. I do not believe that we Jews are powerful enough to threaten your way of life seriously. Not yet. We are only powerful enough to irritate, to disturb your conscience, and to break here and there the rhythmic rush of your ideas. We irritate you as a sardonic and humorless adult irritates young people by laughing at their play. For the real irritation lies in the fact that to our queries regarding your life there is no answer on our level. As to yours regarding our life there is no answer on yours. We Jews are accused of being destroyers, whatever we put up we tear down. It is true only in a relative sense. We are not a conoclast deliberately. We are not enemies of your institution simply because it is just like between us. We are a homeless mass seeking satisfaction for our constructive instincts. And in your institutions we cannot find satisfaction. They are the play institutions of the splendid children of man and not of man himself. We try to adapt your institutions to our needs because while we live we must have expression and trying to rebuild them for our needs we unbuild them for years. Because your chief institution is the social structure itself it is in this way that we are most manifestly destroyers. We take part in the economic struggle for existence, this necessity we share with you. But our free spiritual energies point away from this struggle for, unlike you we have no pleasure in it. You Gentiles fight because you like to fight. We fight because we have to and in order to win. It is not an aspirative hypocrisy that you have turned your business world into a sporting arena with joyous flourishes slogans, pretenses. It is not an aspirative hypocrisy that you talk of playing the game while you cut each other's throats in the markets. That's hilarious. You mean it. Your advertising propaganda books with their sentimental appeals are not lies. They are the true evidence of your spirit. I'm sorry sir, but Edward Bernays, not a Gentile. And as you're writing this book he's writing propaganda. It is only when we choose to use these methods that there is. hypocrisy. For we see starkly through your life illusions, yet we are forced to use them in self-defense. But our innmost longings turn from this fierce and clamorously happy struggle, while your innmost longings are part of it. You give your best to it, your solves, yourselves, your souls. We give only our cleverness to it. This is why in spite of the popular delusions of the contrary, there are hardly any Jews among the world's wealthiest men. Yeah, I mean, is that true now? What's the percentage of billionaires? The greatest financial institutions as well as the world's greatest businesses are almost exclusively non-Jewish. Dislike of the Jew is in business springs from the feeling that we regard all your play conventions with amusement or even contempt. Our abominable seriousness breaks jarringly into your life mood. But you feel our disruptive difference most keenly, most resentfully in our deliberate efforts to change your social system. Yes, correct. We dream of a world of utter justice and God's spirit, a world which would be barren for you, devoid of all nourishment bleak, unfriendly, unsympathetic. You do not want such a world, you are unadapt for it. Seeing and adasling lights of your desires and needs, our ideal is repellent the morose. I mean, so is that what they're doing? Is that what Erets Israel is? Is building a. is we dream of a world of utter justice and God's spirit, a world which would be barren for you, devoid of all nourishment bleak, unfriendly, unsympathetic? Is that what it is? Is that nourishment? What you do? Is it friendly? Is it sympathetic? Is it hopeful? How then shall we live? We do wrong to thrust these ideals upon you, who are not for justice or peace but for play living. But we cannot help ourselves, any more than you can help presenting our interference. While we live, we must give utterance to our spirit. The most insistent effort on our part will fail to change our nature. What is an atheist belief spirit and nature is? Not that you are untouched by poverty, by human degradation. Not that you do not wish at times that these unhappy things could be destroyed. But this is not in the direct line of march of your life. In social injustice, if social injustice were removed together with the game, you would unquestionally recall both. Life before everything, freedom, joy, adventure. I talk here of the modern and not of the Orthodox Jew. I talk of the Jew as alien, as used to forms of our Orthodox and consciously Jewish life. This is the Jew who forms the backbone of both the audience and contributor to your radical and revolutionary organs. The Jew who is precipitating center of your spasmatic and inconsistent efforts for justice. This man in your midst is not to be recognized on the surface as a Jew. He himself repudiates in an all-sensarity his Jewish affiliations. He is a citizen of the world. He is a son of humanity, the progress of all mankind and not of any single group of it is in his particular care. It is to this Jew that liberals among you will point to refute my thesis. And it is precisely the Jew best illustrates his truth. The unbelieving and radical Jew is as different from the radical gentile as the Orthodox Jew from the reactionary Gentile. The cosmopolitanism of the radical Jew springs from his feelings shared by the Orthodox Jew that there is no difference between Gentile and Gentile. You are all pretty much alike. Then why this fussing and fretting and fighting? The Jew is not a cosmopolitan in your sense. He is not one who feels keenly the difference between national and nation and overrides it. For him as for the Orthodox Jew, a single temper runs through all of you whatever your national divisions. The radical Jew like the Orthodox Jew is a cosmopolitan in a sense which must be irritating to you for he does not even understand why you make such a fuss about that most obvious of facts that you are all alike. The Jew is altogether too much of a cosmopolitan, even for your internationalists. Nor is the handful of you who against the desires and instincts of the mass of you proclaim social justice as a life aim is a Jew anymore truly at home at one with his milieu than the old time Jew in his world. Our very radicalism is of a different temper. Our spur is a natural instinct. We do not have to uproot something in ourselves to become radicals, dreamers of social justice. We are this by instinct. We do not see it as something revolutionary at all. Think of the video of the witch with the all-seeing eye, speaking for the world Jewish Congress, talking about all the things that Jews have done for America. Every single one of which has sought to destroy our culture, the founding culture, and did. It is tacit with us, but with you it is an effort and a wrench. Your very ancestry cries out against it in your blood, and you become silly and enthusiastic about it with flag waving and shouting and battle hymns in all the regular game psychology properties of your world in a way of life. Even of this you make a play. But such as these radical and international movements are the modern Jew, the best and most thoughtful modern Jew that is, is nearer to them than to your anything else in your world. He is the only true socialist and cosmopolitan, but in such a true and tacit sense that he is completely distinguished from all of you. It is one of many vital paradoxes, I think illogical and yet true to life. It is our very cosmopolitanism that gives us our national character. Because we are the only ones who are cosmopolitan by instinct rather than by argument we remain forever ourselves. I will read that again. Basically what he is saying is if you have a Jewish radical out there and you have a Gentile radical out there, the Gentile is arguing. The Jew just is. In everything we are destroyers, even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief. The very socialism and internationalism through which our choke spirit seeks utterance, which seems to threaten your way of life are alien to our spirits, demands and needs. Your socialist and internationalists are not serious. The charm of these move messy attractions such as it is which they exercise is only in their struggle. It is the fight which draws your Gentile radicals. And indeed it is only as long as there is an element of adventure in being a radical that the radical movement retains any individuality. And it is only in the fierce period of early combat that you welcome us choose as allies. You are deluded in this so are we. You go into the movement boldly, adventurously, we darkly, tacitly. Basically what he is saying is if those Gentiles who ran to join the Bolsheviks, they ran to join any kind of far left psychotic movement. Gentiles who are running their bold and adventurously. Jews who are running there because they are. You make it a game, we do it because we cannot help ourselves. And sure enough in the end the split comes again. The liberal and the radicals apt to dislike the Jews the reactionaries are. The liberal and the radical do not use the weapons of the reactionaries. But the dislike is there, finds expression in anti-Semitic socialists and workers movements. And in the almost involuntary contempt which springs to the lips of countless intellectuals. Philosophies do not remold natures. What your radicals want is another form of the game with our rules. Their discontent joins hands with Jewish discontent. But it is not the same kind of discontent. A little distance down the road the ways part forever. The Jewish radical will return from your social movement. He will discover his mistake. He will discover that nothing can bridge the gulf between you and us. I believe the movement has already started. The gradual secession of the Jewish radicals, their realization that your radicalism is of the same essential stuff as your conservatism. The disillusionment is set in. A century of partial tolerance gives us Jews access to your world. In that period, the Great Attempt was made by advance guards of reconciliation to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. Our Jewish radicals are beginning to understand it dimly. We Jews, we the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the enmity between the game and God. Those of us who fail to understand that truth will always be found in alliance with your rebellious factions until disillusionment comes. The wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust that unwelcome role upon us. I don't think I need to explain anything. I think it's all right there. All right. Be back in a couple of days. I'll try to be back in a couple of days as soon as possible. You take care of everyone. All right. Once again, I apologize for doing this. What seems to be a week apart on episodes are really needs to be doing this more. Make every effort to do it. Sorry. No, no promises. Let's move on to episode, episode chapter 10 of Maurice Samuel's eugeniles. Let's see what he has to say. This one is called the Games of Science. Illusions change the instruments of their expression, but they remain the same illusions. Religions changed their gods, but remain the same religions. The atheist Gentiles made science as God, but he, but it has not changed his religion. In the scientific field, the atheist Gentile tells me we will find world unity. In science, there is no room for the subconscious, and it is a subconscious which dictates the eternal enmities. Place your relations on a conscious basis, and you may have differences to be adjusted, but not enmities. The solution to the Jewish Gentile problem as of every instinct problem lies in the pursuit of truth through science. All other problems are not really problems, but purely technical matters to be settled by the application of mathematics. And as we learn to make this distinction between instinct problem and technical task, the greater is a discredit into which to form or falls. The clearer is the attention that we bring to the latter. The greatest contribution of science to human advance has been the opening of paths to our free intelligence, the unconscious and subconscious mind, where its inheritance of the beast might fall into desuitude. The truth alone will save us, and in science is truth. I do not wish to go into an examination of the nature of truth. I do not wish to question the validity of scientific truths. I don't believe that for a second. I am ready to admit that scientific truths are truths in the accepted sense of this word, or, if there are mistakes, if this or that scientific theory is wrong, I will not argue that therefore the scientific method is wrong, or that science itself does not go nearest to the truth. My contention is that science, the examination of facts in literal terms, is quite irrelevant to the spiritual problems of man. We are getting someplace, I mean, what does an atheist mean by spiritual, but, you know, hey. Science is accurate, but its accuracy is pointless for spiritual purposes. The truths which are unveiled by the scientific method, and which it is to, which it is the special aptness of this method is unveiled, do not matter to anybody. Science teaches us that the earth goes around the sun rather than the sun around the earth. Does it really matter, which is the case? Science teaches us that the occasional retrogression effect in the observed motion of the planets is not due to cycle in epicycle orbin orb, but to change as a perspective produced along the plane of the ecliptic during the revolutions of the planet around the sun. Well, what of it? It has revealed the fact that certain diseases are due to the action of minute parasites. That there is a marvelous structural parallel between man and beast, that forms of energy are interchangeable, that the earth is extremely old, that there were other forms of life on the planet before us, that we are merely a point in space. All this is accurate, but is any of it, but is it an of any importance? Ignore, of course, the obvious advantages which are supposed to accrue from the application of these facts. The conquest of nature, as it is bombastically called, though even these advantages are mediated by our inability to exploit them decently. Should be vitiated, I believe. It is not to these advantages that the scientists allude when he talks of the spiritual value of science. He means pure science to perception of these truths for their own sake or, more accurately, for the sake of the change which they produce in our attitude towards life, the universe, each other. But science and revelation of scientific truths have no effect on our attitude towards life, the universe, and each other. The mood of the mind of man, the temper of his outlook, his essential nature. This totality of spiritual reaction has nothing to do with the additional number of facts which science reveals. It would not alter the effective mood of civilized man if it happened that light were revealed as the radiation of corpuscles, rather than as waves in the ether, whatever that may mean. There may be 88 elements or 888. The atom may be a kind of solar system or it may be a figure of speech. Life may be the function of a complicated molecular structure or maybe an illusion, which ever should turn out to be true. We should remain the same. Our only concern is with the exploitation of these things for physical advantages, and as far as that is concerned, it does not matter whether we have the truth or have hit on a method by conventional hypotheses. The totale may exist of astronomy could permit the calculation of eclipses as accurately as the Copernican. Cycle in epicycle orbid orbid works as effectively if the figures are closely enough watched, as ellipses with the sun at one of the folky. For science is a game, a particular systematization, which might well be any other systematization. Despite the prodigious number of facts which science is unveiled, no new type of spiritual outlook has been evolved. Is the general consciousness or self-consciousness of the modern materialists different in effect from that of the civilized stoic or more than 2000 years ago? The substitutes stress in the ether for the Numa if you substitute the laws of gravitation or some electromagnetic formula for each other or for tension will that alter your response to the universe. Science is so far a game, indeed, that self-confessively it deals with symbols only. These appear abstractions, the ion, x to the n, the theory of relativity. The second figure is symbols, with arrangements, the things or truths or facts which are supposedly represented are utterly beyond our apprehension. To take the simplest illustration, the sun is 92 million miles from the earth, the moon a quarter of a million miles. Neither one of these distances means anything to any human being, a million or ten million or a thousand billion. We have no spiritual reaction to any of these figures. They are symbols or counters in the game and themselves intelligible to no one. Or to take the most significant of new scientific facts, a truths, the truth, the theory of relativity. Its application is only to the game or system. No man himself reacts to its implications. He uses it in the laboratory and the observatory. He cannot bring it out. He cannot even lift it off the paper. Indeed, such a revolution was brought in our conception of the universe by the exposition of the theory of relativity that, if scientific truths had any spiritual significance, there should have been a religious revolution in its wake. Since it's a dawn of science, we have been, I mean, he doesn't understand how revivals work, which is not surprising at all. Since it's a dawn of science, we have been blind to a tremendous and fundamental truth, and all inclusive and inescapable truth, namely, that the motions of light rules all our measurements of a time, and space, and mass, that the length of a line or a period of time is nothing but a function of varying values. A terrific and sublime discovery, one might say, yet not only does it fail to make a particle of difference to the spiritual attitude of scientists toward the universe, they cannot even theoretically integrate it into a spirit with a spiritual system. All the effective spiritual value of the theory of relativity is, things are not what they seem. So this is a mission which is a basic spiritual reaction of a man to the universe that theory of relativity adds nothing. And most of theory of relativity is an additional but superfluous illustration. But as she'll be told by the scientist, it is not any individual scientific revelation which matters. What matters is a scientific outlook as such. The conception of the universe as an ordered and harmonious process, the elimination of the providential and accidental, the final and decisive removal of the tomatological. Science means neither the theory of evolution nor the discovery of the bas-bassilus nor the theory of relativity. Science means a cancellation of the inherited instinct errors. In brief, scientists are substitution of reason for superstition. But even at that variation, I can tell the scientific pursuit of truth has given nothing to our knowledge of the ultimate secret of things. But the scientists would call the scientific outlook in accordance with the above definition has nothing to do with the scientific study of phenomena. Manor by nature, un-tomaturgical or tomaturgical in their reaction to the universe. Well, not one second. I want to look at this. Let's see what tomaturgical refers to something related to tomaturgy, which is the practice of performing miracles or magic, especially in a religious context. If you knew that, good on you. I'm very unfamiliar with those terms and I've studied a lot of things. Science in its modern sense does not make them untomaturgical. It is one of the most basic qualities of human life. This particular variety of outlook on the universe. I say it existed before the advent of what we denote under the restricted term of science. I say it would exist just as strongly in these types of men, though not a single discovery had been added to human knowledge of phenomena since the time of Aristotle. I say that those science should add a million startling new revelations to its old ones. It would not increase or decrease the number of men who have the untomaturgical outlook. I refer to the Stoics and said that Stoicism contained as untomaturgical an outlook as any that modern science claims have inspired. But even if this were not true, I should not change my opinion. For life at first hand taught me this view and what I know of history I used only as an illustration. Life at first hand taught me that knowledge of science has nothing to do with the superstitious or unsuperstitious, with the termaturgical or untomaturgical, with idealism or materialism. I have known thoroughly ignorant men who see life quite rationally, apparently untroubled by unconscious impulses. Men who see life quite rationally, apparently untroubled by unconscious impulse, men who have the scientific outlook without knowing or needing science. I have known thoroughly scientific men who are profoundly tomaturgical, who are saturated with the spirit of superstition. It is not the knowledge of facts which changes the man. A man may believe in ghosts and yet may not be superstitious. He may merely be mistaken. Other men may believe neither in ghosts nor in anthropomorphic god and yet be essentially of the superstitious type. It is not even a question of sophistication. I have known simple and primitive peasants, quite illiterate, who are clearly rationalists and scientific and outlook as any professor inspired by a complete knowledge of the revealed mechanics of the world. I have known cultured city dwellers, Rottenwood sophistication, whose surface cynicism could not hide their subjections of the terror of invisible, unrevealable possibilities. Scientific geniuses own the genius of the ingenious. Men who by their nature or materialists spend their energies in building intensely ingenious schematta, wherein the known facts of life constitute the sole material. But these ingenious schematta do not alter their nature with their shape or with the quantity of their material. The mechanics of the universe might be thus or thus, things might work in this way or in that way. It might be one formula or another formula, but the spirit of the thing is the same. For hundreds of years, capable minds of search constructed reconciled, their knowledge of the mechanism is indefinitely greater than any man's knowledge a thousand years ago. Yet men who know as little of these mechanics as was known a thousand years ago have come to the same conclusion regarding the nature of the universe. There is in science a certain naive "tay". The belief that facts differ in their nature, the belief that a fact which is more difficult to unearth is therefore profounder than a fact which is obvious. The belief that a microbe, because it needs a microscope to reveal it, touches truth more deeply than the flea, which can be seen with a naked eye. Yet a fact is not more valuable for being difficult to access, any more than a thought is more profound by having been made obscure. In the end, it comes to this, science which is the accumulation of literal fact hopes that the accumulation of facts will reveal the nature of fact. Science seems to believe if I may use these rather clumsy locations, that some facts are of a different order from other facts, going nearer to the sources of the nature of things. This is untrue, all facts are on the same plane, facts are not explanatory but expository, and what they expose is of the same natural or material as that which we know without science. To expect facts to reveal the nature of facts is to expect the microscope to reveal the nature of the microscope. You can examine one microscope by means of another, but its nature or secret is not accessible to this mode of examination. It is of a different order, the chain of facts is everywhere uniform. When you know one inch of this chain, you have learned as much as you can learn from a mile. If the chain of causes and effects, fact related to fact is indefinitely long, any length of it is equally insignificant. A thousand years is not near its eternity than a moment of time. There is indeed a certain vulgarity in the appealed's quantity. It is a democratic vulgarity. To believe that one million mediocre people have more spiritual significance than one mediocrity. That size affects quality. That one thousand new facts mean more than a hundred old facts. There is an all this, even the vulgarity of provincialism and cockney fashionableness, the belief that the latest is the best. But vulgarity is most patent in the common assertion that science is of spiritual value because it reveals the wonders of the universe. The marvellous structure they say arouses our astonishment and our reverence. The glory of God's house and the infinite wisdom of his ways. Science leads to religion because it teaches us both our insignificance and the amazing cleverness of creation. I hold this to you to be patently vulgar because it is an appeal to headlines. Recourse to the stimuli of the advertiser for the benefit of a stupid and jaded public. The thinking man needs no science as to teach him the wonder of creation. He needs neither a telescope nor a microscope in order to see God, nor do formulae teach him the nature of God. Life itself being the staggering wonder of mere existence fills completely. Crams beyond all possibility of addition, the faculty of astonishment and bewilderment, in the sensitive man. Those two in existence has become commonplace by familiarity. Or who have never been smitten prostrate by the riddle of existence. Need a crescendo succession of shockers to touch their brutish minds. They didn't know the marvel of the universe until they learned of electricity, but now that electricity is commonplace as sunlight, they need a theory of relativity. And when that is played out as an advertising stunt for the ingenuity of the Almighty, they will need something else. It's hard to tell if he's against learning. If he's scared of it. If this is just simply, you can't know anything. So don't bother going. I mean, reading all this, and I understand most of it, sometimes he's just going off on tangents that make no sense. But I mean, there's a certain nihilism in all of this. This chapter more than any other, he's not real. It's almost like he's just taken a time out. after he's told you that, you know, we are the destroyers and we'll never stop to basically try to convince you that you can't know anything, that there's no truth. And it's all doom. Maybe somebody else sees something else in this other than frustration just in trying to make sense of somebody who, in my opinion, is just basically trying to sound smarter than he actually is. Or he's insanely intelligent and he's doing all this to convince you that facts don't mean anything. He keeps coming at it from a spiritual sense, but he keeps referring to the spirit. It's a God, and it's not, I mean, but he doesn't believe in any of these things. I mean, I assume most of you at this point believe that when he talks about God, he's God, he's talking about himself and the Jewish masses. That's all I can think of. Social Guarantee and Sciences is not a bit different from the vulgarity of city mobs, which crow at the astonishment when first they see an electric light, but afterwards, smile pittingly at those who manifest astonishment. Well, I mean, that's just familiarity breeding contempt. It's a human. It's very human. I think everyone does that. The man of the mass mistakes impudent familiarity for understanding, because he uses the electric chair of the telephone and the telegraph every day. He imagines that he is wiser than the barbarian who has never known of them. If at all, he is less wise, being too impudent to know his own ignorance. The fool that say it, then, as hard, there is no God as the city fool to whom nothing is wonderful anymore, and those who do not wonder do not know God. I think that there is some truth in that, that the greatest way to keep and perpetuate a good relationship with God is through mystery. But I don't, that's not what he's saying here. It's almost like he's quoting this to try to create a common ground. It is not significant that the greatest human cry of wonder, the Bible, was the utterance of men who knew nothing concerning the pleceosaurus, the amoeba, the nebula of Orion, Menden, Menden, L.F. tables, Bodhisela, the theory of Quanta, and them the marvel of existence shocked like a clash of symbols. The echoes of that first fresh amazement still put to shame, the sophisticated stammering of the wise age, have all the revelations of science brought just a single utterance like that of Job. Though a man should master all the ingenuities of science, though he should double and trouble them, though he should know all the workings of his own body and of the stellar systems, though Earth's past and future, through Earth's past and through Earth's past and future, the past and future of all life should light open before him. Can he say or feel more than this? Conscience even adds anything to skepticism and doubt. Shall he who suspects that all life is a phantasm, perception itself, the shadow of a shadow, and are very whispers to ourselves, the ten times tampered with instruments of things which are not ourselves? Shall he that suspects that between himself and himself, himself speaking and himself listening, himself thinking and himself thought of? Their looms, world without end, system within system, aberration within aberration. Shall such a one be rendered more doubtful because the sky is not an inverted bowl above our heads, because disease is carried not by demons, but by invisible fleas. If the hole is insecure, it is the double insecurity of a part, make any difference. If all is elucery, does it matter that there were particular little illusions within the general illusion? If we suspect the very instrument of our perception, if we doubt our senses and our thoughts, if we doubt our very doubts, and in the end from a forensic hunting of protean shadows, relapse into utter silence and impotence, what additional impotence is to be derived from the correction of unscientific errors? The worlds wonder, the worlds doubt, the terror and illusion of life, these things lie patents of the naked eye. Life at first and teaches everything, the blind cannot see even through a microscope. What then is science and wherein lies its lore? Why are men drawn to its service? Why do the best and ableists give up their lives to its pursuit? Science, which can be of no ultimate value in bringing us nearer to the roots of life, to Godhead and to its secrecy, science is a game, a convention. The charm of science is the charm of Gentile life. The ultimate does not matter within the system. There is the lyric grace of rhythm and harmony. If science, if they believe that the charm of science is the charm of Gentile life, if they believe that that is what Gentiles just looked to science, would it be any wonder that they would seek to take over the science and absolutely slant them into their direction? Especially the soft sciences, the social sciences. The scientific development of your Western world is inevitable consequences of your nature. It is inevitable that you should worship science because your very skepticism is a substitution of one set of illusions for another, the adoption of one set of conventions in place of another. I do believe that that is something that Westerners and Gentiles, Gentile Westerners, they worship science. I think it's hard to argue against that. Now, you may not, but you're just proving the rule there. If he recognizes that, other Jews are recognized that, and they've seen sought to take them over as much as possible, and lean them in your direction. That's when you hear Thomas talking about a social engineering regime, one of the easiest ways to do that would be to influence science as much as possible. I mean, basically, all of psychology is Freud. You're bound to find spiritual value in science because you do not want ultimate spiritual value, only the spiritual value of immediate lyric enjoyment. You who worship gods instead of God must naturally worship science. Science is merely idle worship for icons, the instruments, for incantations, formulae, the palpable, the material, the enjoyable. Science is not a serious pursuit. You're grave professors of chemistry, astronomy, physics, your Nobel Prize winners are be balled or be it at schoolboys playing mental football for their own delight and the delight of spectators. That's interesting. I've been arguing, and I've always heard it's a way, and one of the ways they try to prove high Jewish IQ is their Nobel Prize winners. They did Jews somehow after this seek Nobel prizes, but they're just balled or be it at schoolboys playing or did they have to become Nobel Prize winners to surpass that. And how are Nobel Prize winners picked? Does God pick them? The Nobel prizes are chosen no differently than Oscars are given out. Science then is an art, though its technique is of so peculiar and nature as it divided from all the other arts, but we most easily recognize that as an art because a true scientist takes an artistic delight in science. And because your science is not serious, we Jews have never achieved in any peculiar preeminence. We have our few exceptions. We can master as well as you the system in the scheme, but we lack the spiritual urge, the driving joy, the illusion that this is the all and all. We know nothing of science for science is sake. As we know nothing of art for art's sake. We only know of art for God's sake. If there is art or beauty in our supreme production, the Bible, it is not because we sought either. The type of the artist is alien to us, and just as alien is the delight of the artist. The artist is one who seeks. beauty goes out of his way to find her. But the Hebrew prophet who brought so beautifully did not go out of his way to find God. God pursued him and caught him, hunted him out and tortured him so that he cried out. Until this day you have no artisan your sense. Such art as we have created has been the byproduct of a fierce moral purpose. See what do we have upcoming after this? Hollywood pornography. It's never, it's about money. It's about money and corruption. That's it. In science this is your Gentile world, the lovely and ingenious world, kaleidoscopic, graceful, bewilderingly seductive, a world that is best of lovely apparitions, banners, struggles, triumphs, gallantries, noble gestures and conventions. But not our world, not for us Jews. For such field of the cloth of gold delights we lack imagination and inventiveness. We are not touched with this figure of productive playfulness. Considered or us we take part in the ringing melee and give an indifferently good account of ourselves. But we have not the heart for this world of yours. I could almost picture him and I'll finish with this. I could almost picture him looking at all the Jewish artists and scientists and everything these days, the people who relish it so much, the winesteams and the wine steam brothers there. From what he says here, I would almost picture him if he's being completely honest in all those which I doubt that he sees them as like the downfall of Judaism. Why would these Jews care about these things? Unless they were subverting, which I leave all doors open. All right. Thank you. I'll try to come back to the next chapter is called The Masses. I will and I doubt he's talking about the Catholic Church. So I'll try to come back as soon as possible. All right. I apologize for taking so long in between these. I want to get it over with and move on to something new. As much as this needs to be right, this person is insufferable and so glad I was so glad I could never have a chance to know him. Take care everyone. Thank you. Bye. All right. Everyone here is part 10 of you Gentiles. I'm going to try to knock these out a little faster now. I'm probably just going to do two chapters because I have an idea for the next book and I'll be completely off of this subject because I need to break too much talking about this lately. And we'll look at something else. Have an idea. Might change my mind. Always do, but yeah, it's there. So all right. This is chapter 11, The Masses. It would be absurd to pretend that the Jewish masses are distinguished from your masses by a conscious, by a conscious appreciation of the differences, the difference I've described. Indeed, very few even of the thinking Jews understand the nature of the problem. It is certain that the westernized masses of Jews are doing their best to minimize or to ignore the difference between Jew and Gentile. They and their leaders assert frequently and vehemently that there is no difference. Jew and Gentile are alike, except in their opinions regarding certain very simple matters of faith. You too will assert. Even if we grant this distinction between Gentile and Jewish genius, are we not understand it permeates the masses that the strain of seriousness is to be found in your households of thousands of, yes, westernized workers, lawyers, salesmen, merchants, manufacturers, contrasting with the corresponding levity or lack of seriousness in the same classes among us. It is incredible. The same language, the same occupations, the same sports, the same pursuits are common to both of us. But any intelligent man lived first for ten years among middle class Gentile families and then changed his milieu completely in passing to the environment of middle class assimilated Jewish families. What will there be to give him the impression of another world? Will he not find the same amusement, the same ambitions, the same morality, the same taboos, the same abilities and the same stupidities? Did not the Jewish and Gentile middle class families admire the same heroes vote for the same politicians read the same newspapers and magazines? Frequent the same theaters weep over the same movies laugh at the same comic strips. But the question cannot be put so simply. The world is yours and you are the ones who set the standards. You are the ones who supply the material for the reactions and when the Jews want to become part of your world, enjoy its privileges and pleasures, we must accept your standards, speak, as if it were the same language. But just as a word can never mean quite the same thing to two persons, so a common expression does not mean the same emotion. The fact is that as long as Jews retain their identity, there is the same tension between your middle classes and hours as between your geniuses and hours. Our middle classes even when thoroughly modernized retain a certain individuality which has repugnant to you. Our modernized Jews have done their best to take up your life and become part of it, but despite outward appearances they have failed, there is first of all two eager and intense of desire to be Gentile. What you do tacitly and by the grace of God, we do deliberately it in the gracelessness of ambition. You go into this new life of yours, we can toward ourselves into it. In one or two generations we would achieve what it took you a hundred generations to reach. We take up your life with an anxiousness or ferocity which is its own undoing. Whatever in you can be imitated, we do imitate admirably, but though you cannot quite define it, you are aware of a deception. It's interesting. They haven't had their own nation at this point for, I guess, 1900 years, but it's longer than that. I mean, first the Greeks and then the Romans. Look at how they failed. They can't even survive on their own. They lash out at everyone around them. They want to kill everyone around them. They have delusions of grandeur, of taking over large swads of land in the Middle East. It's evil in a sense. I hate to say evil because I'm looking for a better word. It's malicious in a sense, the things they do. But it's also very incompetent. They could easily have destroyed the Palestinians, destroyed their neighbors. They could have figured this out a long time ago. They don't have to be going through this now. But either this is the only way that they, in their being, can do it. Were they like it? I don't know. I don't know. Violence and mega-violence and war has always been seen as something that just happens. Not that you would enjoy it. Whatever you can be imitated, we do imitate admirably, but though you cannot quite define it, you are aware of a deception. Our patriots' systems are hysterical. Our sports pursuits are unnaturally eager. Our business ambitions artificially passion it. He's describing that this is not who they are. So when they, it almost seems like when they, and I don't think he's trying to say this, I'm trying to figure things out here. From what he's saying, he's basically saying when we try to imitate you, it's forced. And we don't know how to do it. It looks like a never-to-little becomes failure. Like they are people who are meant to wander. And the fact that they found this thing and they stopped. Even if you buy, even if you buy the Couser theory, which I do, there still are. Jews there that are probably direct descendants. But I think they've just. Even the causars have just taken on a spirit of if any of you know your old testament, just how obstinate. Every 40 to 80 years they would just revert back to child sacrifice and things like that. This is why they kept being punished over and over again. We seek the same apparent ends as you but not in the same spirit. Would you have us fight and die for country? We'll do it as well as you. Would you have us run fast, box skillfully? We'll do it. Would you have us build up enterprises? We'll do that too. But one thing we cannot do, do it for the same reason and in the same spirit. And they can't do it for the benefit of anyone else but them. And I was saying for the benefit of all Jews because that's bullshit. Anyone who's fallen 200 years together knows it. The elite Jews do not. The lower class Jews and the poorer Jews and even the middle class Jews that he's he's mentioning here look down upon. German Jews at this time were looking down upon palisettlement Jews. When you hear about oh we were we couldn't go into we weren't allowed into golf clubs. Most of the time that was German Jews who were the enlightenment and hit them a lot earlier look down upon palisettlement Jews as trash. Since you insist we will measure values with your standards and register the results. But you know you feel that the standards are not ours. We betray ourselves singly and en masse. We haven't the manner. We haven't the manners for manners are but a manner with you. We Jews are lacking in manners because manners as you have evolved them are a spirit a reflex of your play world. Manors cannot be copied one must have the aptitude for this charming triviality. A single note of insistence spoils it all and we choose insist too much. And just as Jews are without manners so they are without vulgarity. Well I have observed that between the vulgar Gentile and the so-called vulgar Jew there is a singular and dreadful difference. The vulgar type of Gentile is not repellent. There is in him an animal grossness which shocks and braces but does not horrify. He carries it off by virtue of a natural brutality and brutishness which provide a mitigating consistency to his character. But the lowest type of Jew is extraordinarily revolting. There is in him a suggestion of de la question future faction. The Gentile can be naturally healthily vulgar. The Jew corrupts into vulgarity. He has not the gift for it. What is vulgarity in the Gentile is obscenity in the Jew. I am able to watch either with amusement or indifference of vulgar performance on the Gentile stage. On the Jewish stage I find that the Gentile is low and brutish Gentiles loose. In the company of low and brutish Gentiles in the company of low and brutish Gentiles loose I may not feel at home but I can be an unmoved spectator. But when Jews try to imitate this behavior I feel my innermost decency outrage. Well mannered Gentile society rejects us. So does vulgar Gentile society. Wow that says a lot. An individual genius cannot be taken as the higher type of the people which produced him. But in the mass there is an inevitable correspondence between the product of the geniuses of a people and the people itself. Study it actuarial actuariality that people find utterance in the geniuses. There is an undoubted consistency in all the products of the greatest Jewish minds. Whether we take their statistics laterally through an age or vertically through history. We will obtain a similar result. Whether we begin with the Bible and take the sum total of our work down to Karl Marx or confine ourselves to a single country in generation. America today for instance with Untermeyer, Lewisone, Frank, Hecht. We will find the same appeal to fundamentals, the same passionate rejection of your sport world and its sports mentality, the same ultimate seriousness, the same inability to be merely playful, merely romantic, merely lyrical. It is unthinkable that the masses of people can mean one thing, its geniuses another. Where this so the utterances of great minds will lose all relevance would become pointless and impudent. If we symbolize a people as a single organism, its geniuses may be likened to an organ of self-consciousness and the self-consciousness of a man is not an independent function but the instrument of all of him. All his body and being things through the brain. That which genius illuminates in the life from which it springs. The amorphous is crystallized in it. The confused effusion is brought to a focus so that the pattern is made clear. Our geniuses in the midst of your world are an alien and destructive element, more clearly revealed this such because they are an articulate. They are our spokesmen or better said, ourselves in utterance. They like us, being us, cannot join your game. You say because they lack imagination, in a sense it is true. We are unimaginative as old people are unimaginative in the presence of young people. We neither play with emotions nor with things. We lack romanticists as we lack inventors because we lack inventiveness. That is true. Even among the masses, where diffusion confuses and apt instance points to the truth. Among our simple people you do not find the delight and constructive trifles which is one of your characteristics. Your simple people like to build things, fix this and that in the house, play the handyman. They take pleasure in putting up shelves, looking to the plumbing, adding and altering. We are devoid of this kind of craftsman's pleasure. We do what is necessary only because it is necessary. And as a man engaged happily in such pleasant, childlike pursuits, resents the chilling indifference of an unsympathetic onlooker. So your world resents our uncalled for analysis of your acts and occupations. This is your life and you enjoy it. Why do we disturb you with questions concerning ultimate values? We lack inventiveness. You will say that springs from our lack of vitality. Men are lyrical because life sings in them. They are inventive because life is restless in them and drives their fingers to activity. Some may call that the Faustian spirit, which I am sure he would decry. I will not argue the cause of the difference, but lacking inventiveness. We also lack sympathy for it. And you are to let you call inventiveness the conquest of nature. But the boast is to us a foolish and childlike boast. The problem with which man is faced cannot be answered by scientific inventions. The conquest of nature does not lie in evolving keener sight, swifter motion, larger strength. This is about magnification which leaves the element of the problem untouched. Can you conquer, not nature, but the nature of things? For it is in the nature of things that the bitter problem resides. If science should double the span of human life while the nature of life and death be altered, will we not feel as mortal as insignificant? Will we even be able to be aware of living longer? If science should bridge the planets in the stars, will the new playground be larger than the old to those that live in it? You have found a whole world since the days of the Greeks. They lived on a tiny plot of land and ant hill, and you have a gigantic globe to build on. What difference has it made? What significant conquest have you achieved? Not things, but the nature of things baffles. The dreadful circle, the eternal balance for every gain of compensating loss, for every new revelation and new deception, for every new extension, a loss of intensity. The nature of things cannot be solved because we pertake of that nature. We can never get round ourselves. We can only turn round. Your world spends an joyous illusion of progress. We, untouched by that illusion, destructive of your mood, stand aside, static, serious. We will be satisfied with nothing but the absolute. That eluiveness speaks clearly or obscurely in our masses as well as in our geniuses. Dilling with objects instead of with laws, they betray the same enthusiastic objectivity in their attitude to your world. And as long as they retain their Jewish identity, they will, despite denial and effort to the contrary, remain the same. Alright, chapter 12. Solution and dissolution. Does the situation which I have described constitute a problem? Or is it merely one of the insoluble difficulties of life which, being insoluble, should be understood as such and suffered tacitly? death is not a problem. problem being inevitable. Is this struggle between our two worlds as inevitable? Shall we resign ourselves to the struggle and do what we can to mitigate its worst effects? Or shall we continue the search for a complete solution? The one solution which is generally offered as complete and satisfactory is, quite apart from its feasibility, not a solution at all, only a dissolution. There's disappearance of the Jewish people by complete submergence in the surrounding world would not, in reality, solve the problem any more than one solves a chess problem by burning chessboard and figures. But it would seem to do the next best thing. It would apparently destroy the situation which creates the problem. The problem without having been solved would at any rate cease to exist. And by the dissolution of the Jewish people can be meant only one thing. There's this appearance of Jewish identity individuals. In individuals or masses, the complete obliteration of Jewish self-consciousness down to the very name and recollection. When it will be impossible for any man to say to himself, "I am a Jew," or "my father or grandfather was a Jew, this consummation will have been achieved." There is only one instrument to this end, free and unrestrained intermarriage. This is interesting considering Jonathan Greenblatt from the ADL the other day was decrying Jewish intermarriage. But we know how he feels if a German said they only want to marry another German. The whole thing about how he's calling out hypocrisy, I mean, a lot of that just comes from them. They, you know, what's good for them is not good. What they advocate for themselves, they cry criminal brothers. This act of, or fact alone, will count. The mere changing of names, the substitution of religious forms, the so-called liberalization and modernization of Judaism is ineffective. It is a matter of common observation that there is no inverse ratio between the Westernization of the Jew and anti-Semitism. And this very fact will have to be considered again in its relations with the feasibility of this proposal. If we talk of this emergence of the Jew, we must not play with words. Words alone cannot submerge to Jew. If there is anything in what I have said, you cannot make a Gentile of a Jew by arguing with him any more than by lynching him. You can, he mentioned Leo Frank earlier, so I'm assuming. I don't know what that means. You can make his children half Gentile, his grandchildren only a quarter Jewish and so on until the balance is perfect. And this truth seems to have worked out in the minds of some westernizing Jews. Reform Judaism or modernized Judaism is the halfway house to baptism, or at least to enter marriage. It's very purpose is such, despite the protestations of reformed Jews. It cannot be anything else for if the desire is to become like the world around us, then all barriers must go down. And the real barrier, the conservator of all distinctions is our practice of endogamy. One thing is quite certain, a Jew is never baptized to the purpose of becoming a Christian. His purpose is to become a Gentile. That's an interesting take. That's a sentence typed in a anger. Certainly typed in anger. Yet obviously you do not make a Gentile of a Jew by baptizing him any more than you would make make an Aryan of a Negro by painting him with Oshar. The soul and sufficient value in this direction of baptism is the removal of all conscious prohibition against intermarriage. Of course, even baptism is not a necessary preparation. Jews marry Gentiles without this preliminary formality. The case is somewhat different here. This is a natural wastage or attrition. Individual passion, not policy is to cause. Though the effect is the same, the disappearance of the Jew. And it certainly can note even if indifferently the renunciation first of Judaism and then of Jewish affiliation. A Jew married to a Gentile may remain a Jewist, ostensibly, as he is in fact. His children seldom, if ever, profess Judaism or see it themselves within Jewish people. You really just have to wonder, how do you. First of all, how would you ever have a conversation with this person about the subject matter? Can you imagine trying to interview him when he was alive about this book? And it certainly can notes even if indifferently the renunciation first of Judaism and then of Jewish affiliation. His children seldom, if ever, profess Judaism or associate themselves with the Jewish people. In this case, the evasion is even more dishonest than in the first. A man who professes to belong to the Jewish faith and the Jewish people and who nevertheless give his children to the Gentiles is making the best of both worlds. He vades the odious name of Renegade, which attaches to the baptized Jew, also, serving his conscience, and at the same time contributes effectively to the dissolution of the Jewish people. It is well to note that the Westernized or reformed Jew may be made to plow the practice, but will not exclude such a man from the temple. The Orthodox Jew considers such a man lost to Judaism. The view, whatever its ethics is, clear and healthier. Yeah, you just can't help but read this and just have an Englishman or a Welshman or an Irishman argue the same. You know what I'm saying. It's just, I don't want to be the magic of the role as a reverse person. But once you realize the hypocrisy of it, it says more about that. It just informs how much more, how they will never, because they care so much about themselves, they will never be able to fit in. And it's clearly what he started this book out by saying. But I want to consider not the accidental, but the deliberate or political, accidental intermarriage being accidental and therefore uncontrollable is not a policy. Baptism is a policy. The weakening of Judaism by the removal of its national simplifications and by its modernization is also a policy. The same policy, in fact, but more circumspect and less self-confessed. The policy has as its objective the solution of the Jewish problem by the dissolution of the Jewish people. I will consider later whether this policy can obtain the objective. The question here concerns the objective. Will the dissolution of Jewish identity by free and prolonged marriage resolve the struggle of the two types? That's the question. Or will the struggle continue in another form? Less obvious, but equally uncomfortable. Will the struggle center around isolated individuals recurrent types? Or will the final product be homogenous than in relation to this particular struggle? Static. Both the negative and affirmative answers to this question are unsatisfactory. Suppose on the one hand the struggle continues. Suppose a Jewish character persists in strains, breaks out an individual addivisms, long after the Jewish name is perished. The problem will be the same. Your world will be confronted with recurrent instances of alien and destructive types, all the more dangerous because they are not isolated and recognized reputed a group. Their power of destruction will be the greater because they will work from within. The Jewish problem will have disappeared, but the Gentile problem would remain as bitter as ever. It's an interesting tactic taken here. You almost have to admire the argument here. Let us examine the negative answer. Suppose there are no reversions to type. Suppose a Jewish so completely absorbed this to be lost beyond possibility of detection in the surrounding world. Such a consummation, if possible, calls for one inevitable condition. That is, the proportionate Judaism of your world. It is unthinkable that so vivid and element as a Jewish people should be absorbed into your world without producing an appreciable alteration in its constitution. A world that has absorbed the Jews will be to the extent, well to that extent be a Jewish world. There is prophecy. And this is precisely the condition which you refuse to admit. You want no tampering with your identity. You want to remain what you are. You have no intention of meeting us at the point of balance. You did not want a world tinged with Jewish blood. You want us to be absorbed in you without leaving a trace. And with the best intentions in the world, we cannot oblige. We can, in that sense, no more destroy ourselves than we destroy a single particle of matter. But I shall show in the following pages that all this talk of dissolution is academic. Even if you should tolerate and prospect both of these alternatives, there are inseparable obstacles which make it highly improbable that you will ever be faced with either. All right, I'll end it right there and come back and make every effort to try to finish this up this week. All right, take care everyone and hope you're getting something out of this. All right, we got two more chapters and one page left. So this is Eugeniles by Mori Samuel, part 11, going to finish it up. Sorry about I meant to finish it up earlier, had a whole bunch of work done on my mouth still being done waiting for certain bridges to come in and everything like that trying to fix a problem I've had for a long time. There's going to be mouth noises. I know there's been mouth noises up until now, part of the new work is to get rid of those mouth noises and everything because of partials that I've been suffering with for years, not really suffering, but yeah. So forgive anything that sounds terrible, but yeah, let's finish this up. So I want to start on something new soon as I get the new choppers. The last chapter that we did was called solution and dissolution. This one is called the mechanism of dissolution chapter 13. This would be an ideal condition presumably the merging together of Jew and Gentile for the production of a world neither holy Gentile nor yet jewel with Jew and Gentile, but composed of both in certain proportions fixed by our numbers and the laws of heredity. Heredity. That is, at least, the best solution within view. And if we are to be reasonable on paper at least, it would be the only ones to be considered. But we must remember that this ideal cannot be realized in one generation or in two or in five. If we were to assume the assumption is an absurd one that within this generation, the Jewish world could be one over to this point of view, it would still need four or five generations, probably more to obliterate our identity. At that, it would call for forcible intermarriage, for even when we cease to believe in endogamy. We will practice it because our affections so include incline us. It would have to become a sort of principle that in the name of the great ideal of a solution of the Jewish problem, the Jew shall be forbidden morally at least to marry among his own. But it is clear that even if intensive propaganda were to break down, it could not, for reasons I shall return to, our prohibitions against intermarriage, it would have to work progressively. It would take many generations to carry the change successfully through all the strong holds of Jewish life. And when we add to the time thus needed, the time needed for actual absorption by intermarriage, we are faced with a task of centuries. But I deal with ideal conditions. I will deal with a single large group of Jews determined to abandon their identity and to lose themselves and their children in the surrounding Gentile world. We know well that their children will not yet be assimilated in the full sense of the word. Children of mixed Jewish Gentile percentage still carry the Jewish stigma, the child of a half-cho and complete Gentile is in a better plight, and a Jewish great grandfather is hardly any handicap at all. The third generation, as it saying, is produces the gentleman. It needs at least these three generations of intermediary stage, probably more. It would be absurd to expect absorption in a single generation. It never happens. There's needed a transition period and is this transition period which you Gentiles will not tolerate. Even if you believe, as most of you do, that the best thing that could happen to the Jew would be his complete absorption by intermarriage, you oppose tacitly, but not the least, not the less obstinately, his steps in this direction. You want us to intermarry, but you don't want to intermarry. You want us to produce Gentile offspring without having taken your sons and daughters as mates. In other words, you want an end without permitting the means. The prospect of a Jew-less world is charming indeed, but who will enjoy the actuality? Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Who will have to pay the price of the first embarrassing contact? The first difficult intimacy, Jewish sums and daughters-in-laws, Jewish fathers and mother-in-laws. You yourselves, the prospect is too distant, too hypothetical, to exert any influence. It is much too much like the promise of heaven and the threat of hell. I just love that. There's no consideration for separation. Then just go to your own land. As a matter of fact, he died in 1974 in New York. I don't think he ever wants to live in Israel. Here he is. I've alluded more than once to the fact that westernization of the Jew is nowhere a guarantee against anti-Semitism. Indeed, conscious modern anti-Semitism, the formulated fear of the Jew as the racial bearer of alien and dangerous ideas, is the result of westernization. Far from encouraging or tolerating our intermarriage with you, you did not even relish the results of our westernization or gentilization. It is an amazing and terrifying paradox you would like us to be absorbed but you shriek from the process. The inoculation is painful, even revolting. You are uneasy and unhappy when we swarm into your universities, your professions, the nearer we come to you, the more you dislike us. Wow. You dislike us because we are different and when we make efforts overcome the difference, we are forced into a proximity which rouses your innmost resentment. The Ku Klux Klan, the awakening Magyars, the Consul, no longer warn you against the religious and secluded Jew, the ghetto and the Talmud. They warn you against the baptizing Jew, against the assimilating Jew, against the intermarrying Jew. They warn you, indeed, against that part of the Jewish people, which is apparently in the process of realization of that ultimate ideal, the disappearance of the Jewish people. Another aspect of the mechanics of dissolution makes clear difficulty somewhat more subtle but even more effective. The death of a people or a type can be natural only. Race suicide is an ideal, as an ideal is contradiction. For an ideal is a manifestation of life, deliberately to set before ourselves the objective of self-alemination would be as absurd. As absurd as a man insisting on watching himself fall asleep, it can be done tacitly only. It can happen but it cannot be propagated. We might drift out of consciousness but every effort to accelerate the pace would retard the process. To appeal to Jews to cease to be Jews because they are Jews is to accentuate their Jewishness. Of course, the effort has been made but with those grotesque and natural results which are in part responsible for your aversion to the process. There is nothing more ludicrous and pitiful than the Jew who has made his gentilization a deliberate ideal. His anxious self-repressions has self-disclamers. His demand to be considered a gentile, his uneasy sense of inferiority, his impenetinent resentment of all that reminds him of his origin. Make him an object of scorn, alike to you and to us. There are assimilated Jews who hate within a noble and consuming hatred, the unassuminated part of the Jewish people. Jews who rousing your secret contempt as renegades in your resentment as intruders attribute their discomfort falsely to those Jews who are most obviously Jewish. For the gentilization Jew is reluctant to admit that his very gentilization accentuates his Jewishness to you. His only recourse is say the last remnant of his self-respect is to blame the unassumulating Jew. In eager self-indification he points out the object lesson of the sufferings of Orthodox and national Jewaries and associates his own severe sufferings with the same cause. He deliberately ignores the fact that the cradle of the newer anti-Semitism is to country which witnessed the first efforts of the Jew to make a high ideal of assimilation. Germany which in the 19th century offered the classic example of Jewish assimilation both internal in adaption of our own life and external in baptism and intermarriage also became the country of classic anti-Semitism. Hmm, terrified at the infiltration of Jewish blood the German gentile recast his formulae of Jewish hatred and such wise as to arrest the process. All I'm hearing is that people are different and they should separate. But that's really the issue isn't it? They don't want that. Much like many people make the claim that black people feel like they have a right to access to white people. Same thing here. Same thing. I mean, you could just go to your country. You have your own country now. You could just go. Well, that's anti-Semitism. Maybe it's just logic. When we examine the mechanism of dissolution in detail and come down to an examination of its working on the individual, we understand better the revolting character at least of at least its first effects. It is one thing to say that if people in the first stages of dissolution is as horrible, as spectacle as a body in the first stages of putrification, putrification. But this sounds somewhat academic, perhaps even metaphysical. Even so, there is little conveyed in the statement that a country is starving. We realize the import of the statement only when we speak of hungry men and women. When we examine the personal reactions of the deliberately assimilating Jew, we see more clearly why he is not a pleasant spectacle either to Jew or to Gentile. A Jew who has made the repression of his Jewishness an ideal must be prepared to suffer and to seem to ignore every slight, every rebuff which he encounters. He must not permit an open sneer to sting him into Jewish self-consciousness. Such a weakness would undo his purpose. He must seem to be unaware of the occasional coolness which follows the accidental revelation of his origin. He must bear silently with those countless unspoken snubs, half snubs, uttered queries, faint "Ah, yes, astonishments, which will be his lot until the day of his death." He must not feel himself implicated in the general slander of the Jews. He may only protest in a generous, disinterest, this sort of way. As a fair mind to Gentile, an angry retort or repudiation might be the ruin of him. He would suddenly realize the intolerable nature of his position. It is not an easy thing to kill oneself by degrees. Such a Jew has the whole way to go. He is not entering a world already made easier for him by an admixture of Jewish blood. He does not move forward to a partly prepared position. All his alien around him, his claims have no precedent. There is something pitifully impudent in his demand. But I am an Englishman like you, an American like you. I have no affiliations outside of this country except those general human affiliations which I share with you. I feel for my co-religion as a broad nothing more nor less than you feel for your fellow Christians among the Turks. Between me and my fellow Jews in this country, there is nothing more than between Protestant and Protestant Catholic and Catholic. Or if he is baptized, this incriminating confession may presumably be admitted. "I am part and parcel of your country. Our forefathers came later, but our posterity will stay as long. There is no difference between you and me except the very slight difference of faith, nothing really worth mentioning. In all else we are utterly alike. Do not let yourself be misled by the apparent contrast between me and my unassimilated co-religionist. It is merely a matter of externals. In a little while in a generation or two they will be like me, indistinguishable from you. They will be Americans or Englishman or Frenchman. In every respect, your destiny and ours, your outlook and ours, your hopes and ours, your identical." But his plea falls on skeptical ears. There is that in the very name of Jew which invalidates his protestations. And the more vehemently he urges his case to more suspicious and it means that you become. For he is urging as an accomplished fact that which is nothing but a hopeless personal aspiration. Your demand is not connected with behavioral or with reviews. Whether these makes the American or the Englishman, it is a question of identity. You want us to be Anglo-Saxons or Tutons if you are to call us Englishman or Germans. And we cannot be that. At best our great-grandchildren can be as nearly that as matters. But we cannot remarry our great-grandparents. We cannot but exasperate you by such important assumptions that strangers, aliens to your blood, should come to dwell in your midst is one thing. That they should claim after a sojourn of a generation or two complete identity with you is absurd as it is insolent. And even if they should dwell in your midst a thousand years, yet should keep apart, neither giving nor taking in marriage, they are not identical with you. In those words, our ancestry, our forefathers, they are implied the dearest and tenderest of human associations. The love of his forebearers and of his posterity is all that man has of earthly immortality. The pride and affection which are the natural counterparts of these concepts are as narrow and as broad as potent for good and evil as sexual love as life itself. Shall we come to you and share your ancestry? Shall we intrude on these exalted recollections with a "we too"? You cannot help presenting these claims. They savor it once of ingratiating humility and arrogant blasphemy. Try as you will, you cannot make the concession. You are trapped by a vital paradox. You may ask, what differences there between a Jew claiming to be an American and an Italian claiming to be one. Is it more humiliating for one than the other? Is the Italian of our ancestry more than you? There is some similarity in the plight of all foreigners, and we Jews suffer all that foreigners suffer. But our case is unique, because we are unique. If there is anything in what have said, the cleft between you, Americans and Italians, Frenchmen and Germans, is but a wide jump as compared with the chasm between us and any of you. What is true of the Gentile foreigner in this regard is ten times true of us. For our very record testifies against us. The older the past from which we attempt to flee the closer it pursues us. To you who share with us the human attribute of pride of ancestry, it seems incredible that having retained our identity for a hundred generations, we should abandon it in one. It is suspicious and odious. For you suspect rightly that in this tenacity of identity, which is outlive so many nations and civilizations, there is implied a kernel of individuality, which is as singular in its nature as it is in its history. Among yourselves assimilation is problem enough. The birth and death of nations is attended by war, wars, pains, humiliations. But what you have done a dozen times over in the last four thousand years, we have not done once. We cannot assimilate. It is so humiliating to us that we become contemptible in submitting to the process. It is so exasperating to you that even if we were willing to submit, it would avail us nothing. Which brings us to the official last chapter. Is there any hope? Considering everything he's been saying, what do you think? Chapter 14. Is there any hope? There is little more to be said. I would only like to set down, before concluding, a few considerations which might help to clarify the issue between us. For I cannot believe that the contest between our two ways of life will come to an end within measurable time. And I cannot believe that while the contest continues, it will ever be lifted to purely spiritual levels. That's a. I mean. You're. You're. You're. You're. You're. It's a great prediction. You don't have to play the lotter. I don't think you're going to win. I mean. I will not confound eschatology with daily experience. If ever the dream of the prophet should come true, if ever men should live at peace with each other, expressing their antagonisms with that enmity, why? They will no longer be men. But another species in talk of Jew and Gentile will be as irrelevant then as it might have been 20,000 years ago. The world is getting better, no doubt. But the improvement is not to be measured in generations or centuries in what will come to past 10,000 years from now. It does not concern me in connection with this problem. Certainly, I have no patience with those who bid us wait. bid us wait dumbly for the apotheosis of mankind as though the millennium were right around the corner as though every year registered a perceptible and even considerable improvement. If ever within the span of one generation mankind could suffer visible improvement, it should have been now within the generation which witnessed the war. But only the fool and the professional optimists will assert that our way of life today, our utterances, our emotions, our ambitions are at all cleaner than they were 10 years ago when the war started. The same handful of sensitive men and women struggle hopelessly against the passions of humanity, the same ugliness and meanness, the same selfishness in lying, the same lustre bloody adventure, the same delight in physical triumph, the same willful self-deception and abusive lovely phrases have us in thrall. The race is still to the swift and the battle to the strong and the goal and the prize are what they were 10 years ago. What I say then is not prompted by the hope that words of mine or of anyone else can give a new complexion to the general struggle between Jew and Gentile. But only by the desire to clarify for the encouragement of a few the nature of this struggle convincing them perhaps. perhaps that behind the sorted stupidity, which seems to cover our jujitsu or our relationship, there may be found compensating grain of eternal principle. And my concluding words are addressed less to practical expectations than to the desire for completeness. So, yet to the end of the war, the war war war one now, Germany is basically decimated, taken over visibly by people of Jewish persuasion. Austria is actively being starved. People are noticing that the only people running the black markets in say Vienna or not, yeah, in Vienna are Jews, where do they get the food from? They're noticing that the communists who are coming over and destroying farms are a certain group. And you want to talk about how, oh, because of the war, people should just sit. There's losers in war, especially that war. And then the Germans find out that basically Jews were bribed. There was bribery going on or there was persuasion going on that if Jews got, were able to persuade the United States to get into the war on the side of the Allies that they would, Jews would get the Balfour Declaration. They found that about that almost immediately. You didn't think that that was going to cause a problem. You thought people were just going to be like, "Oh, the horrors of war, war of which your people won really." Yeah. Why are we Jews prepared to give you which, in my opinion, you should consider sufficient obedience to the laws of the state and readiness to defend it even if against our inmost belief in time of danger, this constitutes a full payment for the privilege of citizenship and the protection of the laws. But this offer on the part of the Jew becomes inadequate when the state begins to assume functions, which seem to me totally beyond its capacity. What was intended only for the regulation of the external actions of a given group and becoming a growing tyranny against the inmost values of man, an attempted violation of our most inaccessible privileges, and this despite the professions of your statesmen and political thinkers. It is acknowledged in principle that a man's religion is beyond the reach of law and his God need neither paid taxes nor take out citizenship papers. But the acknowledgement of this principle is gradually becoming meaningless, perhaps it never had any meaning in light of the growing spiritual tyranny of the state. Perhaps nothing that you have ever feared from the economic tyranny of socialism approaches the oppressive spiritual tyranny of your great democracies. These seek to control not only the acts but the emotions of the individuals. They would compel us to love and hate, to admire and despise as part of our civic duty and not content with that part of us which alone affects the well-being of government, would also conquer and control that part of us which belongs to no one but each man and God. They would control our culture as though culture was controllable, except for the purposes of destruction. Well, that's a mouthful. Tell us in which language to create as though they could fructify us and direct our ecstasy as though these were run along wires and commanded by switches. Our obedience, our tribute, our bodies will not do. They will have the very secrets of the heart of the heart torn out of us and delivered to Washington or Berlin or London. In the terror of socialism, they depict the intolerable misery of the man who can claim nothing for himself but must yield up the fruit of his labor down to the last husk to the disposition of the state. But they have instituted a spiritual socialism infinitely more hideous and for economic equality they have substituted a spiritual hedge mon--Homojaneity, sorry, which the Communists can never hope to parallel in the physical field. And what a hymn who dares to practice private initiative in the spiritual socialist state. His punishment is not only spiritual but physical too, and we Jews, the most obscenate and most enduring sinners in this respect, are the best measure of vindictive fury which with which this tyranny is armed. If then, the struggle between us is ever to be lifted beyond this physical, your democracies will have to alter their demands for racial, spiritual and cultural homogeneity within the state. But it would be foolish to regard this as a possibility for the tendency of this civilization as in the opposite direction. That's why you need a world war and that's why you need a devil and that's why you need the worst event that ever happened in history. Remember what Jal Cooper and I said, and what Jal Cooper said, well, there are Jewish question episodes. He said, well, it turns out that the way you integrate the Jews, which was JQ Jewish question, after Marx's initial one, was you basically had to make Christian nations not Christian anymore. There's a steady approach toward the identification of state with race instead of with the political state, and since this is largely beyond your conscious control, it is perhaps as foolish as it is futile to expect a change. I mean, I haven't gone forward to look and see later in his life if he was a Zionist. I'm assuming he's a raging Zionist. But look what he's saying here. Saying, you expect to have a state based on race? The best fighting unit is a nation which is homogenous in blood and emotions, no less than in political allegiance. And since the chief function of the state is to fight witness to proportion of your taxis spent in payment and in preparation for wars, you will inevitably demand the subordination of all human functions to that end. But this is really crying out in pain as you get struck, especially with what's to come. Or crying out in pain as you strike. Sorry. The demand for racial homogeneity within the state has led in America, still the most unexploded country in the whole world, to the exclusion of the immigrant and particularly of the immigrant who will not lend himself to the type of assimilation or self-destruction which you demand. He's writing this right around the time of the 1924 immigration act. So you can also see an impetus for writing this, the anger behind that. There was a lot of Jewish anger behind that act because they saw it as keeping them out. Without for a moment emitting that any kind of exclusion is justifiable in a world which God created before the nations appeared to disfigure it, I submit the case that the Jew is an exception. The Jew has no homeland of his own. When the Jew migrates from one country to another, it is almost invariably under the pressure of persecution. Why? Why would you be persecuted over and over again? Oh, that's right, you explained it in this book. Thank you. It's closed to the gate against the Jew is not the same then as closing it against the Italian or the poll. In the latter cases, you insist a certain race of state in their own homes, whether or not the land will support them, but the Jew is not being forced to stay at home. While one part of the Gentile world persecutes him, the other part refuses him a chance to escape. It's a shame if you were capable of it, you should give the Jew free immigration everywhere. The irony of it is, of course, that it is chiefly against the Jew that anti-immigration laws are passed here in America as an England and Germany. The liberal countries which could make room for the hunt of Jew cooperate despite a few gallant and unsustained gestures with the most illiberal in the persecution of their common victim. He that refuses asylum to a victim fleeing from a murder is before God, a free and willing accomplice in the crime. He's, he's over and over, he's an atheist. It's just, it's so, this book is so perfect. And to me, it is infinitely strange that even from your point of view, the sporting point of view, you should be able to reconcile your morality with your acts. If there is anything at all in your professions, you should be filled with admiration and astonishment at the incredible pluckiness of a small people which, in the face of infinite discouragement, has clung with such tenacity to its identity and cult. Oh man, this is so good. Good. I love the way he ends this. Without understanding us at all, you might have paid the homage of warriors to the courage of our unconfirmed enemy that you watch us with vicious irritation, rather than with respect, that you load us with, consumely, you load us with consume, consumely when so much in your own instinct should have given us a peculiar place in your regard, makes me feel that nothing which can be urged upon your conscience will avail to lighten the burden of our destiny. They have a destiny. We allowed to have a destiny. We have just witnessed in America the repetition and the peculiar form adapted to this country of the evil forest to which experience of many centuries has not yet quite accustomed us. If America had any meaning at all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above the trend of our present civilization, the identification of race with state. In the old world, the evil had taken root in the course of centuries. Its hideous fruits was therefore inevitable. He knows. He's just telling you, if it's not a homage, if it's a homage in a state, we stand out like a sore thumb. Yeah, gotta let a bunch of other people in. You gotta let a bunch of people who don't look like you. You can't. Don't be cohesive. Then we can come in, be cohesive and take over. Did that happen? But America seems to offer the hope of a change. Whatever other evils America had inherited, at least this one she had avoided. America, therefore, was the new world in this vital respect that the state was purely an ideal, and nationality was identical only with acceptance of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire point of view was a mistaken one. Then America was incapable of rising above her origins, and the semblance of an ideal nationalism was only a stage in the proper development of the universal Gentile spirit. The ideal, which for a time constituted American nationality, disappears now. And then in its place emerges again, with atavistic certainty, the race. It is true that even while the ideal flourished, triumphant overrace, the seeds of our enmity lay securely embedded in our natures. But the passing generosity keeps the seeds in slumber. It is not the first time that Gentile nations for getting themselves for a brief period have offered us friendship and even affection. But the strange and unnatural exaltation passed, and bitter sobriety succeeded. Why? Today with race triumphant overrideal, antisemitism uncovers its fangs, and so the heartless refusal as the most elementary human right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly insult. The most elementary human right is the right of asylum. If you don't let us into subvert your culture, your evil, and cowardly. We are not only excluded, but we are told in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws that we are an inferior people. Without the moral courage to stand up squarely to its evil instincts, the country prepared itself through its journalists by a long drought of vilification of the Jew, and when sufficiently inspired by the popular and scientific portions, committed the act. How then shall I dilude myself into the belief that the considerations covered in this chapter will produce any effect? Have we Jews not known this evil long enough? Should we not have known better by this time than to repose hope in any of the nations? Perhaps we are foolish in our overconfidence, but our creduleness does us less dishonor than your cruelty does you. And if it savers again a foolish simplicity to make this plea to you, I am willing to take the risk. This last part is called a last word. It would have been a happier task for me if I had been able to write this book, with sincerity and another tone, if I had been able to record a struggle of two ideals and types which was never compromised and obscured by physical lusts and cruelties. But rather than utter the old untruthful courtesy, tempering resentment with caution and tact, it would have been better not to write it all, and I was driven to write. I believe that though I may have aired here and there, I have been mainly right, and I can soul myself with the thought that this book offends by its assertiveness. God knows that the infinite tactfulness of thousands of other Jews seems to have offended no less. Whatever we do, we are damned. And I'd rather be damned standing up then lying down. That's it. That's the book. I mean, how much do I have? What am I supposed to say? What comments are you I'm supposed to have? It's like "Camp of the Saints" when I read through "Camp of the Saints". There was so little for me to comment on because it was so obvious. What am I going to explain to you? I just comment for my own sake so that I feel better about what I'm reading. Can I mean this? Come on. Really? All right. Hope you like it. I am going to get off this subject and the next thing I read for you all will be something different, something enjoyable. I promise you. Maybe something I haven't read and we'll read it for the first time together. That would be fun. But yeah, I hope you got a lot out of this. Hope you learned a lot. And yeah, I really don't know how much more to say. Take care everyone. Thank you. I really, this is only being released to supporters. Can't tell you how much I appreciate you all. And I might release it publicly one day, but I want to do something. If you're willing to take money out of your pocket and send it to me every month, I want to do something that you can, you know, this just us. Just us talking. So thank you. And see you in a week. Hopefully. I can get this once I can care of later. Bye.