Speaker 1: Hey, everyone, let's do a new reading for substack and
Speaker 1: for the supporters here. This may be a book that
Speaker 1: some of you have heard of by Maurice Samuel, called
Speaker 1: You Gentiles. It's pretty infamous. Anelope Hill has their own
Speaker 1: version of it. Let me show you how they describe
Speaker 1: it here. They say. There has been no shortage of
Speaker 1: writings detailing and incompatibility between Jewish and Gentile people from
Speaker 1: a variety of sources and perspectives. Many of these fade
Speaker 1: with the circumstances it sparked them, but a few make
Speaker 1: lasting contributions to the understanding of millennia of conflict, preserved
Speaker 1: by his own stature as a titan of Jewish literature.
Speaker 1: Maurice Samuel authored You Gentiles in nineteen twenty four, which
Speaker 1: persists as one of the most visceral and fundamental contrasts
Speaker 1: of Jews and non Jews. Emils writes with confidence as
Speaker 1: a recipient as a recipient of several awards for his writing,
Speaker 1: including the Annisfield Wolf Book Award and the It'sick Manger Prize.
Speaker 1: With reference to his own deep familiarity with the collective
Speaker 1: Jewish experience, Samuel makes no qualification for his belief in
Speaker 1: the spiritual, racial, and religious incompatibility at Gentiles with his
Speaker 1: own people. His thesis culminates in the ultimate rejection of
Speaker 1: any possible reconciliation between these peoples. So it's very easy
Speaker 1: for people to say that, oh, that's just one person writing. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is somebody who was very celebrated in
Speaker 1: his day. Wikipedia describes him he was actually born in Romania.
Speaker 1: His family then they went to England. He moved to
Speaker 1: Paris with his family at the age of five, about
Speaker 1: a year later to England, where then they moved to
Speaker 1: England a year after that. He studied at Victoria University. There,
Speaker 1: his parents spoke Yetdish at home, and he developed strong
Speaker 1: attachments to the Jewish people in Yiddish language at an
Speaker 1: early age. This later became a motivation for the books
Speaker 1: he wrote as an adult. Eventually, he left England and
Speaker 1: emigrated to the United States, settling in New York City's
Speaker 1: Lower East Side. He served in the US Army during
Speaker 1: World War One. A Jewish intellectual and writer, Samuel was
Speaker 1: known for his role as a polemicist and campaigner against
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. Most of his work concerns itself with Judaism
Speaker 1: or the Jews role in history in modern society, but
Speaker 1: he also wrote more conventional fictions, such as The Web
Speaker 1: of Lucifer, which takes place in the borgious role of
Speaker 1: Renaissance Italy. He Let's See. He and his work received
Speaker 1: acclaim within the Jewish community during his lifetime, including the
Speaker 1: nineteen forty four Ennisfield Wolf Book Award for his nonfiction
Speaker 1: work The World of Shalom Alecam I Like him. He
Speaker 1: received the Itzig Manger Prize for Yiddish Literature posthumously in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two. He was a radio personality, appearing on
Speaker 1: NBC summer program Eternal Light the Worlds We Live By.
Speaker 1: He did a Bible, a radio show discussing the literary
Speaker 1: and cultural impact of the Bible. He died in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy two at the age of seventy seven. He had
Speaker 1: six fiction works and a ton of nonfiction works. The
Speaker 1: first one was You Gentiles. The second one was I
Speaker 1: the Jew, Never read Ei the Jew. Some of the
Speaker 1: other ones are Prince of the Ghetto, Jew Want Approval,
Speaker 1: the Gentleman, and the Jew certain people of the book.
Speaker 1: So this is someone who was celebrated and someone who
Speaker 1: was known in the Jewish world. This just wasn't some
Speaker 1: random guy who wrote a book and someone found it
Speaker 1: and was like, oh look at this. No, this is
Speaker 1: well known. And in nineteen twenty four, and this would
Speaker 1: be after World War One, Henry Ford is writing at
Speaker 1: this time about Jews in the United States and the
Speaker 1: international jew Also, nineteen twenty four is also the year
Speaker 1: of the first real immigration restriction. It was a clampdown
Speaker 1: in immigration that year that a lot of people took
Speaker 1: offense to. So let me just scroll through here, here
Speaker 1: we go. I got a copy, actually reading of a
Speaker 1: printing of a book actually from nineteen twenty five, just
Speaker 1: a year after fifth printing able of contents. The first
Speaker 1: chapter will be called The Question. It's thirty one pages.
Speaker 1: They're very short pages because it's like a small paperback
Speaker 1: kind of book. But I don't know if I'll get
Speaker 1: through the whole thing today, But yeah, why don't I
Speaker 1: start and let's see where this goes. There are audio
Speaker 1: books of this on YouTube and everything, and I think
Speaker 1: that I think I hypocrite did an interview with someone
Speaker 1: from Antelope Hill, because Anelope Pill has their own version
Speaker 1: of this. If you're going to pick it up, you
Speaker 1: get it from Antelope Hill, the use the promo code
Speaker 1: PETE pete Q five percent off everything in order there.
Speaker 1: But yeah, let's get into this and let's read it,
Speaker 1: and let's see see what his message is. In nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty four, chapter one is excuse me. Chapter one is
Speaker 1: titled the question let me take a sip real quick?
Speaker 1: All right? These last ten years and more, I have
Speaker 1: been asking myself, with increasing urgency, a number of questions.
Speaker 1: Is there any significance in the distinction I have so
Speaker 1: long cherished, the distinction of Jew gentile not to be
Speaker 1: found in the class of distinctions implied in American foreigner
Speaker 1: or Englishman foreigner? Is there between us Jews and you gentiles?
Speaker 1: That is, between the Jew on the one hand, and
Speaker 1: the Englishmen, the Frenchman, the American on the other hand,
Speaker 1: that which transcends all the differences which exist among yourselves,
Speaker 1: so that in relation to us you are gentiles. In
Speaker 1: relation to us you are gentiles first and afterwards and
Speaker 1: without particular relevance in this connection Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans? Or
Speaker 1: is there nothing more implied in that distinction Jew gentile?
Speaker 1: Then in a general way, and the distinction's Jew American
Speaker 1: American Englishman, Englishman, Frenchmen. In other words, are we Jews
Speaker 1: but part of the Gentiles Americans, Englishmen, Jews, Frenchmen? Or
Speaker 1: is there a deeper cleavage between us? Is this Western
Speaker 1: world divided primarily into two parts? You Gentiles, we Jews?
Speaker 1: From the outset? I shall be asked, quote, even if
Speaker 1: you suspect the existence of such a primal cleavage beyond
Speaker 1: the reach of ordinary national or racial classifications, what purpose
Speaker 1: can you have in urging it upon the attention of
Speaker 1: the world? Has it any practical application? Does it in
Speaker 1: any fashion clarify the status of the Jew? Or give
Speaker 1: greater cogency to such claims of his as are still unsatisfied.
Speaker 1: This question will be asked of me by many Jews,
Speaker 1: but in particular it will be asked with the utmost
Speaker 1: insistence by those Jews who have based our case for
Speaker 1: national rights national equality precisely on this assumption that we
Speaker 1: Jews are people like all other peoples, similar in needs
Speaker 1: and impulses. That we are Jews, you are Englishmen, you
Speaker 1: are Italians, you are Americans, That we the world's races
Speaker 1: or peoples are all of us? Are all of us
Speaker 1: similar in our differences? Leaving on one side, those who
Speaker 1: deny the existence of any distinctions at all, Those that is,
Speaker 1: who say that Jew, that the Jew is either a Frenchman,
Speaker 1: an American, or an Englishman according to the place of
Speaker 1: his birth, I would answer quote for me, the ordinary
Speaker 1: nationalist or racial classification has not sufficed. If I have
Speaker 1: long pondered this question of Jew and Gentile, it is
Speaker 1: because I suspected, from the first dawning of Jewish self consciousness,
Speaker 1: that Jew and Gentile are two different worlds. Between you
Speaker 1: Gentiles and us Jews, there lies an unbridgeable gulf. Side
Speaker 1: by side. With this belief grew another which is related
Speaker 1: to the practical aspect of the distinction. I do not
Speaker 1: believe that, situated as we are in your midst, scattered
Speaker 1: among you from one end of the Western Well to
Speaker 1: the other, we have the right to retain our identity
Speaker 1: if we are but another addition to the gentile peoples.
Speaker 1: This is in parenthesis. Nor, by the way, do I
Speaker 1: believe that we could have retained it so long had
Speaker 1: this been the case. If we are but one more
Speaker 1: people added to the long roster of peoples living and dead,
Speaker 1: we have no claim worthwhile under these circumstances to continuity
Speaker 1: of separate consciousness consciousness. Such a claim could never have arisen.
Speaker 1: Had we remained secure, segregated on our own soil, it
Speaker 1: would have been our tests at birth right. But as
Speaker 1: it is, our existence has secured an infinite expense of
Speaker 1: special effort on our part and of particular discomfort to you.
Speaker 1: Wherever the Jew is found, he has a problem, a
Speaker 1: source of unhappiness to himself and to those around him.
Speaker 1: That's an interesting way to put it. That's an interesting
Speaker 1: sentence for someone to admit. I wanted to say before
Speaker 1: I moved on, you know, talking about the reason why
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk so much about who he was
Speaker 1: and how well he was believed to know, how in
Speaker 1: his community, how well he was known and regarded, is
Speaker 1: because I just watched this documentary called Protocols of Zion,
Speaker 1: and it's from like two thousand five or two thousand
Speaker 1: and six, and as a Jew, his name is Mark Levin,
Speaker 1: not Mark Levin, and he basically goes through the protocols
Speaker 1: and he his whole thing is that well, me, as
Speaker 1: an individual Jew, I don't have the power to do this.
Speaker 1: So this is pretty much all bull I don't when
Speaker 1: writings like this, when writing is like two hundred years together,
Speaker 1: when you have all the writings of Jewish philosophers over
Speaker 1: the centuries, you don't need something like the Protocols of
Speaker 1: the Elders of Zion. That is, I don't consider it.
Speaker 1: I don't take it seriously. I'm not going to read it.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I mean, I've read it, but I'm
Speaker 1: not going to read it to you. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to have a conversation, a serious conversation about it. When
Speaker 1: you read a sentence like wherever the Jew is found,
Speaker 1: he has a problem, a source of unhappiness to himself
Speaker 1: into those around him, and it's from somebody who's prominent,
Speaker 1: somebody who sold a lot of books, somebody who had
Speaker 1: a radio show, somebody who was popular in his day,
Speaker 1: somebody who you know, most Jews, I would say, and
Speaker 1: I'll just say New York and New York was I mean,
Speaker 1: if you remember from Race Warren High School, there were
Speaker 1: sixty thousand public school teachers in New York in the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, and sixty percent of them were Jewish. So
Speaker 1: you're talking about I think at the time fourteen or
Speaker 1: fifteen percent of the city was Jewish. These people knew
Speaker 1: who he was. This is not some obscure writer. This
Speaker 1: isn't a book that fell out of the sky. This
Speaker 1: is someone who is taking himself very seriously, and not
Speaker 1: only taking himself very seriously, but he's taking us very seriously.
Speaker 1: That needs to be respected when you're listening to what
Speaker 1: he writes. Okay, onward. Ever since he has been scattered
Speaker 1: in your midst he has had to maintain a continuous
Speaker 1: struggle for the conservation of his identity. It is worthwhile,
Speaker 1: in the face of this double burden our own in yours,
Speaker 1: to perpetuate what may be, after all, an addition of
Speaker 1: one unit to scores of similar units. Were these centuries
Speaker 1: of alternate torture and respite not a disproportionately high price
Speaker 1: for the right to increase by one page the already
Speaker 1: overburdened records of the nations were at my belief, as
Speaker 1: it is at least in expression, the belief of many
Speaker 1: fellow Jews, that our right to exist is founded on
Speaker 1: our similarity to other peoples. That where American or Belgian
Speaker 1: or Italian has a right to homeland, culture, history, parliament,
Speaker 1: we Jews have the same right for the same reason,
Speaker 1: and for no other reasons. Were this my belief, I
Speaker 1: could not find the heart to continue the struggle, or
Speaker 1: to urge the struggle upon others. The effort is too severe,
Speaker 1: the price is too high, But arden is insignificant. Were
Speaker 1: we like other peoples, we ought to have done what
Speaker 1: other peoples under similar circumstances would do. A people driven
Speaker 1: from its homeland, a people ground into dust and carried
Speaker 1: by winds of misfortune into every corner of the world
Speaker 1: has no right to inflict its woes and longings on others.
Speaker 1: It should cease to exist. It should rid the world's
Speaker 1: world of its importunate presence. Such would be my belief
Speaker 1: if I saw in ourselves only the replica with the
Speaker 1: proper variations of the rest of the world. But this
Speaker 1: is not my belief, for I see otherwise. Years of
Speaker 1: observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief
Speaker 1: that we used and apart from you, gentiles, that a
Speaker 1: primal duality breaks to humanity, I know into two distinct parts,
Speaker 1: that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences
Speaker 1: among you, gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divides
Speaker 1: all of you from us. So what he's saying is
Speaker 1: he is saying is this isn't a crack in the sidewalk,
Speaker 1: This is a chasm, This is the Grand Canyon, or
Speaker 1: the distance across an ocean. I'm aware that this is
Speaker 1: a thesis what can which cannot be supported by diagrams,
Speaker 1: tables and logarithms. Basically, what he's saying is it's not
Speaker 1: I guess what he's saying is not logical. It cannot
Speaker 1: be urged with the apparent half compulsion of social and
Speaker 1: economic laws. The cogency of what I have to say
Speaker 1: it does not depend on reference to obvious and ineluctable laws,
Speaker 1: natural processes acknowledged and accepted. I am also aware that
Speaker 1: the weight of what we call what is called learned
Speaker 1: opinion will be thrown against me, that my connection will
Speaker 1: meet with the ridicule of facile common sense and of scholarship. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: I set it down clearly that in the Western world
Speaker 1: there are essentially two people's as spiritual forces, only two
Speaker 1: human sections with essential meaning jew and gentile thing about that, So,
Speaker 1: in the Western world you have Germans, English, French, Spanish
Speaker 1: peoples who've had empires, people people who've conquered the known world.
Speaker 1: And what he does is he says there are only
Speaker 1: two jew and everyone else, So basically we're lumped in
Speaker 1: with each other. He's basically drawing the line boldly, all
Speaker 1: of you and then us. But at least what credentials
Speaker 1: I have to offer? Since the presentation of credentials must
Speaker 1: always precede the presentation of the thesis, what claim have
Speaker 1: I on the attention of the world. I can only
Speaker 1: answer that this book, being a serious book, much must
Speaker 1: carry its own credentials and does not attempt to borrow
Speaker 1: importance from outside sources. I offer myself only as a
Speaker 1: Jew who has lived, observed, and thought. My experiences in
Speaker 1: contacts have been somewhat more varied than those of most men,
Speaker 1: but this has little to do with my views. The truth,
Speaker 1: which is spread over the whole world, is also contained
Speaker 1: in any part of it. The laws of gravitation are
Speaker 1: implied as completely in the falling of a pebble to
Speaker 1: Earth as in the rush of the Sun against the
Speaker 1: counter rush of its companion stars. The law of Einstein
Speaker 1: works no less truly in the crawling of a snail
Speaker 1: than in the dizzy vibration of the fastest atomic subunit.
Speaker 1: These laws are more easily observed in the one set
Speaker 1: of cases than in the other. That is all, if
Speaker 1: I have touched a truth, it has been primarily through
Speaker 1: contact with life, And I have regarded books as but
Speaker 1: a class of living things, to be observed and interpreted
Speaker 1: in place in their setting life itself, observation of men
Speaker 1: and women singly and in masses, a knowledge of their works,
Speaker 1: among which books are important, a feeling for their desires,
Speaker 1: perception of their intent in cities, laws, theaters, games, wars.
Speaker 1: All this has been brought me to, has brought me
Speaker 1: to the conception I shall set forth all scholarship, particularly
Speaker 1: that scholarship which deals with the manifestations of men's desires
Speaker 1: and fears, consists of unauthoritative, marginal notes, which are of
Speaker 1: interest chiefly as giving us some insight into the nature
Speaker 1: of those who jotted them down. It does no harm
Speaker 1: to know the history that is in the books, but
Speaker 1: the only authentic history is around us. It has made
Speaker 1: daily in newspapers, theaters, meetings, election campaigns. And it is
Speaker 1: less valuable to know that the waiter said at the
Speaker 1: simple Sissamus cabaret in Vienna when I was there three
Speaker 1: years ago, than to know what Terence reports a slave
Speaker 1: to have said in Rome when he was there two
Speaker 1: thousand years ago. What if my neighbor the professor reads
Speaker 1: Greek rather than fluently, rather less fluently than did a
Speaker 1: certain thick witted Athenian citizen who lived in the time
Speaker 1: of Pericles, and by no means as well as well
Speaker 1: as I I read English? Is that proof of wisdom
Speaker 1: or understanding? And supposing my neighbor on the other side
Speaker 1: the history, the professor, the famous professor of history knows
Speaker 1: rather less about the Peloponnesian War than the intelligent college
Speaker 1: student knows about the World War? Is that professor therefore
Speaker 1: wiser than most men? Is his opinion on life more valuable?
Speaker 1: And supposing another scholar purports to tell us what the
Speaker 1: ancient Egyptians believed, and from his account of this dead religion,
Speaker 1: pretends to teach the secrets of faith, Can he tell
Speaker 1: me what John Doe or Isaac Leviy believes? Does John
Speaker 1: Doe believe that Christ rose from the dead? Really really
Speaker 1: believe that as a plain truth as he would believe it,
Speaker 1: believe it if his mother, whom he buried five years ago,
Speaker 1: should suddenly come walking into his house wrote it away
Speaker 1: and cladd in her tattered cerements believe it as simply
Speaker 1: and as terribly. And does isaac Levi believed that the
Speaker 1: waters of the Red Sea were divided? As he would
Speaker 1: believe it if one day below the Williamsburg Bridge he
Speaker 1: were to see the water split rear and fall again.
Speaker 1: And if neither John Do nor isaac Levi believes as
Speaker 1: cogently as this, then what do they really believe, if
Speaker 1: they believe anything at all? And if the professor cannot
Speaker 1: answer these questions, what does he mean when he says
Speaker 1: that the Egyptians believe that Asiris rose from the dead?
Speaker 1: And what do his reports matter? There is no test
Speaker 1: or guarantee of a man's wisdom or of his reliability
Speaker 1: beyond what he says about life itself. Life is the touchstone.
Speaker 1: Books must be read and understood in order that we
Speaker 1: may compare our experiences in life with the sincere report
Speaker 1: of the experience of others. But such and such a
Speaker 1: one who has read all the books extent on history
Speaker 1: and art is of no consequence unless these are to
Speaker 1: him an indirect commentary on what he feels around him. Hence,
Speaker 1: if I have drawn cheap chiefly on experience and contemplation,
Speaker 1: and little on books which others will discover without my admission.
Speaker 1: This does not affect my competency, which must be judged
Speaker 1: by standards infinitely more difficult of application. Life is not
Speaker 1: so simple that you can give a man. You can
Speaker 1: test a man's nearness to truth by giving him a
Speaker 1: college examination. Such examinations are mere games. They have no
Speaker 1: relation to reality. You may desire some such easy standard
Speaker 1: by which you can judge whether or not a man
Speaker 1: is reliable. Does he know how? Does he know much history,
Speaker 1: much biology, much psychology? If not, he is not worth
Speaker 1: listening to. But it is part of the frivolity of
Speaker 1: our outlook to reduce life to a set of rules,
Speaker 1: and thus save ourselves the agony of constant reference to
Speaker 1: first principles. No standardized knowledge is no guarantee of truth.
Speaker 1: Put down a simple question, a living question like this,
Speaker 1: should A have killed? B Ask it of ten fools,
Speaker 1: five will say yes, five will say no. Ask it
Speaker 1: of ten intelligent men. Five will say yes, five will
Speaker 1: say no. Ask it of ten scholars. Five will say yes,
Speaker 1: five will say no. The fools will have no reason
Speaker 1: for their direction. The intelligent men will have a few
Speaker 1: reasons for and as many against. The scholars will have
Speaker 1: more reasons for and against. But where does a truth lie? What, then,
Speaker 1: shall be the criterion of man's reliability? There is none.
Speaker 1: You cannot evade your responsibility. Thus, by entrusting your salvation
Speaker 1: into the hands of a pre specialist, a simpleton may
Speaker 1: bring you salvation, and a great philosopher may confound you.
Speaker 1: And so to life direct as I have seen it
Speaker 1: working in others and felt it within myself, I refer
Speaker 1: the truth. I refer the truth of what I say,
Speaker 1: And to books I refer only in so far as
Speaker 1: the air men manifestations of life. Bessie, you can tell
Speaker 1: of what he's trying to say is that he's going
Speaker 1: to be going on experience, his experience amongst Gentiles and Jews,
Speaker 1: Part two of chapter one. But another question, more subtle
Speaker 1: and disturbing, must be faced. I have said there are
Speaker 1: two life forces in the world, I know, Jewish and Gentile,
Speaker 1: hours and years. If this be a truth, we must
Speaker 1: not be driven from it. From it if, like many
Speaker 1: other truths, it is overlaid and obscured by the irrelevancies
Speaker 1: of life, by the intersection and confusion of currents. Here
Speaker 1: is the gentile life force, Here is the Jewish life force.
Speaker 1: What their origin was I cannot say. I can only
Speaker 1: surmise dimly what circumstances, reacting upon what original impulses, produce
Speaker 1: the Jewish life force and the Gentile life force. I
Speaker 1: can only affirm to the Jews and the main belongs
Speaker 1: to Jewish life force, a consistent and coherent force, a
Speaker 1: direction in human thought and reaction. To you others belongs
Speaker 1: to Gentile life force, a mode of life and thought
Speaker 1: distinct from ours. But the borderline is not clear. Not
Speaker 1: all of us Jews are representative of the Jewish life force,
Speaker 1: not all you Gentiles are altogether alien to it. We
Speaker 1: have lived for many centuries in close contiguity, and if
Speaker 1: not in intimacy. Our prophetic books, our most characteristic influence,
Speaker 1: have been read to you for many hundreds of years.
Speaker 1: Something in these books has developed here and there among
Speaker 1: you a latent individual impulse to our Jewish way of
Speaker 1: life and thought. Essentially, our prophetic books cannot change your
Speaker 1: gentile nature in wh dray predestined hearts. They bring forth
Speaker 1: fruit your outlook on life. Your dominant reactions are the
Speaker 1: same today as they were two thousand years ago. All
Speaker 1: that has changed is the instrument of expression. You live
Speaker 1: the same life under different faiths, but something clings to
Speaker 1: you here and there, resembling the original form of the
Speaker 1: faith we gave you. Here and there, our somber, earnestness
Speaker 1: breaks out on the dazzling kaleidoscope of your history, and we,
Speaker 1: for all our segregation, have caught, particularly of late, something
Speaker 1: of your way of life. As a few Gentiles have
Speaker 1: spoken in Jewish tones, so more than one Jew speaks
Speaker 1: the language of the gentile. Jews live a gentile life
Speaker 1: here and there, while while gentile lives give expression to
Speaker 1: Jewish emotions, yet the cleavages there abysmal and undeniable. In
Speaker 1: the main, we are forever distinct. Ours is one life,
Speaker 1: yours is another. Such accidental confusions, as makes some Northerners
Speaker 1: darker than Southerners, does not affect the law that the
Speaker 1: Southerner is darker skinned. The law holds, nonetheless for accident
Speaker 1: and contradictory cases. You may even have Jews in your
Speaker 1: midst who did not learn their way of life from us,
Speaker 1: and did not inherit it from a Jewish forebear, we
Speaker 1: may have authentic gentiles in our myths, in our midst.
Speaker 1: These single protests are of no account. They are extreme
Speaker 1: and irrelevant variations. And of his little account are the
Speaker 1: occasion occasional transferences of customs and conventions taken over in
Speaker 1: the mass. We may have customs and conventions of yours
Speaker 1: imposed on our fundamental way of life, even as you
Speaker 1: have surface credo of a Jewish faith imposed on your
Speaker 1: way of life. But in the end, your true nature
Speaker 1: works itself into the pattern of the borrowed faith and
Speaker 1: expresses it self undeniably. So we borrowing from you finally
Speaker 1: assimilate the loan, and in time make it essentially ours.
Speaker 1: Beyond all these irrelevancies, which hide at times but do
Speaker 1: not change the issue, lies that clear and faithful division
Speaker 1: of life, Jewish and Gentile. Because I am mingled intimately
Speaker 1: with the Jewish world and with the Gentile world, I
Speaker 1: know well how easily exceptions obscure the rule. But I
Speaker 1: know just as well the unsounded, the unsounded abyss between us.
Speaker 1: What I've learned in your midstands in my mind sharply
Speaker 1: severed from what I have learned in the midst of
Speaker 1: my people. I listen to your life, to the brilliant
Speaker 1: course which goes up from lands, governments, cities, books, churches, moralities,
Speaker 1: and in my mind I can no more confuse it
Speaker 1: with the tone of Jewish life than I can confuse
Speaker 1: the roaring of a tempest with the deliberate utterance of
Speaker 1: the still small voice. I repeat, it is of life.
Speaker 1: I speak of masses of men and women, of the
Speaker 1: things they say and do do their daily selves, as
Speaker 1: I have known them. It is of life at firsthand
Speaker 1: that I speak of yourselves as you are in masses,
Speaker 1: and singly of my own people as I know them.
Speaker 1: My conviction came first from this contact, and from meditation
Speaker 1: on its meaning. I learned this belief of mine not
Speaker 1: in books, not in history, but in Manchester, Paris, Berlin, Vienna,
Speaker 1: New York. So Gentiles, I concluded, have a way of
Speaker 1: living and thinking wherever they may be. So Jews have
Speaker 1: a way of living and thinking. Had no books ever
Speaker 1: been written, were there no histories to refer to, I
Speaker 1: would have come to this belief. I do not believe
Speaker 1: that this primal difference between jew and Gentile is reconcilable.
Speaker 1: You and we may come to an understanding. Never to
Speaker 1: a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long
Speaker 1: as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution
Speaker 1: and vision divide us from all of you forever. Not
Speaker 1: a mere conviction, not a mere language, not a mere
Speaker 1: difference of national or religious allegiance. With the best will
Speaker 1: on both sides, successful adaptation to each other will always
Speaker 1: be insecure and transient waves of liberality may affect our
Speaker 1: mutual relationship. From time to time, we shall delude ourselves,
Speaker 1: you and we, with the belief that we have bridged
Speaker 1: the gulf. Many will pass our lives in that delusions.
Speaker 1: But as has come to pass so often, the difference,
Speaker 1: which is deeper than will, deeper than consciousness, will assert itself.
Speaker 1: There is a limit to our moral and mental possibilities.
Speaker 1: We cannot climb out of ourselves. The complete and permanent
Speaker 1: reconciliation of your way of life with ours is beyond
Speaker 1: that limit. Some of you already made you know, are
Speaker 1: already asked them the question, if you believe that, why
Speaker 1: do you stay among us? Why don't you separate? Especially
Speaker 1: since twenty three, twenty five years after this it's called
Speaker 1: it twenty five, they'll have their own country of course,
Speaker 1: it is the frequent theme of editors, of popular professional optimists,
Speaker 1: and of gullible and facile publicists that the paths are
Speaker 1: reconciliation between you and gentile. Is the path of knowledge,
Speaker 1: or rather of information. The more you know concern our history,
Speaker 1: our customs, our belief, the nearer you will find us
Speaker 1: to you, the less you will dislike us. But this
Speaker 1: is feutile and unreliable amiability. It is by no means,
Speaker 1: even in general rule, that the best informed people are
Speaker 1: the least successible to anti Semitism, the most backward countries
Speaker 1: are the most infected. Here is a cult, or at
Speaker 1: least a feeling, which sits with equal grace on the
Speaker 1: grossest of your peasantry and the most refined of your aristocracy.
Speaker 1: In the one case, it is fortified by superstition, in
Speaker 1: the other case by all the information the scientific research
Speaker 1: ins of philosophy, history, ethnography, and anthropology can accumulate. Not that,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, the aristocrat knows us better than the peasant,
Speaker 1: the scholar better than the bore. But even if you
Speaker 1: should understand us, and I offer you this toward that end,
Speaker 1: we would not find mutual tolerance any easier. This book
Speaker 1: therefore cannot be presented as an effort to achieve an
Speaker 1: end which from the outset is declared impossible. I do
Speaker 1: not propose to combat antisemitism. I only wish to present
Speaker 1: what seems to me it's true explanation, in the hopes
Speaker 1: of changing some of its manifestations. I'm going to stop
Speaker 1: right there. So basically, in this last paragraph he tells
Speaker 1: you what the purpose of writing this book is. This
Speaker 1: book therefore cannot be presented as an effort to achieve
Speaker 1: an end which from the outset is declared impossible. Basically,
Speaker 1: what he has said so far and what I have
Speaker 1: read is the gulf cannot be. It can't be bridged.
Speaker 1: He says, I don't even want to fight anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: I only wish to present what seems to me it's
Speaker 1: explanation in the hope of changing some of its manifestations.
Speaker 1: So basically, what he's saying, what he would appear to
Speaker 1: be saying so far we will read more another day,
Speaker 1: is that, Yeah, the true explanation of what Anzie Semtism
Speaker 1: is is that the gulf can't be. There will always
Speaker 1: be enmity, and his only real hope in writing this
Speaker 1: book is to change some of its manifestations. And when
Speaker 1: he says that, he's not saying that for our benefit,
Speaker 1: the gentile benefit. All right, so a little bit of
Speaker 1: the way through this. It's gonna take a little bit
Speaker 1: to get through this, but it's really not that long
Speaker 1: a book. It's really only like one hundred pages. So yeah,
Speaker 1: but it'll be a nice thing to spread out and
Speaker 1: read over probably a couple of weeks, all right, So
Speaker 1: be back in a couple of days. Watch out for
Speaker 1: some really fun episodes coming up, and one in particular
Speaker 1: that I think everyone's really gonna like a lot and
Speaker 1: might go pretty wide. All right, take care everyone, really,
Speaker 1: just take care of yourselves and take care of the
Speaker 1: people around you later. All right, welcome back to part
Speaker 1: two of my reading of Maurice Samuel's You Gentiles. We
Speaker 1: read chapter one, parts one and two within chapter one,
Speaker 1: and the one takeaway we should come away should take
Speaker 1: away so far is that he's making the statement that
Speaker 1: the chasm between you and gentile is too big. It
Speaker 1: will never be it will never be bridged, it will
Speaker 1: never in his opinion, it's always going to be a chasm,
Speaker 1: and there's no bridge that can bring the two together.
Speaker 1: I just want to say again remind everyone this is
Speaker 1: written in nineteen twenty four. This didn't fall out of
Speaker 1: the sky like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
Speaker 1: which I don't take seriously. As a scholar of Jewish history,
Speaker 1: somebody who studies their history, I don't take that seriously.
Speaker 1: It means nothing to me. It's other than a curiosity.
Speaker 1: This is a book written by a man who was
Speaker 1: known in his time as a Jewish intellectual, known within
Speaker 1: the Jewish community, had a radio show. This was a
Speaker 1: serious scholar and a commentator on what he sees around him.
Speaker 1: And he makes that It makes very clear in what
Speaker 1: we've already read that there's no science to this. This
Speaker 1: is what he is seeing, and this is He's not
Speaker 1: putting together equations. He's not saying a equills be here
Speaker 1: but not here. He's saying, this is just what I'm witnessing.
Speaker 1: This is what I feel within me. So let's move on.
Speaker 1: We shall not come to understand the nature of the
Speaker 1: primal difference between Jew and gentile and Jew if we
Speaker 1: attempt to treat it merely as a difference in accepted
Speaker 1: dogmas and philosophies. A religion in its formulated essence is
Speaker 1: seldom the real religion. The practice and belief creeds, which
Speaker 1: in their formulated essence are alien to a people, may
Speaker 1: be accepted by the people, but the true nature of
Speaker 1: the people asserts itself. I actually agree with that one
Speaker 1: hundred percent. He's basically saying anything you write down is sure,
Speaker 1: this is what we believe, but it's really what you practice.
Speaker 1: It's how it manifests in reality. But the true nature
Speaker 1: of the people asserts itself. The form and dogma of
Speaker 1: the religion are retained, but the fabric, the institutions, the
Speaker 1: true reactions which make the religion what it is outside
Speaker 1: of its sacred books, these are the indices to its
Speaker 1: actual force and significance. There is such a thing as
Speaker 1: conversion of a man's opinions. There is no such thing
Speaker 1: outside the field of long and laborious psychotherapy and individual cases,
Speaker 1: as conversion of a man's nature. That is beyond the
Speaker 1: reach of conscious effort, certainly beyond the reach of the
Speaker 1: missionary change. A man's opinions and his nature will soon
Speaker 1: learn to express itself through the new medium. This I
Speaker 1: preface to my observations on the difference between you and
Speaker 1: gentile because I anticipate the commonplace illusion to the similarity
Speaker 1: of our creeds. See the identity of source and the
Speaker 1: origin of the founder of your religion, Christianity, the reality,
Speaker 1: not the Credo, is not a variant of Judaism. Whatever
Speaker 1: Christ or his chroniclers may have intended, your nature is
Speaker 1: the same today as it was before the advent of Christianity.
Speaker 1: Within the framework of another creed, your instincts would have
Speaker 1: woven a similar design. So basically, what he's saying is
Speaker 1: Christianity didn't change those who call themselves Christians. It could
Speaker 1: have been something completely different, and we who call ourselves
Speaker 1: Christians would be no different. That it won't change, that
Speaker 1: this belief structure on the outside will not change who
Speaker 1: we are at the base, And if not religious, this
Speaker 1: difference certainly cannot be in the nature of a philosophy
Speaker 1: or a Veltenschang. It is true that a man's nature
Speaker 1: dictates his philosophy. In Veltenschang, start that again, clear my throat.
Speaker 1: It is true that a man's nature dictates his philosophy,
Speaker 1: and Veltenschiang sheng, that's a word, even as it does
Speaker 1: his religion but we must also remember that our logic
Speaker 1: is nearly always at variance with our natures. A man's
Speaker 1: nature expresses itself only indirectly, is never found in the
Speaker 1: face in the face value of his assertions. Surely we
Speaker 1: differ in religion and philosophy, but only if we can
Speaker 1: religion of philosophy not as assertions, but as the practice
Speaker 1: or art of life presents it in their name. Though
Speaker 1: you and we were to agree on all fundamental principles
Speaker 1: as openly stated, though we should agree that there is
Speaker 1: only one God, that war is evil, that universal piece
Speaker 1: is the most desirable of human ideals, yet we should
Speaker 1: remain fundamentally different. The language of our external expression is alike,
Speaker 1: but the language of our internal meaning is different. You
Speaker 1: call that line in that part of the spectrum, read,
Speaker 1: so do we. But who will ever know what that's?
Speaker 1: What that say? But who will ever know that the
Speaker 1: sensation read in you is the sensation read in us.
Speaker 1: Life is fluid, and dogmas are fixed, And life trying
Speaker 1: to come to terms with dogmas, does not easily break
Speaker 1: with them, but endows them with almost infinite plastice. Under
Speaker 1: the same dogmas, a man will kill another or die
Speaker 1: rather than lift his hand to kill. One generation means
Speaker 1: one thing in a dogma, another generation means another thing.
Speaker 1: And at last, even the elasticity of the dogma will
Speaker 1: not stand the strain. A sudden wave of emotion comes
Speaker 1: to reinforce accumulated resentment. There is a revolution, and a
Speaker 1: new religion is founded. New dogmas are accepted. Perhaps they
Speaker 1: do not answer the need. Perhaps they express only a
Speaker 1: passing fashion. Perhaps they are no nearer than the old
Speaker 1: dogmas to a reconciliation between philosophy and instinct. But they
Speaker 1: may take root, and the process begins all over again.
Speaker 1: Instinct endures for glacial ages. Religions revolve with civilizations. Let
Speaker 1: us differentiate, then, between a religion as a dogma and
Speaker 1: the same religion as a practiced art or way of life.
Speaker 1: We may compare religion with religion. This is legitimate and fruitful,
Speaker 1: But let us, in so doing compare dogma with dogma,
Speaker 1: practice with practice. And even when we treat of dogma,
Speaker 1: let us be careful to distinguish between the dogma as
Speaker 1: proclaimed and the dogma as it is transmitted by the
Speaker 1: transmuted by the emotions, and certainly between the dogmas of
Speaker 1: your religion and ours is little difference, for we gave
Speaker 1: you the dogmas. It is absurd to assert that the
Speaker 1: sole difference between you and us is that you believe
Speaker 1: the Messiah has already come while we believe that he
Speaker 1: is yet to come, or that you believe, even in theory,
Speaker 1: in the doctrine of forgiveness, while we believe in the
Speaker 1: doctrine of retaliation. It's interesting, huh, Christians believe in the
Speaker 1: doctrine of forgiveness, and he's saying that Jews their doctrine
Speaker 1: is one of retaliation even in theory. This difference is
Speaker 1: trifling in the face of the overwhelming bulk of common inspiration.
Speaker 1: The difference between us is abysmal. It is not a
Speaker 1: disagreement about a historical factor, about a commandment which neither
Speaker 1: of us observes. In some of these dogmatic disagreements, we
Speaker 1: may find the key to our differences. They do not
Speaker 1: constitute a difference. A few of them, those which have
Speaker 1: not been stretched to accommodate your stincts, but express them readily,
Speaker 1: were caused by the difference between us. They did not
Speaker 1: cause it. That primal difference which I have sensed more
Speaker 1: and more keenly as I have tasted more and more
Speaker 1: of life. Your life in our life, is a difference
Speaker 1: in the sum total of our respective emotions under the
Speaker 1: stimulus of the external world. It is a difference in
Speaker 1: the essential quality or tone of our mental and spiritual being.
Speaker 1: Life is to you one thing, to us another, and
Speaker 1: according to these two central qualities we make answer to
Speaker 1: the needs and impulses which are common to both of us.
Speaker 1: To you, life is a game and a gallant adventure,
Speaker 1: and all life's enterprises partake of the spirit of the adventurous.
Speaker 1: To us, life is a serious and sober duty pointed
Speaker 1: to a definite and escapable task. Your relations to Gods
Speaker 1: and men spring from the joy and rhythm of the
Speaker 1: temporary comradeship or enmity of spirit our relation to God
Speaker 1: and men. When he for those of you who aren't
Speaker 1: reading along, he says your relations to Gods and men,
Speaker 1: he properly makes a G small case when he says
Speaker 1: here our relations to God, and he uses a big G.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't cross out the O. Why has become
Speaker 1: so common in modern day? Our relation to God and
Speaker 1: men is dictated by a sober subject subjection to some
Speaker 1: external principle. Your way of life. Your moralities and codes
Speaker 1: are the rules of a game, nonetheless severe or exacting
Speaker 1: for that but not inspired by a sense of fundamental purposefulness.
Speaker 1: Our way of life, our morality and code, do not
Speaker 1: refer to temporary rules which govern a temporary and trivial pastime.
Speaker 1: They are inspired by elite a belief, a true belief,
Speaker 1: a belief which reaches below assertion into extinctive reaction in
Speaker 1: the eternal quality of human endeavor. To you, morality is
Speaker 1: the right thing. To us, morality is right for all
Speaker 1: the changing problems of human relationship which rise with changing circumstances.
Speaker 1: You laid down the rules and regulations of the warrior,
Speaker 1: the sportsmen, the gentleman. We refer all problems seriously to
Speaker 1: eternal law. For you, certain acts are unbecoming to the
Speaker 1: pertinent ideal type, whether he be a knight or a fellow.
Speaker 1: We have no such changing systems of reference, only one command,
Speaker 1: and all your moral attributes are only varieties of Queensbury rules, Honor, loyalty, purity.
Speaker 1: These are sets of regulations. The best of you will
Speaker 1: not swerve from them. You will die in their defense
Speaker 1: like the gallant gentlemen you are. But you will not
Speaker 1: brook the question whether your system of honor is founded
Speaker 1: on right, whether loyalty has relation to intelligence, whether purity
Speaker 1: has relation to the state of mind. Honor means but
Speaker 1: one thing, to do, the honorable thing, whether it be
Speaker 1: honor and dueling, honor among thieves, honor of women. Loyalty
Speaker 1: means the quality of being loyal, independent of right or wrong.
Speaker 1: Purity means the chastity of the body or the denial
Speaker 1: of desire. As such, it is related to the game,
Speaker 1: not to God. For us, these distinctions do not exist,
Speaker 1: for we are serious in our intentions. We will not
Speaker 1: accept your rules because we are not. We do not
Speaker 1: understand them. We will not accept your rules because we
Speaker 1: do not understand them. Right and wrong is the only
Speaker 1: distinction we are fitted by our nature to appreciate. We
Speaker 1: are puzzled by your punctilios, your quoint distinctions, your gentleman's
Speaker 1: call me faults. We are amazed when you fight for them.
Speaker 1: We are struck dumb when you die for them a
Speaker 1: song on your lips. Not that we not that we
Speaker 1: do not know how to die for a cause. But
Speaker 1: we must die for a serious cause, for a reason,
Speaker 1: for right, for God, not for a slogan without meaning,
Speaker 1: for a symbol for its own sake, for a rule
Speaker 1: for its own sake. We will die for the right,
Speaker 1: not for the right thing. This difference in behavior and
Speaker 1: reaction springs from something much more earnest and significant than
Speaker 1: a difference in beliefs. It springs from a different in
Speaker 1: our biological equipment. It does not argue the inferiority of
Speaker 1: the one or the other. It is a difference in
Speaker 1: the taking of life, which cannot be argued. You have
Speaker 1: your way of life. We ares in your system of life.
Speaker 1: We are essentially without honor in our system of life.
Speaker 1: You are essentially without morality in your system of life.
Speaker 1: We must forever appear graceless to us, You must forever
Speaker 1: appear godless. Seen from beyond both of us, there is
Speaker 1: nothing right nor wrong. There is your Western civilization. If
Speaker 1: your sense of the impermanence of things, the essential sportiness
Speaker 1: of all effort, the gamesomeness and gameness of life, has
Speaker 1: blossomed in events and laws like these I have seen
Speaker 1: around me, it cannot, from an external point of view,
Speaker 1: neither yours nor ours be classified as right or wrong.
Speaker 1: Wars for Helen and for Jenkins's ear, duels for honor
Speaker 1: and for gambling, debts, death for a flag, loyalties, gallant gestures.
Speaker 1: A world that centers round sport and war, with a
Speaker 1: system of virtues related to these, art that springs not
Speaker 1: from God but from the joyousness and suffering of the freeman.
Speaker 1: A world of play which takes death itself as part
Speaker 1: of the play, to be approached as carelessly and pleasantly
Speaker 1: as any other turn of chance. Cities and states and
Speaker 1: mighty enterprises built up on the same rush of feeling
Speaker 1: and energy as carries a football team, and in the
Speaker 1: same ideology. This is the efflorescence of the Western world.
Speaker 1: It has a magnificent, evanescent beauty. It is a valiant
Speaker 1: defiance of the gloom of the universe, a warrior shout
Speaker 1: into the ghastly void, a futile thing for us, beautiful
Speaker 1: and boyish for all its inconsistencies and failures. Without itself,
Speaker 1: it has a charm, arm and rhythm which are unknown
Speaker 1: to us. We could never have built a world like yours.
Speaker 1: The efflorescence of our life, given free room, is profoundly different.
Speaker 1: We have none of this joyous gamesomeness. We fight and
Speaker 1: suffer and die, even as we labor and create, not
Speaker 1: in sport, and not under the rules of sport, but
Speaker 1: in the feeling and belief that we are part of
Speaker 1: an eternal process. We cannot have art such as you have,
Speaker 1: a free and careless lyrical beauty, songs and epics. Our
Speaker 1: sense of beauty springs from immersion in the universe, from
Speaker 1: a gloomy desire to see justice done in the name
Speaker 1: of God. Morality itself we take simply and seriously. We
Speaker 1: have none of your arbitrary regulations, your fine flourishes and
Speaker 1: discipline gallantries. We only know right or wrong. All the
Speaker 1: rest seems to us childish irrelevance. When God speaks in us,
Speaker 1: when his overwhelming will drives us to utterance, are great.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we are futile feudal. With you, there cannot be
Speaker 1: a question of utility. We belong to the one mastering God.
Speaker 1: You belong to the republic public of playful gods. These
Speaker 1: are two ways of life, each utterly alien to the other.
Speaker 1: Each has its place in the world, but they cannot
Speaker 1: flourish in the same soil. They cannot remain in contact
Speaker 1: without antagonism. Though to life itself, each way is a
Speaker 1: perfect utterance to each other. They are enemies. Moving on
Speaker 1: to chapter two, sport. The most amazing thing in your life,
Speaker 1: the most in contrast with ours, is its sport. By
Speaker 1: this I do not mean simply your fondness for physical exercise,
Speaker 1: your physical exuberance, but the psychological and social institutionalization of sport,
Speaker 1: its organization, its predominant role as the outlet and expression
Speaker 1: of your spiritual energies. I will not go into the
Speaker 1: history of sports among you, contrasting it with its absence
Speaker 1: from our records and emotions, but surely there is something
Speaker 1: of extraordinary significance in the predominance of sports in your
Speaker 1: first high civilization, their religious character, and their hold on
Speaker 1: the affection and attention of the masses. That the overwhelming
Speaker 1: significance of this manifestation of life has been ignored is
Speaker 1: due essentially to the promposity of historians who care for
Speaker 1: dignity and scholarship more than for truth, and who often
Speaker 1: lacking the shrewdness, insight, cynicism, craftiness, vulgarity, affection, and live wiredness,
Speaker 1: in brief the worldliness to understand what is going on
Speaker 1: around them. In newspapers, politics and movements, think they can
Speaker 1: nevertheless understand history, which they seem to regard not as
Speaker 1: yesterday's acts of the people around them today, but as
Speaker 1: a detached and peculiar system, inaccessible to ordinary and uncultured intelligence.
Speaker 1: I need not go to ancient history when I read
Speaker 1: serious accounts of the history of our own times, and
Speaker 1: see is what a seeming conspiracy of stupidity Our historians
Speaker 1: ignore the most potent manifestation of modern life, sport, football, baseball,
Speaker 1: and concentrate almost exclusively on such trivialities as politics, which
Speaker 1: no one takes seriously. I am filled with astonishment and despair.
Speaker 1: Such men cannot write true history. But some records there are,
Speaker 1: and however small the attention which serious historians have given
Speaker 1: to this. We must feel that the chief chief free passion,
Speaker 1: that is, the chief passion not inevitably aroused by the
Speaker 1: struggle for exist The chief spiritual passion was sport. Witnessed
Speaker 1: the elaborate religious celebration of sporting events built on athletic contests.
Speaker 1: Witness the adulation the love that was poured out to
Speaker 1: athletic prodigies. Witnessed the dedication of the highest, most inspired
Speaker 1: talents to their glorification witness the tremendous mass passions enlisted
Speaker 1: in sporting events in Athens, in Rome, in Byzantium, and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: But in this regard, as in most others, history is
Speaker 1: by far less important than contact with life. I need
Speaker 1: not study history or read books to know what sport
Speaker 1: means to you. I have only to feel the emotions
Speaker 1: around me. Read your newspapers, watch the records of your universities.
Speaker 1: The most certain, the most consistent, the most sustained. That intense,
Speaker 1: free emotion in your life is sport. And when here
Speaker 1: in America, as indeed elsewhere too, some of your professors
Speaker 1: and educationalist deplore and condemned the prepondering role of sport
Speaker 1: in the schools, they fail to understand your spirit. Your
Speaker 1: spirit is sport, particularly your young men, who are not
Speaker 1: yet absorbed in the struggle for existence, and whose emotions
Speaker 1: are therefore for the largest part free, must find in sport,
Speaker 1: in games in contest, the most satisfactory expression of their instincts.
Speaker 1: This is exactly why they have to keep us distracted,
Speaker 1: especially young men. Young men, says here, your spirit is sport,
Speaker 1: particularly your young men who are not yet absorbed in
Speaker 1: the struggle for existence. That is why when it comes
Speaker 1: out that there is growing groups of young men who
Speaker 1: see that they have a struggle for existence and they
Speaker 1: decide to come together to talk about it and to
Speaker 1: organize such a threat to them, they would much rather
Speaker 1: have you playing sports because they understand the struggle for
Speaker 1: existence they don't want you to have. They don't want
Speaker 1: you to be cognizant of that, because then you become dangerous.
Speaker 1: For the most part, of course, both professor and public,
Speaker 1: despite occasional jokes at their own expense and at the
Speaker 1: expense of the institution, sympathize with the attitude of the
Speaker 1: young men, encourage it not only by their energetic interest
Speaker 1: in organized sport outside, but by the passionate attention with
Speaker 1: which they follow the sporting records of the colleges. It
Speaker 1: is a commonplace that the scholastic achievements of the universities
Speaker 1: are both unintelligible and uninteresting to the vast massive graduates,
Speaker 1: and that academic work can in no wives compete with
Speaker 1: athletic achievement in taking the heart and interest both of
Speaker 1: these and of the general public. If this was really
Speaker 1: in nineteen twenty four, You're what are your He's writing
Speaker 1: it nineteen twenty two, nineteen twenty three, what's your professional
Speaker 1: sports leagues at the time? Major League Baseball, that's probably
Speaker 1: the biggest one. Football has not become Basketball has not
Speaker 1: reached any kind of height. Hockey's in its infancy. It
Speaker 1: makes you wonder why professional sports became so important, Because
Speaker 1: if college sports can occupy the mind of the young
Speaker 1: and do damage to it, and they don't understand the
Speaker 1: struggle that they're in, and the older, if they have
Speaker 1: professional sports to watch, if it's just right there on
Speaker 1: the TV or on the radio at the time, then
Speaker 1: they become subsumed in it and they don't see the
Speaker 1: struggle therein Maybe there is a reason why at one
Speaker 1: time basketball was a huge part of basketball was Jewish
Speaker 1: and they stopped playing and they bought the teams, And
Speaker 1: even those who can understand the content of scholastic achievement
Speaker 1: are also drawn more powerfully towards sporting achievement. I do
Speaker 1: not agree at all with the few critics of your
Speaker 1: universities who see in this state of affairs a decline
Speaker 1: of the spirit of the country and of its educators.
Speaker 1: This state of affairs is not decadence, but the full
Speaker 1: and vigorous blossoming of your spirit. This is your way
Speaker 1: of life. What he's saying is he's saying that when
Speaker 1: you see some professors in academ come out and say, really,
Speaker 1: maybe the sports thing is distracting, what he's saying is no,
Speaker 1: it's not being distracted and concentrating on sports and not
Speaker 1: taking anything seriously. Is who you are. We depend on that.
Speaker 1: The contention of the majority of your educators and the
Speaker 1: moral instinct is trained in the football and baseball field,
Speaker 1: in boxing, rowing, wrestling, and other contests, is it a
Speaker 1: true one? Is truer perhaps than most of them realize.
Speaker 1: So read that again. The connection to the majority of
Speaker 1: your educators, that the moral instinct is trained on the
Speaker 1: football and basketball field, and box wrestling and other contests
Speaker 1: is a true one. Is truer, perhaps than most of
Speaker 1: them realize. Your ideal morality is a sporting morality. The
Speaker 1: intense discipline of the game, the spirit of fair play,
Speaker 1: the qualities of endurance, of good humor, of conventionalized seriousness
Speaker 1: and effort, of loyalty, of struggle without malice or bitterness,
Speaker 1: of readiness to forget like a sport. All these are
Speaker 1: brought out in their sheerest and cleanest darkness and well
Speaker 1: organized and closely regulated sports. Sounds like he's saying, you
Speaker 1: love your rules, stick to that because we're not playing
Speaker 1: by any and on the experiences and lessons which these
Speaker 1: sports imply, your entire spiritual life is inevitably founded. It
Speaker 1: is therefore unjust to treat this aspect of your life flippantly.
Speaker 1: You yourselves, often failed to recognize, except an unknowledged instinct,
Speaker 1: how deeply it is rooted in your life, and having
Speaker 1: sundered it from the overt and organized homage which you
Speaker 1: pay to spiritual values in the church, that is, you
Speaker 1: have split yourselves, hence the comparative weakness of your organized churches,
Speaker 1: which are founded on a misconception. Sport is for you
Speaker 1: a serious spiritual matter. It is the proper symbolization the
Speaker 1: perfect ritual, wherein your spiritual forces find the expression, also
Speaker 1: find exercise and sustenance. They were cleaner witted who They
Speaker 1: were cleaner witted who before the advent of Christianity associated
Speaker 1: sport intimately with your religious life. Today you are practicing
Speaker 1: on a vast scale the troubled hypocrisy of unhappy converts
Speaker 1: who have been convinced in reason of a new religion,
Speaker 1: but whose proper and healthy instincts drive them to surreptitious
Speaker 1: homage to older gods. Or sport given its right place
Speaker 1: again in your acknowledged spiritual institution, the Church, you would
Speaker 1: be happier, clearer, stronger. For the premise, once granted, that
Speaker 1: life itself is but a joyous adventure, a combat, a
Speaker 1: passage at arms. You cannot do better than symbolize this
Speaker 1: premise in your athletic contests and olympiads, with local worship
Speaker 1: conducted on the village green, and in the athletic halls
Speaker 1: and academies of the cities. The rigor of the rules
Speaker 1: or sacred rights which attended the open association of sport
Speaker 1: religion testifies to the profound inner compulsion which makes the
Speaker 1: two identical. Indeed, even when religion and sport have been sundered,
Speaker 1: there is more moral odium attached to bad sportsmanship, cheating
Speaker 1: in the game, cowardice, selling out, striking, foul, and so on,
Speaker 1: than to the contravention of a moral injunction bearing no
Speaker 1: sporting character. What's he saying. Basically, he's saying that there is.
Speaker 1: We would have more outrage as gentiles if we found
Speaker 1: out that someone was fixing baseball games than we would
Speaker 1: a politician was cheating on his wife, a politician who
Speaker 1: considered themselves to be Christian kind of Inarguable. You cannot therefore,
Speaker 1: do better, from your point of view than instill into
Speaker 1: your young a keen love and admiration of right sportsmanship,
Speaker 1: and encourage your participation in sports governed by severe regulations.
Speaker 1: Trained with sufficient consistency, they will carry into their adult
Speaker 1: life in ever imminent sense of right and wrong according
Speaker 1: to your lights. And no better training could be devised,
Speaker 1: of course, than that which is associated with your powerful
Speaker 1: educational institutions. It is true that the system, even when
Speaker 1: seen from its own point of view, has its potential evils.
Speaker 1: Partisanship may become so keen that it thwarts the purpose
Speaker 1: of the sports sport institution. This is, the desire to
Speaker 1: win or to be on the winning side may become
Speaker 1: so bitter as to overrule the moral sense, and combats
Speaker 1: between champions, as once between the principles of opposing armies,
Speaker 1: may actually discourage individual participation. But every system, if it
Speaker 1: is a living thing, is subject to this danger. And
Speaker 1: even out of the evil side you may draw good
Speaker 1: if millions watch with breathless interests the combat of champions.
Speaker 1: That combat conducted under the truest sporting rules becomes a
Speaker 1: great influence, and fine gentlemanly athletes may become the teachers
Speaker 1: of the nation. And again seen within itself, sport morality
Speaker 1: has as severe a discipline, if not, from our point
Speaker 1: of view, any spiritual sincerity, as a god morality. It
Speaker 1: is as difficult and as exacting to be a gentleman
Speaker 1: as to be good in many respects. Of course, the
Speaker 1: two concepts overlap, though they are differently centered. Both call
Speaker 1: for restraint, for consideration of rules. Both are in advance
Speaker 1: on moral anarchy. In thus characterizing your ethical concepts, I
Speaker 1: have already indicated the essential difference with difference which separates
Speaker 1: them from ours. There is no touch of sport morality
Speaker 1: in our way of life and our problems of human relationship.
Speaker 1: Our life morality cannot be symbolized in a miniature reproduction.
Speaker 1: We have no play presentation of life. Our young, even
Speaker 1: like our adults, are referred at once to the first source,
Speaker 1: to the word of God, to the word of the
Speaker 1: prophet or teacher speaking in the name of God. Or
Speaker 1: to secularize this statement. Our young, like our adults, are
Speaker 1: imbued with a feeling of the absolute in their moral relations.
Speaker 1: Our virtues lack the flourish and charm of the lists.
Speaker 1: Our evils are not mitigated by well meant and delightful hypocrisies. Murder,
Speaker 1: except in self defense, is murder, whether committed a duel
Speaker 1: with all its gentlemanly rules, or an unrestrained rage. When
Speaker 1: we are set face to fit, so how would they
Speaker 1: act in war? When we are set face to face
Speaker 1: with an opponent, and one must kill the other, we
Speaker 1: proceed in the most effective way. We cannot understand the
Speaker 1: idea that rules of conduct governed murder. We cannot understand
Speaker 1: a man who, attacking another, insists that the other, in
Speaker 1: self defense shall strike only above the belt. That strange character,
Speaker 1: the gentleman thief, the gallant and appealing desperado, who recurs
Speaker 1: with such significant frequency in your fine and popular literature,
Speaker 1: perhaps points by meaning best. The idea of a gentleman
Speaker 1: thief is utterly impossible to the jew. It is only you, gentiles,
Speaker 1: with your idealization of the sporting qualities, who can thus
Speaker 1: unite in a universally popular hero immorality and ridd or kite.
Speaker 1: That's a very long German word. It is probable, of
Speaker 1: course that the majority of your robin Hoods and Claude
Speaker 1: Duval's we're nothing but low ruffians, devoid even of chivalry.
Speaker 1: But their significance is not what they were, but in
Speaker 1: what you make them, make of them in worship. The
Speaker 1: persistence of the types is evident today as much as ever,
Speaker 1: when popular fancy is charmed and you've tempted into emulation
Speaker 1: by the raffles and lupins of the world of books.
Speaker 1: At no time have we Jews sympathized with this type.
Speaker 1: We are insensible to the appeal of the correct and
Speaker 1: the graceful as a substitute for our morality. Nightly or unknightly,
Speaker 1: courtly or uncourtly sportsmanlike are the opposite in our real
Speaker 1: life means nothing. We only ask is it right or
Speaker 1: is it wrong? For the rules which you bring into
Speaker 1: life from the athletic field have no relation to the
Speaker 1: ultimate moral value of your acts, and serve only to
Speaker 1: give you the moral satisfaction of having obeyed some rule
Speaker 1: or other while doing exactly what you want to do. Thus,
Speaker 1: grown and intelligent as you may be, you govern the
Speaker 1: hunting of animals with the most curious and seriously taken regulations.
Speaker 1: You must not shoot a pigeon or a rabbit in
Speaker 1: sport unless such and such regulations are obeyed. It is
Speaker 1: unsportsmanlike you make a great moral to do about these regulations.
Speaker 1: But what in God's name has this to do with
Speaker 1: right or wrong of killing defenseless animals for sport. You
Speaker 1: have attempted to infuse into business, which you have made
Speaker 1: the stark translation into modern social terms of the old
Speaker 1: kill and be killed, chaos and ineffectual gallantry, which will
Speaker 1: again give you the sense of playing the game, while
Speaker 1: giving free course to your worse instincts. I mean that,
Speaker 1: apart from the necessities of the law, you attempt to
Speaker 1: bring into the field of business to curious punctilio of
Speaker 1: defencing master courtesies and pretenses, slogans and passwords which mitigate
Speaker 1: only an appearance to the primal savagery of the struggle
Speaker 1: service the good of the public, a square deal, all
Speaker 1: the catchwords of the advertising schools, which give a flavor
Speaker 1: of games, some friendliness to a world that is essentially merciless.
Speaker 1: This is not intentional lying. It is not deliberate hypocrisy.
Speaker 1: You believe that homage to these forms constitutes a morality,
Speaker 1: It does constitute a morality of a kind. We, on
Speaker 1: our part, recognize no particular system that divides business from
Speaker 1: the rest of life. One is as honest in business
Speaker 1: as in anything else. For us, business has not a
Speaker 1: specialized idealism or a court etiquette, a particularized code of honor.
Speaker 1: We are honest and truthful, or we are not honest
Speaker 1: and truthful. It has nothing to do with our being
Speaker 1: in this game or in that game a shopkeeper, or
Speaker 1: a tailor or a banker. And because we cannot, by
Speaker 1: reason of our nature, you in these playful chara calls
Speaker 1: or curvetings, but drive straight to the purpose using the
Speaker 1: plain common sense and honesty or dishonesty of the occasion.
Speaker 1: You're bound to regard us, as many of you do,
Speaker 1: as lacking an etiquette that is in your morality. A
Speaker 1: similar division in other essential opinions illustrates the primal difference
Speaker 1: between us. Your attitude towards combat, duels, wars, and all
Speaker 1: the virtues pertaining to it is one from which we
Speaker 1: shrink to you. Courage is an end to itself to
Speaker 1: be glorified, worshiped as imparting morality to an act. To us,
Speaker 1: courage is merely a means to an end. Hence, your
Speaker 1: courage is combative ours passive Yours offensive ours defensive heroics
Speaker 1: play a great part in your idealism none in ours.
Speaker 1: To fight is never a glorious business. To us, it
Speaker 1: is a dirty business. We perform it when we must.
Speaker 1: And I suppose there is very little to choose between
Speaker 1: you and us and the matter of courage. But we
Speaker 1: cannot pretend that the filthy necessity is a high virtue.
Speaker 1: Dulce et decorum s pro patria mori is not a
Speaker 1: Jewish sentiment. For it is not sweet to die for anything,
Speaker 1: but if we must die for it, we will. Nor
Speaker 1: do we glorify the warrior as a warrior, despite occasional
Speaker 1: individual defections of hours. From that view, if my brother
Speaker 1: goes mad and attacks me, and I must slay him
Speaker 1: in self defense, how can I be happy over it.
Speaker 1: It is a cruel and miserable business to be finished
Speaker 1: with as soon as possible, to be forgotten as soon
Speaker 1: as possible. This is essentially the Jewish attitude toward war
Speaker 1: and warriors. I do not find it in the Bible
Speaker 1: delight in war and warriors. Our exultation in victory was
Speaker 1: not the glorification of the warrior, but only a fierce
Speaker 1: joy of having survived. We fought bitterly, vindictively in order
Speaker 1: to kill, and our God was a god of war.
Speaker 1: But however this may be, I know with utter certainty
Speaker 1: concerning us as we are today, that the conscious Jew,
Speaker 1: the Jew steeped in Jewish life, despises the fighter as
Speaker 1: such a boar's war, And though he can die for
Speaker 1: his faith as well as anyone else, refuses to make
Speaker 1: a joyous ritual of combat. For when you gentiles assert
Speaker 1: that you a bore war, you deceive yourselves. War is
Speaker 1: the sublimeness to the sports, and therefore the most deeply worshiped.
Speaker 1: Do you mourn when you must fight? Is a nation
Speaker 1: plunged into gloom? When a declaration of war arrives? Do
Speaker 1: you search your hearts closely, cruelly to discover whether you
Speaker 1: yourselves or not to blame that this monstrous thing has
Speaker 1: come to pass? Does a tremor of terror go through you?
Speaker 1: Perhaps we are guilty? Do you clamor for the records
Speaker 1: of the long complications which have ushered in this horror.
Speaker 1: Do you go to your task of defense or offense darkly, grimly, bitterly. No,
Speaker 1: You hang out your most gorgeous banners, you play merry music,
Speaker 1: your blood run swiftly, happily, your cheeks brightened, and your
Speaker 1: eyes sparkle. A glorious ascension of strength marks the throwing
Speaker 1: down or the acceptance of the gauge. From end to
Speaker 1: end of the land, the tidings ring out, and every
Speaker 1: man and women, woman of metal, every red blooded man
Speaker 1: and woman, itches for a hand in it. Let me
Speaker 1: say clearly that I do not think all of you
Speaker 1: are fighting heroes. I have no doubt that millions of
Speaker 1: you in every country went to war reluctantly. But this
Speaker 1: does not contradict my contention. It only means that millions
Speaker 1: of you are not capable of living up to the
Speaker 1: ideal morality which you cherish. But even the greatest coward,
Speaker 1: even the most unwilling conscript, toys in his emotions with
Speaker 1: the adventures and triumphs of war. I speak throughout this
Speaker 1: book of the ideals to which you aspire and from
Speaker 1: which you draw your moral inspiration. And it is certain
Speaker 1: that war itself independently of all aims and justifications, is
Speaker 1: a prime necessity to you, and a declaration of war
Speaker 1: is a long awaited signal of release, greeted with extravagant,
Speaker 1: nons hysterical joy. It is not love of country which
Speaker 1: induces the flood of happiness. It is combat, the glory
Speaker 1: of sport, the game, the magnificence of the greatest of
Speaker 1: all contests. Again, they were cleaner witted those of you
Speaker 1: who declared openly and frankly that war is a natural
Speaker 1: pursuit of noblemen and of kings. The highest and most
Speaker 1: life passionate among you, the most exalted, were to be
Speaker 1: dedicated above all others to your way of life. Conversely,
Speaker 1: the basist among you were accounted as unworthy of admittance
Speaker 1: into the splendid company of warriors. The scullion must not
Speaker 1: dare to aspire to combative distinction. Today, as of old,
Speaker 1: you have nothing but contempt revealed in its true intensity
Speaker 1: and time of war. For the true pacifist, your nature
Speaker 1: is today what it was a thousand years ago, And
Speaker 1: the somber obstinacy of the British worker still survives. The
Speaker 1: tacit rage of the Scandinavian berserker and vain, and feudal
Speaker 1: and foolish are all those efforts to dam up and
Speaker 1: choke the extremest and most cherished outlet of your natural instinct.
Speaker 1: But in war, as in all other games of life,
Speaker 1: you satisfy your morality by means of amazing punctilios. To
Speaker 1: kill thus leaves you clean to kill otherwises, ungentlemanly. In
Speaker 1: a few of these fine points in the conduct of
Speaker 1: war and of duels, there may lurk some true moral significance.
Speaker 1: But it amazes us that in the exercise of this
Speaker 1: punctilio you find sufficient righteousness to ease your conscious altogether.
Speaker 1: Were you truly concerned with right and wrong, instead of
Speaker 1: with the sporting right thing with honor, what a flood
Speaker 1: of horror and of pity of prostration would follow each
Speaker 1: of your wars, With what frantic haste you would fly
Speaker 1: to the consolation of each other, With what tremors of
Speaker 1: moral terror you would examine again and again the catastrophic
Speaker 1: madness from which you have just emerged. Merciful God, slain
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand men, fathers and sons in the red
Speaker 1: rage of combat. You have disemboweled them, suffocated them, drowned them,
Speaker 1: torn them limb from limb, blinded them. A million, loving parents, children, friends,
Speaker 1: have we awakened, sweating in the night, out of a
Speaker 1: terrible vision of last despairs of contracted, screaming agonies. And now,
Speaker 1: when it is over, do you run to your churches,
Speaker 1: and with streaming eyes, flinging yourselves at the foot of
Speaker 1: the priests and altered, terrified, Lest the murder you have
Speaker 1: committed might have been avoided, Let lest at least some
Speaker 1: of the guilt rest upon your head. For surely it
Speaker 1: is if even the faintest stream of culpability, the minutest
Speaker 1: blot a grain, and all but indivisible fleck and oversight,
Speaker 1: momentary impatience, pride, carelessness, leave you not utterly, utterly, utterly blameless.
Speaker 1: You have need of all the divine compassion, all the
Speaker 1: infinite forgiveness of God. But your wars have never ended
Speaker 1: since history records of them, save with the same outbursts
Speaker 1: of pride and insolence as began them. Was there ever
Speaker 1: to tedaem turned into a cry of mea culpa? Was
Speaker 1: ever a war entered in a history book, save as
Speaker 1: a glorious adventure, glorious in victory, glorious in disaster. And
Speaker 1: even if, after one hundred years a historian here and
Speaker 1: there it tarnishes this the stainless records of your purposes,
Speaker 1: with a single plausible doubt? Was there ever an awakening
Speaker 1: of guilt a thousandth part as strong as the awakening
Speaker 1: of pride and happiness which accompanies the recalling of the
Speaker 1: exploits of any war, however remote, you have just passed
Speaker 1: through the wildest and most universal of all wars. Search
Speaker 1: your memories and your press. Well, where was the hushed humility,
Speaker 1: the awe, the shuddering amazement which should have fallen on
Speaker 1: the world when the armistice was declared? It's talking about
Speaker 1: World War One? Did you not straight did you not
Speaker 1: straightway send forth emissary to bargain and barter, to accuse
Speaker 1: and to denounce, and above all to maintain your dignity?
Speaker 1: What dignity prey? What was left of dignity to a
Speaker 1: single one of you? What was left of decency to
Speaker 1: any of you? Had joined in the furious and blasphemous
Speaker 1: revelries of those five years? You hate war nonsense, you
Speaker 1: enjoy it if in the passing tiredness which follows to
Speaker 1: strenuous exertion, you pause a while to reflect. You do
Speaker 1: not dare to think into the root causes and evils,
Speaker 1: lest indeed you make war impossible. You tinker with a
Speaker 1: few regulations, gas laws, flowment, war for rules, armed and
Speaker 1: unarmed ships, and similarly feudal trivialities. You call each other
Speaker 1: bad sports, and a day later you are prepared if
Speaker 1: the occasion offers, to embark again on the exhiliarating, exhiliarating enterprise.
Speaker 1: Yet I say for all this, you can never be
Speaker 1: guilty in your own eyes, not one of you. Denunciation
Speaker 1: can only come from one who does not share your morality.
Speaker 1: Your conscience cannot be seared. You have done no wrong
Speaker 1: or as the high mark of your life, the true
Speaker 1: and triumphant expression of your instincts. And therefore, whatever church
Speaker 1: and religion may preach, in the intervals between actual fighting,
Speaker 1: you remember all your wars with wistful and longing pride,
Speaker 1: as the greatest events in your existence. The splendor of
Speaker 1: war in preparation and in action and in recollection, in
Speaker 1: the rhythm of the training of the armies, in the
Speaker 1: frantic excitement of battle in the glorious commemoration of monument
Speaker 1: and song in tapestry is the flower of your civilization,
Speaker 1: material and spiritual. In nothing are you as efficient as
Speaker 1: in war. In nothing as true to yourselves strains to
Speaker 1: the utmost. In this terrific game, your splendid faculties find
Speaker 1: full and vehement exercise. And whosoever from under the shadow
Speaker 1: of God upbraids you and discourages you as your eternal enemy.
Speaker 1: I cannot undertake, while developing this theme, to answer all
Speaker 1: of the objections which occur even to me. In part,
Speaker 1: of course, some of these objections are on answerable, and are,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, only overborne by counter objections. In part
Speaker 1: they are feudal objections. But in touching on some of them,
Speaker 1: I may make my viewpoint clear. I shall be reminded
Speaker 1: that wherever war was declared, we Jews have responded as
Speaker 1: readily and as equally as you Gentiles. Statistics, which are
Speaker 1: quite reliable in such ual thumb matters, bear this out.
Speaker 1: But I do not believe that we did so from
Speaker 1: motives that resembled years. Many reasons compelled us. We are everywhere,
Speaker 1: to a large extent, aliens a sense of inferiority in
Speaker 1: status drives us to extremes of sacrifice in justifying our
Speaker 1: claims to equality. More than that, we Jews are so
Speaker 1: frequently and so vigorously reminded in all constitutionally governed and
Speaker 1: liberal countries that we ought to be grateful for permission
Speaker 1: to live there, that we developed a gratitude which is
Speaker 1: not only disproportionate, but occasionally grotesque. Our children, in schools
Speaker 1: and elsewhere are taught year in year out, contrasts their
Speaker 1: present freedom, equality of opportunity with the oppression and bitterness
Speaker 1: with which was the lot of their parents elsewhere. Frequently
Speaker 1: the contrast, as painted in their imagination, is not a
Speaker 1: duplicate of the reality. However this may be, these incessant
Speaker 1: and vehement reminders produced their effect. The child almost comes
Speaker 1: to believe that it was for the especial benefit of
Speaker 1: oppressed foreigners that America became a free country, and instead
Speaker 1: of accepting American forms of government level headedly, with the
Speaker 1: proper degree of appreciation and criticism, he develops a suppressed
Speaker 1: hysteria of gratitude. This is not a healthy and natural feeling.
Speaker 1: Children should not be made to feel such things, and
Speaker 1: if it comes to the matter of contributions to liberty.
Speaker 1: We Jews have done as much for the enfranchisement of
Speaker 1: man as any other people. But the Jew, the oppressed
Speaker 1: par excellence, begins to look upon America's liberty as a
Speaker 1: personal favor. Favor No wonder then that Jews will rush
Speaker 1: to fight for America. Yet, despite the contradiction of figures,
Speaker 1: there is still a strong impression abroad that the Jews
Speaker 1: failed in their duty, were slackers. This feeling rises from
Speaker 1: an instinctive appreciation of that difference between us. We Jews
Speaker 1: don't like fighting. You Gentiles do Moreover, because you like fighting,
Speaker 1: You are much more skillful than we in hiding occasion
Speaker 1: occasional reluctance to fight. Indeed, it is obvious that the
Speaker 1: more fearful you are of taking a hand in the combat,
Speaker 1: the more you will glorify and idealize it. While the
Speaker 1: Jew who is afraid adds actual and overt dislike to
Speaker 1: his cowardice. Yeah, he's although I know, I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: agree with a lot of what he has to say
Speaker 1: about how we fight wars. I don't agree he is
Speaker 1: applying his scholarly academic He's applying that to all Jews
Speaker 1: at this point by saying that they don't like war,
Speaker 1: that they're reluctant to fight. They're reluctant to fight for others,
Speaker 1: but when they think it benefits to them, they will fight.
Speaker 1: We look at the pograms, so many of them were
Speaker 1: started by Jewish revolutionaries and then put down, and then
Speaker 1: they screamed pogram or you know, especially the sixteen forty eight,
Speaker 1: which was just them going on to Jews going on
Speaker 1: a murderous spree and Kamel Neetsky coming in to put
Speaker 1: it down. It just isn't true. And yet I can
Speaker 1: look at what he said about how Gentiles think about
Speaker 1: war and agree with a lot of what he hasked
Speaker 1: to say. And remember, he's not talking about northern white Europeans.
Speaker 1: He's not talking about Eastern Europeans. He's not talking about
Speaker 1: Western Europeans or Southern Europeans. He's talking about Gentiles. He's
Speaker 1: talking about West, the West as a whole. But apart
Speaker 1: from this, we must not forget that what the schools
Speaker 1: of the Western world open to our children, your view
Speaker 1: of things is gradually being imposed on our alien psychology
Speaker 1: of the real and apparent successes of your effort. I
Speaker 1: write elsewhere in this book, but here let me note
Speaker 1: that the Jewish child in your schools is made to
Speaker 1: feel that not to like fighting is a sign of
Speaker 1: complete inferiority. Determined to become your equal, he essays, often
Speaker 1: with success to become warlike in his attitude. But it
Speaker 1: is an artificial success. He does from an imperious sense
Speaker 1: of duty. What you do by instinct, He fights by
Speaker 1: forcing himself to. He has not your natural gift and
Speaker 1: inclination for it. I don't agree. I think it is there,
Speaker 1: and I think that if he would have, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: need to. I mean, he lived till nineteen seventy two,
Speaker 1: so I need to read some of his later writings
Speaker 1: on the founding of Israel. I'm assuming if he were
Speaker 1: to discuss Irgun, Hagana stern Gang, the founding of Israel,
Speaker 1: the war subsequent wars, I would assume cope. But who knows.
Speaker 1: I would have to read more, and his books are
Speaker 1: out there, so maybe I shall. But onward, this is
Speaker 1: almost done. Of course, I shall be told in establishing
Speaker 1: this distinction among others, that it is dangerous to generalize.
Speaker 1: It is curious with what finality this commonplace is supposed
Speaker 1: to crush the generalizer. Suppose it is true that it
Speaker 1: is dangerous to generalize. Are not many necessary things dangerous,
Speaker 1: like bearing children and digging coal? A truth is nonetheless
Speaker 1: a truth because it is a dangerous truth, open to
Speaker 1: easy abuse. Nevertheless, the most serious truths can only be
Speaker 1: stated as generalities, and this most serious truth is among them.
Speaker 1: This contrast and attitude towards war of jew and gentile.
Speaker 1: And as long as the contrast exists, it will be
Speaker 1: stronger than will, stronger than reason. As long as we
Speaker 1: are at opposite poles, we shall have to make continuous
Speaker 1: and strenuous efforts to get on side by side. All right,
Speaker 1: that's the ending of chapter two. Sport, finish up chapter one,
Speaker 1: and finish all of chapter two, and on the next
Speaker 1: episode we will touch chapter three. Gods, but I will
Speaker 1: say a lot of what he had to say made sense,
Speaker 1: And if you're honest with yourself, you will know it
Speaker 1: made sense. If you're not just being reactionary and not
Speaker 1: wanting to agree with him because of who he is,
Speaker 1: think about it. Take it to heart. Now. I think
Speaker 1: that he's his saying that they are not a warlike people.
Speaker 1: I tend to differ, especially when you consider this was
Speaker 1: written in nineteen twenty four and there was already violent
Speaker 1: violence being inflicted upon the inhabitants of Palestine at the time.
Speaker 1: So anyway, thank you for listening. I'll be back in
Speaker 1: a couple of days and we will continue with chapter three.
Speaker 1: Take care, right, let's get back into this. Sorry, I
Speaker 1: needed a few days off there recorded a lot, also
Speaker 1: had a lot to do personally. So the last episode
Speaker 1: we finished up chapter one, and then we finished up
Speaker 1: chapter two, which was on sports and more specifically on war.
Speaker 1: So chapter three is called titled Gods. So let's see
Speaker 1: what mister Samuel has to say Chapter three. Gods. This
Speaker 1: is the essence of our difference. That we are serious.
Speaker 1: You are not. The French shading of the word comes
Speaker 1: nearer my meanings. Puni pa seeru sorry French people. Not
Speaker 1: as a matter of intent, but as a matter of constitution.
Speaker 1: This lack of seriousness, thus uttering itself in your ethics
Speaker 1: and governing the character of your relations to each other,
Speaker 1: must also govern your religion, your symbolized relations with the universe.
Speaker 1: And I've always felt, in contemplating your religious experiences and declarations,
Speaker 1: the same alienation from them as from your morality. Your
Speaker 1: feeling for Godhead partakes of the imaginative and lyrical playfulness
Speaker 1: which is your essential nature. And whatever may be the
Speaker 1: formal creed in which your feelings are rapped, their true
Speaker 1: nature cannot be hidden. You Gentiles are essentially polytheists, and
Speaker 1: to some extent idol worshipers. We Jews are essentially monotheists.
Speaker 1: I hope my reading of Israel shahaks two hundred years together,
Speaker 1: not two hundred years together. Apologies, mister soulshaniesan, but Jewish
Speaker 1: history religion puts the bed that Jews are a monotheists
Speaker 1: for the most part. Their leadership especially is polytheist. Their
Speaker 1: religious leadership. I would assert this even if it were
Speaker 1: not known that we have been singled out for centuries
Speaker 1: by our obstinate monotheism. I would assert it on the
Speaker 1: basis of my observations of the worlds I have known.
Speaker 1: Monotheism is a desperate and overwhelming creed. It can be
Speaker 1: the expression of none but the most serious natures. It
Speaker 1: is a fundamental creed which involves individual and mass, and
Speaker 1: and unfathomable sea of unity. In monotheism, there is no
Speaker 1: room left for individual prides and distinctions, no room for
Speaker 1: joyful assertiveness. I will agree with a lot of that.
Speaker 1: There in monotheism there is no room left for individual
Speaker 1: prides and distinctions. But a certain brand of monotheism that
Speaker 1: is fairly recent when you take into account the history
Speaker 1: of the Church, definitely leads open everything for individual prides
Speaker 1: and distinctions and individual interpretations. No room for joyful assertiveness. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't even really know what to make of that.
Speaker 1: Monotheism means infinite absolutism, the crushing triumph of the one,
Speaker 1: the crushing annihilation of the ones. So if you're just
Speaker 1: listening to this, says monotheism means infinite absolutism, the crushing
Speaker 1: triumph of the one capitalized, the crushing annihilation of the ones.
Speaker 1: Ones is lowercase. To the serious natred is inconceivable that
Speaker 1: this world should be at the changing mercy of opposing
Speaker 1: and uncontrolled forces, that gods of varying power and purpose
Speaker 1: should be making a sport of their own with us
Speaker 1: and themselves. But to the sporting nature, the ghastly unity
Speaker 1: of all life and power, the grim and paternal, settled
Speaker 1: predestination of all effort, is when accessible and intolerable thought,
Speaker 1: we Jews are incapable of polytheism, You gentiles are incapable
Speaker 1: of monotheism. Let's see where he goes with this given
Speaker 1: in the most explicit terms, the definition of monotheism, which
Speaker 1: you have tried as sincerely as lies in your power
Speaker 1: to accept, you still fail to make it your own.
Speaker 1: If life here is a sport, an heroic epic, the
Speaker 1: origins of life must be the same. Let the exceptions
Speaker 1: among you proclaim what they will. I know that the
Speaker 1: creeds of your masses, as I have heard them expounded
Speaker 1: from pulpits and in homes, as I have read of
Speaker 1: them in books and imperiodicals, are poleistic creeds of the
Speaker 1: three and one. The three is stressed. The one is
Speaker 1: a reluctant concession to the dogma. For where there is
Speaker 1: the happy and imaginative gentile spirit, there cannot be the
Speaker 1: complete and unconditional prostration of the individual. The utter breakdown
Speaker 1: of self, which is revealed in our prayers before God
Speaker 1: and our feelings toward Him, is an experience which you
Speaker 1: are too proud to share. Most of our prayers are
Speaker 1: helpless repetitions of our helplessness. The stammerings of a child overwhelmed,
Speaker 1: overmastered by contemplation of the supreme unity capital you unity.
Speaker 1: You cannot pray. Thus, at no time, even in the
Speaker 1: presence of the gods, do you lose your self possession
Speaker 1: your dignity. You too pray, but your prayer, compared with
Speaker 1: ours a requests. Your offers of service to Christ the God,
Speaker 1: are the offers of a vassal to a powerful superior.
Speaker 1: Our prayers too beg something, but requests of ours are
Speaker 1: folded in an abasement, a humility which would be revolting
Speaker 1: to you. Hence it is that you have never, in
Speaker 1: these many centuries of Christianity, produced utterances like those of
Speaker 1: the prophet of Job and of David. Your inspirations come
Speaker 1: from other sources, not from the one source. Your gods
Speaker 1: are universal gods of the world, not of the universe.
Speaker 1: The universal aspect of divinity, its attributes of infinity and eternity,
Speaker 1: it's omnipotence. These find only your formal acknowledgment. But emotionally
Speaker 1: you are unfitted to give them the true acknowledgment of
Speaker 1: complete and almost incoherent abasement. That language is alien to
Speaker 1: your spirit. The terror of the infinite cannot touch you
Speaker 1: the eternal. You know, as it were, by symbol and formula,
Speaker 1: but not by horrified experience. Your very professions and humility
Speaker 1: are like proud trumpet blasts. Your habsburg burial ceremonies and
Speaker 1: annoyance things by priests are but artistic flourishes which bring
Speaker 1: into graceful relief the true soldierliness of your character. I
Speaker 1: do not remember even having met the exceptions which must
Speaker 1: exist among you. I do not remember ever having heard
Speaker 1: a gentile pray with that abandonment, that objectness, that as
Speaker 1: it must seem to you, fulsomeness of homage, which characterizes
Speaker 1: our prayer. Only they who, like us are broken under
Speaker 1: the burden of realization and the infinite can pray thus.
Speaker 1: Only they who, in dreams and awaking ecstasies, and above
Speaker 1: all in instinct, have been touched with the rage of
Speaker 1: the undeniable power, of the undeniable power, can utter such
Speaker 1: adoration of ours. Our very anthropomorphisms reflect the difference in
Speaker 1: our spirit with our personified God. We hold speech such
Speaker 1: as you would never hold. When we translate infinite extent
Speaker 1: into infinite individual power, we shadow forth a being charged
Speaker 1: with an intensity of existence. The concentration of life and force,
Speaker 1: which you are unable to apprehend, being too free in
Speaker 1: spirit to attribute to any outside force such untrammeled and
Speaker 1: unapproachable tyranny. So your gods, too, are playthings, higher powers
Speaker 1: in the tempestuous game of life. All your mythologies retale
Speaker 1: of adventure for your very gods are not serious. And
Speaker 1: most fascinating are the tales of those gods which you
Speaker 1: fashioned when your first brilliant blossoming in Greece started out,
Speaker 1: started out of your turbulent soil. Who could conceive the
Speaker 1: mythology of Greece as a product of the Jewish people,
Speaker 1: that grace, that sunny charm, that adventurousness, that quarrelsomeness. Could
Speaker 1: gods like these ever have sprung from us? The emptiness
Speaker 1: of life and space and time brought forth out of
Speaker 1: your free and bounding imaginations a host of beings which
Speaker 1: you imagined with infinite loveliness in stone, one god for
Speaker 1: heaven and one for the bowels of earth, and one
Speaker 1: for the sea, and God's for music and tragedy, God's
Speaker 1: for commerce and for voyaging. Was not this a changing,
Speaker 1: a charming game, a game of children? Can anyone say
Speaker 1: that this was a serious and desperate attempt to become
Speaker 1: in concept, the one with the universal spirit of life.
Speaker 1: All right, let me just stop right here so I
Speaker 1: don't forget what I'm going to say when I finish
Speaker 1: this chapter, because I'm only going to read this chapter,
Speaker 1: and this chapter is rather short. Yeah, I'm sorry, mister Samuel,
Speaker 1: for the Western tradition, the Greek tradition, the Aristotilian tradition
Speaker 1: being that of homogeneous societies in which people live free
Speaker 1: and people be the shire. What you're telling me is
Speaker 1: is that, yes, you want a homogeneous thing too, but
Speaker 1: your goal is to enslave humanity. And that's what you
Speaker 1: get from your quote unquote monotheistic God. It's it's literally
Speaker 1: what he said in the first chapter. It's gentiles against
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. I mean, it's Jews against
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. There should be Germans, there
Speaker 1: should be French people, there should be the English. There
Speaker 1: should be the Americans who broke off away from you know,
Speaker 1: broke away from that and started their own thing, the Japanese,
Speaker 1: the Chinese, and they all should live where they live,
Speaker 1: how they wish, and they should only interact with other
Speaker 1: people when they want to or need be or a
Speaker 1: hand is outstretched, but you don't outstretch the hand, do you?
Speaker 1: You bring the sword? And I'm not talking and I'm
Speaker 1: talking about a metaphorical sword too, whether it be briefcases
Speaker 1: or checkbooks or loans. Up until a certain point when
Speaker 1: you took over governments and now you have nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: I get it. It's you against everyone else. And you think,
Speaker 1: because certain groups don't want to go forth and subject
Speaker 1: everyone to their whims, you think you're better than us.
Speaker 1: Just understand that it's exactly what he's saying here. This
Speaker 1: is exactly how I'm interpreting it. If somebody else has
Speaker 1: a different interpretation, please please put it in the comments.
Speaker 1: But this is what I'm reading. We have this monotheistic god.
Speaker 1: You guys, you're out there doing it's polytheism. You're doing
Speaker 1: everything you want. You know, you have this group over here,
Speaker 1: this group over here, and you're never going to be
Speaker 1: able to beat us because you can't come together like us.
Speaker 1: And plus your whole attitude isn't to subject the other
Speaker 1: like ours. Is continuing compare with this, our own first gropings,
Speaker 1: our own first clumsy expression of the universal spirit which
Speaker 1: sought utterance in us. Even as an absolute tribal ruler.
Speaker 1: Our God was one was master, a serious god. And
Speaker 1: out of that god unity, which we felt even in
Speaker 1: our primitive limitations, grew at last that concept which touched,
Speaker 1: with under dying ecstasy, the lips of our prophets, and
Speaker 1: cast over the life of the entire people for all
Speaker 1: time the shadow of omnipresence and omnipotence. Even when our
Speaker 1: God was a jealous god, his jealousy was absolute. He
Speaker 1: would brook no homage, no homage but to no homage
Speaker 1: but to him, no acknowledgment but of him. But the
Speaker 1: jealousies of your gods were only the jealousies of sport.
Speaker 1: They did not seek universal mastery and exclusiveness, only superiority.
Speaker 1: To be primis interparus was the ambition of your gods,
Speaker 1: with mastery, each in his own domain. But our gods
Speaker 1: sought universal dominion in our hearts. Such dominion has made
Speaker 1: all other homage inconceivable. Your gods gave you loveliness and
Speaker 1: joy and battle. You liked your gods and served them
Speaker 1: with alternating loyalties. You pitted one against the other, appealed
Speaker 1: from one to the other, plotted with one against the other.
Speaker 1: Your gods were kings and princelings, mightier than you and
Speaker 1: more splendid, But no God of yours was the king
Speaker 1: of kings in your soul. Your gods have never grown up,
Speaker 1: nor any single one among them, Nor have you grown
Speaker 1: into your God, but have always remained external, proud and
Speaker 1: warlike and free, paying homage as of old, but retaining
Speaker 1: the mastery over yourselves. You do not know of a
Speaker 1: God who is all a God in whom you are,
Speaker 1: a God who has reduced you to the dust, to
Speaker 1: the infinitesimal, in whom you are breaking foam, a bubble
Speaker 1: on an infinite sea. It breaks, and it was born
Speaker 1: and is gone forever and ever. And so, despite occasional exceptions,
Speaker 1: which I acknowledge freely, the dedication of all life, all being,
Speaker 1: to God's will and way is alien to you. You
Speaker 1: are not naturally steeped in God. You salute Him and
Speaker 1: bring him homage. Your relations with your gods are occasional,
Speaker 1: even if inevitable, that you cannot compare that with the
Speaker 1: imminence and intimacy of Godhead. In Jewish life, God is
Speaker 1: a commonplace experience. In Jewish life, He is a tacit
Speaker 1: continuous miracle of all our days and knights, thoughts, and experiences.
Speaker 1: We cannot conceive of a duality religion and life, the
Speaker 1: sacred and the secular. A Jew is a Jew in everything,
Speaker 1: not merely in prayers and in synagogue. In the eyes
Speaker 1: of a Pietist, a Jew who does not follow the
Speaker 1: rules and regulations of the synagogue, who even denies all dogma,
Speaker 1: is not a non Jew. He is a bad Jew,
Speaker 1: a sinful and rebellious Jew. In the orthodox world of Jewry,
Speaker 1: every act and incident in an acknowledged Jewish pheno is
Speaker 1: an acknowledged Jewish phenomenon, acknowledge that is openly by prayer,
Speaker 1: the whole day is saturated with God or with Jewishness.
Speaker 1: Our Jewishness is not a creed, It is our self,
Speaker 1: our totality. Indeed, it may be fairly said that the
Speaker 1: surest evidence of your lack of seriousness and religion is
Speaker 1: the fact that your religions are not national, that you
Speaker 1: are not commonised and dedicated and masked to the faith.
Speaker 1: For what value has God for you if you do
Speaker 1: not surrender to Him, even formally, all your gifts and faculties,
Speaker 1: all your skill, and emotion. This is an amazing duality
Speaker 1: of allegiance. One is an Englishman first and then a Christian,
Speaker 1: an American first and then a Baptist. Your most generous,
Speaker 1: generous loyalties, your readiest sacrifices, are inspired by your nationalism.
Speaker 1: Faculties are nationalism. You claim this is typically American, this
Speaker 1: is typically British, this is typically French. You cut this
Speaker 1: off at once from God and the best of yourselves
Speaker 1: you hold with you withhold from Him. But in the
Speaker 1: Jew nation and people and faculties and culture and God
Speaker 1: are all one. We do not say I am a Jew,
Speaker 1: meaning I am a member of this nationality. The feeling
Speaker 1: in the Jew, even in the free thinking Jew like myself,
Speaker 1: is that to be one with his people is to
Speaker 1: be thereforeby admitted to the power of an enjoying the infinite.
Speaker 1: I might say of ourselves, we and God grew up together.
Speaker 1: If you want to understand exactly how people like Benjamin
Speaker 1: net Yahoo and all of these Zionists who do not
Speaker 1: believe in God can be so obsessed, can be so
Speaker 1: cult like, can be so fanatical, this is how what
Speaker 1: does he say here, I am a member of this nationality?
Speaker 1: The feeling in the Jew, even in the freethinking Jew
Speaker 1: like myself. What's he saying about free thinking? He's not
Speaker 1: part of He's not Orthodox, he's not part of some
Speaker 1: hyper religious sect. He's a free thinking Jew, an atheist.
Speaker 1: God is just from everything I've read and even things
Speaker 1: I've heard anecdotally, some Jews say their God they all
Speaker 1: are individually their God, and is one their God. That's
Speaker 1: when you come to that realization. That's so lots to
Speaker 1: think about. So it builds up a great nation, millions
Speaker 1: of human beings, schools, armies, art, galleries, books, legislatures, theaters,
Speaker 1: immense newspapers. Is not this the all in all of
Speaker 1: national achievement? The best and strongest in you? To have
Speaker 1: done this without your God is a central idea. By
Speaker 1: taking over our newspapers. It's almost like they're just mocking, like, look,
Speaker 1: how you're not even taking this seriously. You're so unserious
Speaker 1: that we just walk in and take it, We just
Speaker 1: buy it with money, and you allow it. Let me
Speaker 1: read that sentence again, because he follows it up well.
Speaker 1: To have built up a great nation, millions of human beings, schools, armies, art, galleries, books, legislatures,
Speaker 1: theaters and men's newspapers. Is not this the all in
Speaker 1: all of national achievement? The best and the strongest of
Speaker 1: you to have done this without your God is the
Speaker 1: central idea? Is that taking your religion seriously? No, any
Speaker 1: nation that takes us religious seriously is a nation of priests.
Speaker 1: Not too long after this, they're going to see a
Speaker 1: nation of priests, as he describes it. You will tell
Speaker 1: me that such things have been among you, that you
Speaker 1: have had national religions national gods. I do not believe it.
Speaker 1: I've certainly seen no evidence in any record which has
Speaker 1: come to my attention. For we must distinguish between a
Speaker 1: patron or tout or to tutelary god and a national god.
Speaker 1: The first isn't especially assigned power. The second is to
Speaker 1: complete reflex of the people, a God who was born
Speaker 1: with the people, who is to raise on detra, without
Speaker 1: whom the people would not have come into national existence.
Speaker 1: You have had paid, you have had patron or appropriated gods.
Speaker 1: We have a national god in the heart of any
Speaker 1: pious Jew. God is a Jew, is your god, an
Speaker 1: Englishman or an American? There is no real contradiction between
Speaker 1: this confessed anthropomorphism and my claim that we choose alone
Speaker 1: understand and feel the universality of God in anthromorphism. In anthromorphism,
Speaker 1: we merely symbolize God. We reduce the infinite temporarily to
Speaker 1: tangible proportions. We make it accessible to daily reference. For
Speaker 1: neither we nor you can carry on the business of
Speaker 1: ordinary living on the plane of constant abstraction. It is
Speaker 1: not because of your anthropomorphism that I accuse your religious
Speaker 1: feelings of being trivial. It is because of the manner
Speaker 1: of your anthropomorphism. It is because of what your anthropomorphism produces.
Speaker 1: And thus, by natural reaction, we, in our anthropomorphism, are
Speaker 1: all the more personal, because in our abstraction we are
Speaker 1: truly abstract, because we alone are dedicated to the infinite,
Speaker 1: our God. When anthropomorphized is our own God. I might
Speaker 1: say that there is no Jew who does not believe
Speaker 1: in God. The free thinking Jews. The agnostic or atheistic Jew,
Speaker 1: like myself, simply does not anthropomorphize him in his religious emotions.
Speaker 1: The atheistic Jew is as different from the atheistic atheist
Speaker 1: Gentile as the confessing Jew from the confessing gentile Christian.
Speaker 1: For if gods are the rationalized explanation of religious emotions.
Speaker 1: They differ in acceptance and denial. Even as these emotions differ,
Speaker 1: and of course, by religious emotions, we only mean one
Speaker 1: aspect of all emotions. Your emotions, your life reactions, differ
Speaker 1: fundamentally from ours. Why I can't tell. But as in
Speaker 1: morality you are freer, sporting, and very variegated, so your
Speaker 1: gods are many varied and manly, and our gloomy and merciless. Monotheism,
Speaker 1: intolerant and abstraction and in personification is the eternal enemy
Speaker 1: of your gods. I don't know that there's much more
Speaker 1: than I can already say that I've already said the fact.
Speaker 1: You should go and read this for yourself. It's a
Speaker 1: very short chapter. You can find PDFs online of this.
Speaker 1: Read this chapter yourself, and remember that when he gets
Speaker 1: to the end, he's going to say I'm an atheist,
Speaker 1: and then you can start to begin to realize what
Speaker 1: we're up against. All right, thank you everybody for tuning in.
Speaker 1: It's off to you in a couple of days. Take
Speaker 1: care bye. All right, let's knock out another chapter of
Speaker 1: You Gentiles by Maurice Samuel. The last one was called
Speaker 1: Gods and considering some of the comments I got. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that raised some people's ire. But uh, having read this
Speaker 1: so long ago, I'm trying to remember what this chapter
Speaker 1: is about. So I'll be rediscovering this while you're discovering
Speaker 1: it if you've never read it before. Chapter four is
Speaker 1: called utopia. The dreams of men concerning the latter days
Speaker 1: are a common index to their ideals of life, for
Speaker 1: no one will think of the future except as his own.
Speaker 1: These dreams, their close kin the night dream, are extraordinarily
Speaker 1: difficult of interpretation, much more difficult than the psychoanalysts would
Speaker 1: have us believe. But on occasions there are presented with
Speaker 1: unmistakable clarity and directness by the by the prophets. The
Speaker 1: functions of the prophet as a seer and a foeseer
Speaker 1: have been confounded. For this reason. The true prophet sees
Speaker 1: into the ultimate longings of his group, longings which may
Speaker 1: even run counter to the day's desires. These ultimate longings
Speaker 1: are shifted into the far future, beyond the reach of
Speaker 1: temporal complications and compromises, and he that unveils Amen's in
Speaker 1: most longings, when's credence is having foreseen the true finality
Speaker 1: of life, I have chosen Plato's republic in our own
Speaker 1: Hebrew prophets as the basis of contrast between your dreams
Speaker 1: of the latter days and hours, between your longings for
Speaker 1: perfection and hours. I have chosen Plato because of all
Speaker 1: the seers who have sprung up in your midst, he
Speaker 1: is the most universally adopted, and of all utopias, your
Speaker 1: thinkers refer to his most frequently, that is to say,
Speaker 1: he comes nearest to your desires. Hence, in discussing him,
Speaker 1: I am discussing you. I've used the phrase of all
Speaker 1: the seers who have sprung up in your midst because
Speaker 1: it is true that you still mention the Hebrew prophets
Speaker 1: more frequently than Plato. But it is of singular and
Speaker 1: final significance that as soon as you develop free intelligence
Speaker 1: and desire expression for it, you turn from our profits
Speaker 1: to your own. The overwhelming bulk of your intelligent discussion
Speaker 1: of life and the end of life centers around the
Speaker 1: free philosophers or seers, and among these you have made
Speaker 1: Plato preeminent. Plato's analysis of the of the analysis of
Speaker 1: the ideal life still approaches your dreams most intimately, investigating
Speaker 1: the true nature of morality. Plato bodies forth his ideal
Speaker 1: of a perfect state, and with the license of a dream,
Speaker 1: giving free reign to his imagination, unfolds step by step
Speaker 1: his famous Republic. No considerations of practicality or of feasibility
Speaker 1: were there to check the career of his fantasy. The
Speaker 1: republic is to him life as it should be and
Speaker 1: as he would like to see it. The apotheosis of
Speaker 1: human aspiration. Contrasts this with the visions of his almost
Speaker 1: contemporaries to Jewish prophets, and in this contrast you will
Speaker 1: find again the key to our essential difference. The Republic
Speaker 1: of Plato is an institution organized with infinite ingenuity and
Speaker 1: dedicated to the delights of the body of the mind.
Speaker 1: It draws its inspiration from the pure jorjois a vive
Speaker 1: of the ideal man, of a perfect physical, of perfect
Speaker 1: physical and psychic health. You would seek in vain that
Speaker 1: extraneous compulsion of a God, which to Hebrews called inspiration.
Speaker 1: There is no somber passion driving to creation, no intolerance
Speaker 1: demands impossible of fulfillment. It is not God creating man
Speaker 1: in his mold, that is man creating God or the
Speaker 1: gods in his mold gods that are companionable and comprehensible.
Speaker 1: He sets before you a pretty intriguing little model, a
Speaker 1: city not too big to lose, the characteristics of a
Speaker 1: city which sundered from universal humanity, untouched by the universal hunger,
Speaker 1: restricts supreme goods to the possession of a comfortably secreluded group.
Speaker 1: It is a city for the prosecution of the happy
Speaker 1: and artistic life. The harmonies and symmetries shall be carefully guarded,
Speaker 1: the satisfaction of body and of mind wisely and cleverly pursued. Nay,
Speaker 1: in that supreme human product, they shall even be astounding triviality.
Speaker 1: A censor. There shall even be a censor. There is
Speaker 1: a wealth of ingenuity devoted to these questions. How shall
Speaker 1: children be initiated into the art of war? How shall
Speaker 1: cowards and heroes treated? What about the plundering of the
Speaker 1: slain and the perpetuation of deeds of battle in monuments? Now?
Speaker 1: Is it not of the greatest moment that the work
Speaker 1: of war shall be well done? Or is it so
Speaker 1: easy that anyone can succeed in it and be at
Speaker 1: the same time a husbandman, or a shoemaker or a
Speaker 1: laborer or any other trade whatever, Although there is no
Speaker 1: one in the world who could become a good drought
Speaker 1: player or dice player by merely taking up the game
Speaker 1: at unoccupied moments, instead of pursuing it as his special
Speaker 1: study from childhood. And will it be enough for a
Speaker 1: man merely to handle a shield or any other of
Speaker 1: the arms and implements of war, to be straightway confident
Speaker 1: to play his part well that very day in an
Speaker 1: engagement of heavy troops, or in any other military service.
Speaker 1: Is it not the greatest moment that the work of
Speaker 1: war should be well done? This is this in a
Speaker 1: vision of human perfection? For it never occurs to Plato
Speaker 1: that perfection if in humanity precludes the possible ability of
Speaker 1: war and treating of God? He says, surely God is
Speaker 1: God in reality, and is so to be represented. But
Speaker 1: what can we make of his ultimate good? Is not
Speaker 1: his God merely a good thing? As right is for
Speaker 1: you the right thing? And what can we make of
Speaker 1: his God? When after talking of the goodness and dignity
Speaker 1: of God, he goes on to talk of the gods,
Speaker 1: and of how the poets are to be arranged for
Speaker 1: not treating them respectfully in that they make them laugh
Speaker 1: or portray them in undignified occupations and postures. Well, does
Speaker 1: he say the inquiry we are undertaking is no trivial one,
Speaker 1: but demands a keen sight. He does not say that
Speaker 1: it demands the aid of God, or of a loving heart,
Speaker 1: or hunger after righteousness. But the very question of God
Speaker 1: is a trivial one. For, as one says in this book,
Speaker 1: it is urged, neither evasion nor violence can succeed with
Speaker 1: the Gods. Well, but if they either do not exist
Speaker 1: or do not concern themselves with the affairs of men,
Speaker 1: why we need concern ourselves? Why need we concern ourselves
Speaker 1: to evade their observation. It's amazing that he's already admitted
Speaker 1: that he's an atheist, but he just keeps bringing up God.
Speaker 1: This graceful skepticism, which strikes the opening note of the book,
Speaker 1: sets the tone for the entire theme, What is justice? What?
Speaker 1: Indeed does any man that loves the true justice, not
Speaker 1: the game, ever asked this question? Can anyone truly believe
Speaker 1: that the subtlest and sk skillfulest analysis of justice will
Speaker 1: help one shot in creating love of justice? Desire for justice,
Speaker 1: a vision of the perfection of mankind, and children being
Speaker 1: trained for war. Contrast it with this. In that day
Speaker 1: there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria,
Speaker 1: and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian
Speaker 1: into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
Speaker 1: In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt
Speaker 1: and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of
Speaker 1: the land, whom the Lord of Hosts shall bless, saying,
Speaker 1: blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria the work of
Speaker 1: my hands in Israel mine inheritance, or with a better
Speaker 1: known passage. And it shall come to pass in the
Speaker 1: last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall
Speaker 1: be established on the top of the mountains, and shall
Speaker 1: be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow
Speaker 1: into it. And many people shall come and say, come,
Speaker 1: let us go up to the mountains of the Lord,
Speaker 1: to the house of the God of Jacob. And he
Speaker 1: will teach us of his ways, and we will walk
Speaker 1: in his paths. And he shall judge the nations, and
Speaker 1: shall rebuke many peoples, and they shall beat their swords
Speaker 1: into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations shall
Speaker 1: lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn any
Speaker 1: more war. I think I've said before, and Israel Shahak
Speaker 1: pointed out in his book Jewish History Jewish Religion, for
Speaker 1: a people who don't believe in God, they are addicted
Speaker 1: to this book because this They take that book to
Speaker 1: mean that it's talking about them. That is it. Is
Speaker 1: it talking about someone named Maurice Samuel from Romania? From Europe?
Speaker 1: Is it talking about a European somebody who has less
Speaker 1: DNA in him, tying him to the land of the
Speaker 1: Middle East than the average Palestinian. A vision of the
Speaker 1: perfection of mankind, with censors and with carefully groomed gods
Speaker 1: the limit of his imagination. But this and the arth
Speaker 1: shall be filled with the knowledge of God, as the
Speaker 1: water has covered the sea. And this and it shall
Speaker 1: come to pass afterward that I shall pour out my
Speaker 1: spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters
Speaker 1: shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young
Speaker 1: men shall see visions, and also upon the servants and
Speaker 1: upon the handmaids. In those days I will pour out
Speaker 1: my spirit referencing spiritual what spirit is he looking for.
Speaker 1: And because his world is not God's world and the
Speaker 1: world of his self created gods, he must sit down
Speaker 1: and argue anxiously what is justice? But he that really
Speaker 1: loves justice asks no questions. He cries instead, seek good
Speaker 1: and not evil, that ye may live. And so the Lord,
Speaker 1: the God of Hosts, shall be with you as ye
Speaker 1: have spoken, hate evil and love the good, and establish
Speaker 1: judgment in the gate, and let judgment run down his waters.
Speaker 1: And righteousness is a mighty stream. And when baffled by
Speaker 1: the inadequacy of his human standards, your philosopher refers justice
Speaker 1: to the categoric imperative, he betrays the triviality of your world.
Speaker 1: What is that categoric imperative that helpless compromise and confession?
Speaker 1: What man recognizes it will bow to it, That phrase
Speaker 1: itself as its own denial. For he that refers mankind
Speaker 1: to a categoric imparative is himself neither categoric nor imperative.
Speaker 1: But even the death will hear and tremble when the
Speaker 1: prophet thunders. Thus saith the Lord, there is the categoric imperative.
Speaker 1: For me, conscious of being Jewish and of the meaning
Speaker 1: of being Jewish. It is impossible to write of this
Speaker 1: contrast without bias, as if this book were merely an
Speaker 1: intellectual exercise. Because I am Jewish, I look with ultimate
Speaker 1: aversion on the world which finds supreme and ideal expression
Speaker 1: in Plato's Republic. And though I may repeat that this
Speaker 1: is no question of right and wrong in these two worlds,
Speaker 1: yours are ours, I cannot but feel profoundly and vehemently
Speaker 1: that ours is the way and the life. I can
Speaker 1: feel how many of you would have loved to meet
Speaker 1: him right now. Yet I would pay what tribute I
Speaker 1: can to the dreams of one like Plato. I have
Speaker 1: at least touched your world closely enough to have caught
Speaker 1: some of the beauty of its freedom. There's a Jewish
Speaker 1: legend which tells that when God brought the Law his
Speaker 1: Law to the children of Israel assembled at the foot
Speaker 1: of Sinai, after he had offered it to all the
Speaker 1: other peoples, only to have it rejected. He left them
Speaker 1: no choice, but said, either you'd take my law, or
Speaker 1: I will lift up this mountain and crush you beneath it.
Speaker 1: There are any of you who are familiar with Citeriology
Speaker 1: and the New testament thing king what I'm thinking, who's
Speaker 1: been crushed beneath it? For rejecting it? I attach no
Speaker 1: psychological significance to the fable. The practice of interpreting fables
Speaker 1: psychologically is as a rule, a dishonest one. But quote
Speaker 1: it as a handy illustration. We are not free to
Speaker 1: choose and to reject, to play, to construct, to refine.
Speaker 1: We are a dedicated, enslaved people predestined to an unchanged relationship.
Speaker 1: Freedom at large was not and is not, a Jewish
Speaker 1: ideal service love consecration. These are ideals. With us. Freedom
Speaker 1: means nothing to us. Freedom to do what? Yet in glimpses,
Speaker 1: I understand the charm of your life, and sometimes lose
Speaker 1: myself in the fascination of your Plato's dream such a world,
Speaker 1: as he foreshadows, a world of sunlight, exercise, singing fantasy,
Speaker 1: a world of graceful and elastic bodies, of keen, flashing minds,
Speaker 1: of clash and effort, war and heroes and monuments. A
Speaker 1: life wheel and dashing and splendid formations, rejoicing under free
Speaker 1: and loving scot lovely skies. A life without brooding in gloom,
Speaker 1: without the intolerable burden of this unrelaxing imminence man in
Speaker 1: man's effort, Man's love and agonies are ends in themselves
Speaker 1: to be exploited for themselves, the coming and going of
Speaker 1: men and nations and gods, or without ultimate significance, a
Speaker 1: dance of atoms, a passing ecstasy, without thought of the sinister,
Speaker 1: beyond beautiful, But not for us. While this dance goes on,
Speaker 1: while nations and gods enter the game and leave it,
Speaker 1: we continue through all time and apparition, almost a dread
Speaker 1: reminder of infinity. He is so jealous, it's ridiculous. He's
Speaker 1: so jealous that you and I can look upon beauty,
Speaker 1: that these things mean so much to us, and he
Speaker 1: rejects them out of hand. Hope singing, being able to
Speaker 1: imagine your dreams of perfection are only a piece of
Speaker 1: your present life. The transient become permanent. The skies will
Speaker 1: be blue forever, Your dance will never end, Your bodies
Speaker 1: will always be strong, your WIT's keen, your battle's glorious.
Speaker 1: The game will reach its limit of enjoyment. But for us,
Speaker 1: this is not an apotheosis, this is not a vision.
Speaker 1: For us, the end is ecstatic unity, the identification of
Speaker 1: man with God. You get the idea that God has
Speaker 1: basically every you know, there's the glory of God, which
Speaker 1: is to be worshiped, but there's also the wrath of God.
Speaker 1: There's his as church fathers have written in the past,
Speaker 1: his terribleness, the catastrophic things he can do, and you
Speaker 1: get this idea that that's the only part of God
Speaker 1: that they want associated with them. He's saying that that's
Speaker 1: the only part of God that he wants to associate with.
Speaker 1: He doesn't see joy in God. He only sees that
Speaker 1: God wants things done a certain way, and only a
Speaker 1: certain way, and everything outside of that is sin, and
Speaker 1: that's what he wants the world around him to see him.
Speaker 1: As you would like to play with your gods forever
Speaker 1: we will not we will return to God to the universe.
Speaker 1: Yours is a sunlight afternoon with a combatants swaying forever
Speaker 1: in a joyous struggle. Ours is a whole world with
Speaker 1: the spirit of God poured through all things. Your ideal
Speaker 1: is Plato's republic. Ours is God's kingdom. Yeah, I just
Speaker 1: don't it's baffling some of the some of you have
Speaker 1: commented that this is just frustrating and it is because
Speaker 1: you can't relate to it. And then that's his whole
Speaker 1: point from the beginning. We're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to that's it. Be back in a few days, all right,
Speaker 1: take care, There is a short one, but all right,
Speaker 1: everyone ready for chapter five of You Gentiles. This one
Speaker 1: is called loyalty. Whenever friendly tribute has been paid to
Speaker 1: the higher ethical nature of the Jew, let me start
Speaker 1: over again. Whenever friendly tribute has been paid to the
Speaker 1: higher ethical nature of the Jew, it has always been
Speaker 1: made to appear that the Jew obeys the law of
Speaker 1: a common morality more strictly than does the gentile. Jews
Speaker 1: and friends of Jews have wanted to make it appear
Speaker 1: that if we differ from you ethically, it is that
Speaker 1: we are more self sacrificing, more generous, more loyal, honor, honest,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I do not desire to make it appear so,
Speaker 1: and in the foregoing pages I have tried to avoid
Speaker 1: any such implication. Within our system, we need to better
Speaker 1: within our system, we need be needed, We need be
Speaker 1: neither better nor worse behave than you within yours. Not
Speaker 1: only is most of this is just such an inversion.
Speaker 1: He just writes it in such a way as to
Speaker 1: be like, oh, look, look how smart I am. He's
Speaker 1: writing in the nineteen twenties, and basically what he's trying
Speaker 1: to write in old English, or trying to write in
Speaker 1: one hundred year old English. Prior to this, we get
Speaker 1: a I'll even give you a grant you you're smart.
Speaker 1: You're smart. We may transgress as frequently as you, perhaps
Speaker 1: more frequently I cannot tell. It is on the nature
Speaker 1: of the systems that I base the distinction. We deny
Speaker 1: your very system, you hours, so that casually we must
Speaker 1: seem immoral to you, you to us. That is why
Speaker 1: even the lowest type of gentile despises the Jew, the
Speaker 1: lowest type of Jew the gentile. For it is well
Speaker 1: to remember that criminals do not deny a system of ethics,
Speaker 1: They only transgress it. To the criminal, the subverter of
Speaker 1: a nation of morality is a horrible creature, as which
Speaker 1: I have already intimated. To the coward, the pacifist is
Speaker 1: particularly abhorrent. This must spring from the fact that for
Speaker 1: the professional criminal, it is essential that humanity would otherwise,
Speaker 1: that humanity should be moral. His very existence as a
Speaker 1: criminal would otherwise be impossible. Indeed, he has more reason
Speaker 1: than anyone else to foster a sense of morality in mankind,
Speaker 1: for the more exceptional he is the better for his trade. Hence,
Speaker 1: his greatest enemy is not the policeman, for the policeman
Speaker 1: maintains a social order which is his prey, but the
Speaker 1: moral anarchist. And since the Jew is to the gentile order,
Speaker 1: and since the Jew is to the gentile order of
Speaker 1: conduct a moral anarchist, the gentile criminal who has come
Speaker 1: into contact with Jews will be the aptist to hate Jews.
Speaker 1: It is for this reason I think that criminality is
Speaker 1: so closely allied to anti Semitism. This it's the moral anarchist.
Speaker 1: And since the Jew is to the gentile order of conduct,
Speaker 1: a moral anarchist, the gentile criminal who has come into
Speaker 1: contact with Jews will be the aptist to hate Jews. Wow.
Speaker 1: In the attitude of the public towards literary and stage censorship,
Speaker 1: I find the clearest illustration of this distinction between the
Speaker 1: breaking of law and the denial of law. A play
Speaker 1: which is indecent may be so for one of two reasons.
Speaker 1: Either it deals with sex within the frame of morality,
Speaker 1: or it denies the validity of this morality. In the
Speaker 1: first case, which covers most successful plays, we have no
Speaker 1: attack on current notions of what is right and wrong
Speaker 1: in the sexual relationship. We have indeed complete acceptances of
Speaker 1: the current principles of sex morality. But with this acceptance
Speaker 1: and princip goes a generous denial. In practice, plays of
Speaker 1: this kind cover countless breaches of morality with a knowing wink,
Speaker 1: a tolerant appeal to human weakness. It is ludicrous to
Speaker 1: deny that the desire to tickle and provoke the sexual
Speaker 1: appetite and covertly to encourage its promiscuous satisfaction, governs these plays,
Speaker 1: but it is not made a principle at all. It
Speaker 1: is the breaking of the law, not the denial of it. Hence,
Speaker 1: such plays, except when they become too obvious in their
Speaker 1: purpose and thus become an overt attack and mass, are
Speaker 1: tolerated by the censorship and encouraged by the public. But
Speaker 1: the play, which has little sex appeal yet seriously denies
Speaker 1: the validity of accepted sex morality, is dealt with promptly
Speaker 1: and severely. And among those who condemn it most vigorously
Speaker 1: will be found those who frequent assiduously the first type
Speaker 1: of play, I see nothing incongruous. Incongruous in this nothing
Speaker 1: illogical even for the first type of play is perhaps
Speaker 1: the safety valve to human nature. It remits us our
Speaker 1: unavoidable allowance of license, without which morality would become an
Speaker 1: insufferable imposition. But the second type of play breaks up
Speaker 1: morality completely to the system of law. The a moralist
Speaker 1: is more dangerous than the criminal, then well, yes, But
Speaker 1: why I would say the amoralist is more dangerous than
Speaker 1: somebody who seeks to destroy morals, is more dangerous than
Speaker 1: someone who seeks to steal. But why does he think
Speaker 1: that as such? The naked chorus girl is less dangerous
Speaker 1: than the naked truth. Such a danger, a danger not
Speaker 1: merely of malpractice, but of essential denial, is the Jew
Speaker 1: in your morality and against the Jew. There is a
Speaker 1: union sucker of all classes and conditions of men, the prince,
Speaker 1: the labor or the professor, the saint, the thief, the prostitute,
Speaker 1: the soldier of the merchant. There does not seem to
Speaker 1: be a single country with a history which has not
Speaker 1: been anti Semitic at one time or another. Why why
Speaker 1: if there is a country in the world where Jews
Speaker 1: have not gone, there's no anti Semitism there. But once
Speaker 1: they show up, anti Semitism appears. And I've heard Jewish
Speaker 1: philosophers say this. They say it. I think he even
Speaker 1: said it in a previous chapter. There is no country
Speaker 1: today of which the Jew can say. In this country,
Speaker 1: anti Semitism will never become triumphant. You're dislike of us
Speaker 1: finds uneven and unequal. Expression is lulled into rest for
Speaker 1: a time. At times is overborne by generous impulses. But
Speaker 1: it is equality inherent in the nature of things. Nor
Speaker 1: is it conceivable to me that as long as there
Speaker 1: are Jews and Gentiles, it should ever disappear. Well, why
Speaker 1: for your system of morality is no less a need
Speaker 1: to you than ours to us, And the incompatibility of
Speaker 1: the two systems is not passive. You might say, well,
Speaker 1: let us exist side by side and tolerate each other.
Speaker 1: We will not attack your morality nor you hours. But
Speaker 1: the misfortune is that the two are not merely different.
Speaker 1: They are opposed in mortal though tacit enmity. No men
Speaker 1: can accept both, or accepting either to otherwise than despise
Speaker 1: the other. No single attribute or virtue shows our mutual
Speaker 1: enmity more clearly than that of loyalty, which, among all
Speaker 1: the attributes contributing to your morality, is perhaps the most
Speaker 1: dearly cherished and most vehemently advocated. It is impossible for me,
Speaker 1: in writing of it, to take up a purely analytical
Speaker 1: attitude analytic attitude, but I believe that the prefaces and
Speaker 1: aversions which I hear express will at least serve to
Speaker 1: make clear the irreconcilable difference between Jewish and gentile morality.
Speaker 1: The abstraction loyalty is not related to good or bed.
Speaker 1: Loyalty is preached naked as a virtue for itself. It
Speaker 1: is proper and right to be loyal, to do a
Speaker 1: thing out it is proper and right to be loyal.
Speaker 1: He so, I already said, he's an atheist. He's what
Speaker 1: is his philosophy? He has no philosophy. His philosophy is
Speaker 1: to call himself an atheist and then say that he
Speaker 1: obeys God. How do you deal with someone like that?
Speaker 1: It is proper and right to be loyal to do
Speaker 1: a thing out of loyalty. Loyalty to a man, to
Speaker 1: a group, to an idea is in itself a sort
Speaker 1: of justification. To develop a loyalty is in itself commendable
Speaker 1: to the jew Naked loyalty is as incomprehensible a bewildering thing.
Speaker 1: That men should be called upon to keep a quality
Speaker 1: of this virtue on constant tap, to be applied on
Speaker 1: instruction to this or that relationship is not merely irrational
Speaker 1: to us. It is beyond the apprehension of our intelligence.
Speaker 1: We can understand love born of a natural relationship, But
Speaker 1: the quality of love differs essentially from the quality of loyalty.
Speaker 1: Loyalty is demanded as an independent quality, as a thing
Speaker 1: in itself. It is cultivated. Love cannot be cultivated. He
Speaker 1: quotes cultivated. There it is stimulated and forced. It is
Speaker 1: not demanded essentially that you love. It is demanded that
Speaker 1: you be loyal. Very often, indeed, loyalty is demanded where
Speaker 1: a demand for love would be too obviously ludicrous, For
Speaker 1: the application of loyalty is to you, as seemly in
Speaker 1: the case of an association of shoe salesman, as in
Speaker 1: the case of country itself. It is expected in your
Speaker 1: world that a man should be loyal to his country,
Speaker 1: to his province, to his city, to a section of
Speaker 1: the city, to his college, to his club, to his
Speaker 1: business associations, to his fraternity, to every chance group in
Speaker 1: which events may bring him. So where you're born, your country,
Speaker 1: that's a chance group owes no loyalty. Where you live,
Speaker 1: what section you live in. No loyalty city, no loyalty
Speaker 1: section of the city, No loyalty college, No loyalty that
Speaker 1: makes sense. Club well, Fraternity well, he says, fraternity up
Speaker 1: here has to be loyalty, business associations. It's not a
Speaker 1: blind loyalty to every chance group into which events may
Speaker 1: bring him. In the first instance, country, the distinction between
Speaker 1: love and loyalty startlingly clear. Love of country is a
Speaker 1: profound spiritual quality. It may go hand in hand with
Speaker 1: a dangerous and exalted morality. But loyalty merely says, my
Speaker 1: country must triumphit all her undertakings, whether they be right
Speaker 1: or wrong, or rather, there is no such thing as
Speaker 1: my country wrong. And in loyalty to king, class or church,
Speaker 1: the same distinction or substitution is observed. Loyalty is a
Speaker 1: rigid code of behavior, not an emotion. He's just going
Speaker 1: black and white. You can have a loyalty to your country.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't even know how to say. I don't
Speaker 1: know that he knows how to separate country from government.
Speaker 1: Because nation is people, government is government. How many people
Speaker 1: have a loyalty to the nation but don't have a
Speaker 1: loyalty to this government. It's all black and white in
Speaker 1: his estimation. But the real nature of loyalty is only
Speaker 1: seen in its application to those relationships which are much
Speaker 1: more fortuitous than those of country, church, class, And these
Speaker 1: loyalty is clearly revealed as a fictitious and artificial regulation
Speaker 1: with no roots in moral conviction. Let us take the
Speaker 1: case of a young man who's faced with a choice
Speaker 1: of college. He may have preferences, but there is no
Speaker 1: compelling association which identifies him with any one institution. The
Speaker 1: choice is socided finally by some quite irrelevant influence. He
Speaker 1: goes to any one college as he might have gone
Speaker 1: to another. Well, what if his father went there, his
Speaker 1: grandfather went there, I mean, But once he is there,
Speaker 1: loyalty demands that he regard this college as the best
Speaker 1: in the country, perhaps in no particular for particulars or
Speaker 1: occasional to tangible, but at large, the best, the finest,
Speaker 1: the noblest. I never felt that in any college, I
Speaker 1: want to one to three of this college, he must
Speaker 1: think and above all, speak with enthusiasm, passion, and devotion.
Speaker 1: He must defend its name against all aspirations without investigating
Speaker 1: their foundations. If he even stops to consider the plausibility
Speaker 1: of these aspirations before denouncing them, the quality of his
Speaker 1: loyalty is already second rate, or he is just a
Speaker 1: nuanced thinker. The scholastic reputation of his college may be
Speaker 1: less than mediocre. It's staff may not number a single
Speaker 1: scholar of note. It's alumni maybe an indistinguishable mob of
Speaker 1: obscure failures. Worst of all, it's football and baseball teams
Speaker 1: maybe the laughing stock of the locality that does suck.
Speaker 1: As somebody who has been on as at least high
Speaker 1: school team that was the laughing stock of the locality.
Speaker 1: It does suck. So what, But his college is the
Speaker 1: best and noblest in the country and the world. The
Speaker 1: astonishing feature of all this being being that not only
Speaker 1: his schoolmates except him to say, expect him to say,
Speaker 1: and seem to believe so, but that everybody outside the college,
Speaker 1: convinced of its worthlessness, also expects this of him and
Speaker 1: considers him rather a cat if he acquiesces and what
Speaker 1: to them may be obviously true. I don't. I've rarely
Speaker 1: been around somebody who made their you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know you can see people who make their college
Speaker 1: and where they graduated from, and people even do this
Speaker 1: with the military, where that becomes their identity for the
Speaker 1: rest of their life. You know, if you see an
Speaker 1: older man and he's wearing the hat of the ship
Speaker 1: that he's served on or something like that, he's obviously
Speaker 1: made that his identity. I don't know how I feel
Speaker 1: about that. I mean, I just have to say to
Speaker 1: each his own, because I don't feel that way. There
Speaker 1: has to be a reason why I'd be loyal to something,
Speaker 1: not just because I've sunk money into it or something
Speaker 1: like that. That makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm different,
Speaker 1: and maybe he's right. I don't think he is. At
Speaker 1: least most of the people listening to this. This obligation
Speaker 1: of loyalty must pursue the man to the end of
Speaker 1: his life. Forty years after he had left his college.
Speaker 1: He will be regarded with suspicion as something less than
Speaker 1: a gentleman. If he should be discovered that his alma
Speaker 1: mater was is an extremely inferior and uninteresting institution. It
Speaker 1: may be all that you know, but a man's got
Speaker 1: to be loyal to his college. Who's he talking to?
Speaker 1: He heard one person say this, two people say this,
Speaker 1: and I mean basically this to me just sounds like
Speaker 1: a straw man. That's that he's erected and he's burning down.
Speaker 1: I mean sorry. Which is true of college loyal What
Speaker 1: is true of college loyalty is true of other loyalties.
Speaker 1: A man who joins the army and is assigned to
Speaker 1: any regiment must have loyalty for his regiment, which means
Speaker 1: that he must seem to lose the faculty of discrimination
Speaker 1: and criticism as soon as the regiment he was accidentally
Speaker 1: assigned to is under consideration. Should he, in later life
Speaker 1: become a member of a fraternity, of a business association,
Speaker 1: of a poker club, he must be loyal. He must
Speaker 1: be loyal even at large without an organization's be loyal too.
Speaker 1: He must be loyal to the paperman, facturing trade, to
Speaker 1: the cleaners and desires to the transport business. And if
Speaker 1: he goes down into a factory to earn by the
Speaker 1: sweat of his brow and under the bitter dress, a
Speaker 1: bare livelihood. He must at once be loyal to his employers.
Speaker 1: But the application of loyalty is sometimes pushed to extremes
Speaker 1: which are nothing short of grotesque. One finds in surface cars.
Speaker 1: One finds in surface cars, One finds in surface cars
Speaker 1: notices like this, be loyal to the Bronx, to Bensonhurst,
Speaker 1: to Wopping, to Pendleton, to Charlottenburg, to the Ring, to
Speaker 1: the Marshall Kowska to mont Martra. Sometimes I have wondered,
Speaker 1: if you live in the Bronx and are loyal to
Speaker 1: your neighborhood grocer, how long are you supposed to yearn
Speaker 1: for him after you have moved to Brooklyn? And how
Speaker 1: soon may you, with the seeming with seemliness, develop a
Speaker 1: loyalty for your neighborhood grocer in Brooklyn. He's he's fucking
Speaker 1: out of his Sorry, he's out of his mind. He's
Speaker 1: a he's a madman. Now you can make the argument
Speaker 1: that maybe people should be loyal to their local grocer.
Speaker 1: Maybe someone wants to make that argument. It's not me,
Speaker 1: But how many people do you know who've like? You know?
Speaker 1: There are believe me, when I left Atlanta, there are
Speaker 1: some things that I missed. It wasn't that I was
Speaker 1: loyal to them, It was because they were convenient and
Speaker 1: I liked them. There has to be a reason for
Speaker 1: me to be loyal. Or are you supposed to leap
Speaker 1: into your loyalties at once, as into a bathtub, and
Speaker 1: be immersed in them without a moment's loss. And similarly,
Speaker 1: how if you attend two or three colleges in succession,
Speaker 1: or are attached to a number of red mins in succession,
Speaker 1: or changes change your business or your fraternity or your
Speaker 1: poker club. It is clear to me that the very
Speaker 1: quality of loyalty and its place in your life again
Speaker 1: bespeaks the sport origin of your morality. The success of
Speaker 1: a football team depends not on the physical aptitude and
Speaker 1: fitness of its members, but also on their spirit. They're
Speaker 1: a spirit de corps. There must be atmosphere for sporting effect.
Speaker 1: It is as important as physique and must be cultivated
Speaker 1: as assiduously, as carefully, as skillfully, as artificially. Whichever team
Speaker 1: you join, your loyalty is essential to its success. And
Speaker 1: your loyalty must be instantaneous and unconditional, neither curtailed by
Speaker 1: delay nor mitigated by reflection. Your loyalty has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with ultimate moral values. It is part of the game,
Speaker 1: and life is to you a game on the football
Speaker 1: field in the college, and the factory on the battlefield.
Speaker 1: The game alone can make loyalty a transportable quality of
Speaker 1: this kind. The game alone can give birth to the
Speaker 1: concept of loyalty. In our life, the Jewish life, loyalty
Speaker 1: is unknown. There is no equivalent for it among our attributes.
Speaker 1: We understand love, which is serious, profound, which must be treated.
Speaker 1: Therefore we do dignity, But we do not understand loyalty,
Speaker 1: which is trivial, gallant game. Some conventionalized believe believe people
Speaker 1: when they tell you things that you instinctively know are true.
Speaker 1: If someone you do not trust, this is me speaking
Speaker 1: though you're just listening. If someone you do not trust
Speaker 1: says something, you go instinctively, you're in your instinct is
Speaker 1: to go, yeah, I don't know about that. But isn't
Speaker 1: it weird that you when people you trust, when they
Speaker 1: speak the truth, you know it, you know they're speaking
Speaker 1: the truth. You may actually say things like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: they just told them themselves, just revealed themselves. They said
Speaker 1: the quiet part out loud. They can't hide it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as students, we Jews are accused of lacking the right
Speaker 1: attitude towards the college. It is perfectly true that we
Speaker 1: have not the loyal attitude as you have it, or
Speaker 1: despite occasional efforts to the degree in which you have it.
Speaker 1: We are apt to see the college as an institute
Speaker 1: of learning. We go there to study under competent teachers.
Speaker 1: What has loyalty to do with this organization? We may
Speaker 1: develop love for the place, it may in later years
Speaker 1: become a beloved memory, or it may not. But we
Speaker 1: cannot attach an immediate combative value to our connection with
Speaker 1: the college and instantaneous regimental pride. We cannot attach a
Speaker 1: moral value to the prescribed set of sporting emotions and
Speaker 1: thrills which are supposed to be a proper part of
Speaker 1: college life. I'm maybe it's just my experience and my lifetime,
Speaker 1: but if anybody knows, like back then this is written
Speaker 1: I think in twenty two, twenty three, nineteen twenty two,
Speaker 1: twenty three, twenty four. If you know that it was
Speaker 1: different on college campuses back then, that people were almost
Speaker 1: demanded a loyalty, let me know that'd be interesting history
Speaker 1: to look into actually continuing, we are unquestionably an alien
Speaker 1: spirit in your colleges, I would say everywhere within our society.
Speaker 1: For your colleges are the most coherent mouthpieces of your morality,
Speaker 1: and that morality is not ours. Your college is a
Speaker 1: miniature world in which you first developed the sporting instincts
Speaker 1: which must accompany you through the real world. We, with
Speaker 1: our proper exceptions, see the college only as a center
Speaker 1: of study and incidentally, occasionally of valued friendships. The idea
Speaker 1: of a rivalry with other colleges in which each student
Speaker 1: must defend his own college seems us childlike. It is
Speaker 1: not to the purpose, to the purpose at all. It
Speaker 1: is not serious. College to them is also a place
Speaker 1: to set up secret society so that they can push
Speaker 1: Zionism get us into world wars. That seems kind of important.
Speaker 1: But I have touched on the college only as a
Speaker 1: single illustration of the predominance of the virtue of loyalty
Speaker 1: in the concept. In your concept of the proper human relationship,
Speaker 1: all your society is divided into teams with a fictitious
Speaker 1: morality to correspond. It has little to do with direct utilitarianism.
Speaker 1: One might object saying this morality like any other, is
Speaker 1: merely the adjunct of the economic or biologic struggle. What
Speaker 1: we call morality is merely the assistant illusion in the
Speaker 1: struggle for existence. And in this regard, Gentile and Jew
Speaker 1: are alike. But this is an irrelevant truth. There was
Speaker 1: a time when among you gentiles, one man would courteously
Speaker 1: challenge another to mortal combat, without real motive, without enmity,
Speaker 1: without passion. So it was when no excuse for combat
Speaker 1: was available, you dropped even the pretense of an excuse.
Speaker 1: Do not answer that this was a passing phase. For
Speaker 1: I say that when men actually kill each other from
Speaker 1: mere sport, it betokens a profound, almost eternal instinct. That
Speaker 1: instinct today finds expression and equally moral less relations, equally
Speaker 1: passionless associations and enmities. You arrange your life in such
Speaker 1: wise as to get the maximum of sport out of it,
Speaker 1: And for the purpose of sport. It does not matter
Speaker 1: to which team you belong England or America, Harvard or Yale,
Speaker 1: the Black Watch or the Old Guard, the Neighborhood Association
Speaker 1: of Wigan or the Rotarians of Los Angeles. The good
Speaker 1: Rich Rubber Factory or the Sunlight Soap Garden Club, the
Speaker 1: Alpha Sigma MoU or the ninety five Club, the Progressive
Speaker 1: Republicans or the Decorators Association, the United Cigar Makers or
Speaker 1: the FASCISTI. There's good fun in all this. It is exciting, jolly, sporty.
Speaker 1: It puts Russian gaiety into life. But we Jews are
Speaker 1: no good at it. Just as we are inaccessible to
Speaker 1: the meaningless exhilaration of college loyalty, so are we bewildered
Speaker 1: by the fast and furious games of your general life.
Speaker 1: We Jews cannot play the game. Perhaps you will answer
Speaker 1: that it is you who taking the chance relationships of life,
Speaker 1: as the all in all of existence, are really serious.
Speaker 1: That it argues seriousness in a man if he gives
Speaker 1: the every passing association, all faculties, all his emotion, such
Speaker 1: an argument would be a quibble. A woman may take
Speaker 1: an absorbing interest in dress to the exclusion of everything else.
Speaker 1: One could hardly call her serious serious absorption and trivialities
Speaker 1: is not seriousness. Then you may answer me, but all
Speaker 1: life is a triviality, which would reveal clearly the difference
Speaker 1: between your outlook and ours. No one's saying that. No
Speaker 1: one said that, Oh man, This truly is a look
Speaker 1: behind the curtain. So if you want to read this book,
Speaker 1: if you want to get it for yourself, go to
Speaker 1: Analope Hill and get it there. I think Kevin McDonald
Speaker 1: and I forget who who does the uh the intro
Speaker 1: for it? Let me see you? And so sorry about that.
Speaker 1: I should have had this pulled up Antelope pill. Oops. Sorry,
Speaker 1: there we go. Yeah, the there is and there's a
Speaker 1: forward by Kevin McDonald, So yeah, okay, so that's it.
Speaker 1: There's a forward by Kevin McDonald, so you might want
Speaker 1: to check that out. It's one hundred and fifty pages
Speaker 1: over there. And I have a promo code. That's not
Speaker 1: why I'm showing Analope pill. It's just that this is
Speaker 1: a you know, this is a company that I like,
Speaker 1: and you can use my promo code. It's Pete Pete
Speaker 1: Q and you get five percent off. But yeah, if
Speaker 1: you want to follow along with this and or you know,
Speaker 1: just this is probably a book you should have. It's
Speaker 1: a good reference. But yeah, I'll continue this on in
Speaker 1: a couple of days. We will look at chapter six,
Speaker 1: which is discipline. All right, everyone, take care, see you
Speaker 1: a couple of days, all right, let's knock out Chapter six,
Speaker 1: A Few Gentiles by Maurice Samuel. I know you all
Speaker 1: are enjoying this so much, but a lot of you
Speaker 1: have heard of this haven't had a chance to read it,
Speaker 1: So we'll read it together. Chapter six is called discipline.
Speaker 1: Do you get the idea there's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of projection here or I don't know. We shall
Speaker 1: see one of the best illustrations wherewith to contrast your
Speaker 1: adaptability to discipline in our li lack of it is
Speaker 1: to be found in the difference between your behavior in
Speaker 1: church and our behavior and our unmodernized synagogue, the Orthodox synagogue.
Speaker 1: In church, all is order, intocorum, rhythm and regime. In
Speaker 1: the synagogue, all is chaos. In the church, leaders and
Speaker 1: responses are carefully prepared, carefully followed and observed. It is
Speaker 1: clean and neat, charming and exact. You behave well, you
Speaker 1: do as you are told. In Mass, you create a
Speaker 1: spear of the core. In the church, there is a
Speaker 1: suggestive hypnotizing decency in the trained correctness of your service.
Speaker 1: In the synagogue, all is disorder. We talk during service,
Speaker 1: we answer out a turn, and when we answer in Mass,
Speaker 1: one begins earlier another ends later. It is babbel itself.
Speaker 1: People walk in and out, Some take longer than others,
Speaker 1: who get through a certain prayer, and the ones who
Speaker 1: read more rapidly chat in the end. Part of the
Speaker 1: congregation is standing, part sitting somewhere prayer shawls others do not,
Speaker 1: and the perishawls are not all alike. Sometimes there is
Speaker 1: so much babbling that the voice of the cant or
Speaker 1: leader cannot be heard. One of you at our services
Speaker 1: would be amazed. Our own young generation, which has picked
Speaker 1: up your ways, is disgusted, and the last couple of
Speaker 1: generations has seen reform synagogues conducted on your models. He's
Speaker 1: specifically talking about Catholic and Orthodox here, and more of
Speaker 1: the high Church if you know that term, the difference
Speaker 1: between high Church and low Church. And yeah, I would
Speaker 1: have say there's middle churches too, but I don't want
Speaker 1: to dive too deep into that. So yeah, I think
Speaker 1: he's talking a little more about h He's talking about
Speaker 1: high Church here. Taking this illustration as one fairly may
Speaker 1: of model discipline and lack of it, we may say
Speaker 1: as is offer and said, you Gentiles are discipline, we
Speaker 1: Jews are not. And it is not in church and
Speaker 1: synagogue alone that we find this contrast. It persists equally
Speaker 1: clear cut in all branches of organized life. Compare any
Speaker 1: gentile institution with an uncorrupted corresponding institution in Jewish life,
Speaker 1: and you will observe it at your secular public assemblies,
Speaker 1: the same decency and unified restraint at ours, the same
Speaker 1: scrambling irregularity. Jewish meetings never begin on time, never end
Speaker 1: on time, so you're on your own schedule, your own clock.
Speaker 1: You don't show up on time. So comments I've made
Speaker 1: about being like another group pretty much land okay. In
Speaker 1: your clubs and societies, order in harmony. In ours, noise, disorder,
Speaker 1: and wastage. Your programs are observed with fair strictness. Our
Speaker 1: programs are merely points to the part in your homes,
Speaker 1: calm and even systematization. In ours, boisterous affections, formlessness, and
Speaker 1: despite much effort, we cannot introduce your rhythmic exercise of
Speaker 1: discipline into our life and retain our individuality. We can
Speaker 1: imitate you excellently, produce a substitute as good as the original.
Speaker 1: Can definitely imitate, and you get fool some people. But
Speaker 1: the institution then no longer has Jewish spirit. It is
Speaker 1: a gentile institution artificially maintained by Jews, like our reformed temples,
Speaker 1: and in these the jew gradually learns to present a
Speaker 1: gentile exterior. But wherever we are unrestrainedly Jewish, we shock
Speaker 1: you by our uncouthness. We lack social grace, the disciplined
Speaker 1: and distinguished social grace of high society, as well as
Speaker 1: the mean and spiritless, punk punctiliousness of your middle classes.
Speaker 1: In the colleges, in the street and the surface cars,
Speaker 1: in the clubs, in the army, we betray ourselves. Indeed,
Speaker 1: your very breaches of discipline differ from ours by a
Speaker 1: certain conscious rebelliousness, which is partly homage. Our breaches a
Speaker 1: discipline are offhand, unconscious and insolent. Okay, So if you're
Speaker 1: my age, and I mean it's a classic, so I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people have seen it. The movie
Speaker 1: Caddyshack Rodney d Angelfield. Rodney plays a guy who, you
Speaker 1: know it, wants to be part of this club, and
Speaker 1: this club is orderly, has a way of doing things,
Speaker 1: and he comes and he wrecks it. And the whole
Speaker 1: point of that movie is to make you think that
Speaker 1: Rodney's the good guy and the other ones to the
Speaker 1: bad guys. I think what really reveals it about the
Speaker 1: movie is when he reveals what he does for a living.
Speaker 1: He's made his money by building low cost housing, and
Speaker 1: he implies in nice neighborhoods. So I think it's funny
Speaker 1: that Rodney Dangerfield and his character in that movie basically
Speaker 1: reflect what he's saying here and carrying this still further.
Speaker 1: We choose the most clannish of peoples and helplessly disorganized.
Speaker 1: We have never achieved compared of unity, not even in
Speaker 1: a single territory, much less throughout the world. All our
Speaker 1: organizations are small, but never too small to be unwieldly
Speaker 1: because of dissension, and worse than dissension, because of unameniability
Speaker 1: and amenability to regular discipline. To those who have known
Speaker 1: the comparative evenness of your organization's political, religious, social, commercial,
Speaker 1: we are an unsightly people, and every effort to impose
Speaker 1: this sense of form on us only accentuates our formlessness.
Speaker 1: This distinction between us again points to the root difference
Speaker 1: between us, your triviality and our seriousness. The fact is,
Speaker 1: of course, that in true discipline and effectiveness. We are
Speaker 1: by no means your inferiors. No one would dream of
Speaker 1: asserting that our religion is not more effective than yours
Speaker 1: in compelling obedience or in perpetuating itself. Remember he's he's
Speaker 1: an atheist. But I'm probably going to say this over
Speaker 1: and over again. But remember he's an atheist. What is
Speaker 1: the purpose of this religion to an atheist? Why does
Speaker 1: he keep talking about it? The mere fact that we
Speaker 1: have persisted for eighty generations and maintaining a racial and
Speaker 1: spiritual identity in the face of so much persecution, and
Speaker 1: more significant, of so much infiltration of blood, bespeaks essential discipline,
Speaker 1: of amazing rigor and power. Hmm. Do I want to
Speaker 1: get into Kasari and ah? Leave that? We talk enough
Speaker 1: about that? On two hundred years together and other places.
Speaker 1: Disorganized as we are, we have outlived the most ably
Speaker 1: organized nations. We have failed to imitate the Roman legion
Speaker 1: or the Order of Jesus. We have survived the first,
Speaker 1: and shall no doubt outlived the second. We have not
Speaker 1: your skill, your German or English or American skill, and
Speaker 1: wheeling perfectly vast masses of perfectly subordinated men. Yet I
Speaker 1: have no doubt that when Germany and England and America
Speaker 1: will know well long have lost their present identity or
Speaker 1: name or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours well.
Speaker 1: Who's responsible for Germany, England and America losing their present
Speaker 1: identity or name or purpose? For true discipline should always
Speaker 1: be seen in relation to a purpose. Your discipline is
Speaker 1: goose step discipline. Remember you wrote this in the early
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties. Your discipline is goose step discipline. It is
Speaker 1: the hypnotic discipline of imposing rhythms possible only in the
Speaker 1: absence of the individual discipline. There is hypnotic charm in
Speaker 1: your discipline, but it is not effective. As soon as
Speaker 1: the organization crumbles, the individuals are lost. We have never
Speaker 1: been the victims of organization. Your organization. Discipline, moreover, is
Speaker 1: a necessary part of your sport life. Games cannot be
Speaker 1: conducted without discipline. Discipline is the essence of a game.
Speaker 1: When two perfectly disciplined beings are opposed, the game is
Speaker 1: at its best, and the same feeling runs through all
Speaker 1: your manifestations of life. The game of nationalisms, the game
Speaker 1: of society, the game of commercial success. The most startling
Speaker 1: and compelling monuments of your gentile genius are not individual productions,
Speaker 1: but the productions of mass. Most of the wonders of
Speaker 1: the ancient world were wonders springing out of the great
Speaker 1: organized rhythmic effort, and your chief wonders today, those which
Speaker 1: dominate your general life are like these great buildings, great countries,
Speaker 1: great ships, great wars, great the Pyramids, the Olympic, the
Speaker 1: Colossus of Roads, the Hanging Gardens, the Eiffel Tower and
Speaker 1: the Woolworth Building, the Red Cross, the Catholic Church Babylon,
Speaker 1: New York, the Daily Mail. These are the distinctive triumphs
Speaker 1: of your civilization. The final appeal an individual ingenuity is
Speaker 1: subordinated to the production of your mass effects, your discipline monsters.
Speaker 1: What single individuals can alone affect, play, what single individuals
Speaker 1: can alone effect plays a very minor role in your
Speaker 1: way of life. Mass and rhythm and teamwork the game
Speaker 1: that is your ideal. It is not ours, and we
Speaker 1: are impressed only superficially and transiently by their productions. The
Speaker 1: individual is our climax, as the mass as yours. One
Speaker 1: hundred thousand men labored for twenty years to build the
Speaker 1: Great Pyramid. One man wrote the Book of Isaiah, you
Speaker 1: will answer. One man also wrote Hamlet and the Critique
Speaker 1: of Pure Reason and the Republic. But I ask our
Speaker 1: Plato and Shakespeare and Kant in your life, what the Bible,
Speaker 1: the Talmud, and the Rabbis are in ours? To our
Speaker 1: very masses, the Jewish masses, the wonders of the world
Speaker 1: are Moses, Elijah, the Rambam, the Vilon, the Domna, Maguide,
Speaker 1: the Hasid in the neighboring village. These actually dominate our life,
Speaker 1: as governments, mass radio exploits, armies and woolwards dominate years.
Speaker 1: We are the people of the book, but we were the
Speaker 1: people of the book before a million copies could be
Speaker 1: printed in a single day. The intractability of ours to
Speaker 1: your disciplines is one of our chief and to you,
Speaker 1: most unpleasant characteristics. It is best noticeable in our new
Speaker 1: arrivals in western countries, those who Eastern and Eastern ghettos
Speaker 1: have lived a more nearly Jewish life. It is much
Speaker 1: less noticeable in our modernized types through here, though here
Speaker 1: still noticeable, for despite our clever imitativeness, we do not
Speaker 1: retain our natural character and cannot hide it consistently, but
Speaker 1: betray ourselves at intervals in the colleges and the army.
Speaker 1: Least here except during the Great War, for in peacetime
Speaker 1: only the westernized Jews joined the army. In business associations,
Speaker 1: we irritate and disgust you by our obdurate, seeming singularity.
Speaker 1: We don't fit in properly. We don't keep a straight
Speaker 1: line on the social or public parade. We don't cheer
Speaker 1: in unison, we don't bow with the waving of the
Speaker 1: wand we don't play the game. He's separating palest settlement
Speaker 1: and Eastern Jews from Western Jews, and he's degrading, and
Speaker 1: he's insulting in his own way, the Western Jews. And
Speaker 1: he's raising up those who came out of the stettles,
Speaker 1: those who didn't even know that there was a continent
Speaker 1: called America until the early nineteenth century. You can read
Speaker 1: about that in Israel Shahak's book Jewish History Jewish Religion.
Speaker 1: When the first Jewish book, when the first Jewish history
Speaker 1: book outside of their own history, was written, they did
Speaker 1: not include America because it was impossible that America existed.
Speaker 1: He's basically saying the Jew who has been Europeanized is
Speaker 1: not as good as the one who hates you. If
Speaker 1: you've been following two hundred years together, you understand there's
Speaker 1: a reason why when German and European Jews came here.
Speaker 1: You hear this all the time. Oh, Jews were kept
Speaker 1: out of golf clubs. They weren't allowed to join golf clubs.
Speaker 1: And you know who kept them out, European Jews because
Speaker 1: they thought that the Eastern Jews, the palest Settlement, the
Speaker 1: Jews that came from Russia, I will not say Russian Jews,
Speaker 1: but the Jews who were in Russia, Ukraine, palest Settlement, Poland,
Speaker 1: they looked down upon them. Well, why you're reading it,
Speaker 1: we're reading it together. This is comprehensibly irritating in the
Speaker 1: highest degree. And in your irritation you have ascribed these
Speaker 1: in actions to our savagery. You have said, we are
Speaker 1: not fit for civilization. We have not the ability to
Speaker 1: subordinate the individuals of the community, or if we have
Speaker 1: the ability, we have not the desire, not having the
Speaker 1: ethical impulse with us. You have said it is every
Speaker 1: man for himself. We are too impudent individually. We cannot
Speaker 1: behave as gentlemen should, unobtrusively submissive to the code tacit
Speaker 1: unassertive regular This is what you mean saying we are undisciplined.
Speaker 1: But the fact is that we consciously despise the code itself.
Speaker 1: It is not that we recognize its validity and refuse
Speaker 1: to submit to it out of individual and selfish reasons.
Speaker 1: It is rather that the whole game disgusts us, and
Speaker 1: your seriousness in it. Most of all, it is to
Speaker 1: us a ludicrous and not an impressive thing to see
Speaker 1: ten thousand grown up men, a large proportion of them
Speaker 1: actually marching in step up and down a street or
Speaker 1: across the field. This blaring of the trumpets, this beating
Speaker 1: of the drums, this left right, left right, this rhythmic
Speaker 1: snappy form force, this intoxication of united mass movement, which
Speaker 1: sends you, gentiles frantic with excitement, is a laughable exhibition
Speaker 1: to us, Foolish gentiles, we say contentiously to us, ten
Speaker 1: thousand fools are no more impressive than a single fool.
Speaker 1: Where you see the flash of swinging ranks, a mighty
Speaker 1: lifting and falling power magnificence, we see only ten thousand
Speaker 1: serious faced men engage in astonishing antics with astonishing skill.
Speaker 1: The best that you can say about what he's saying here,
Speaker 1: is that sure? Yeah? I mean, you know, we're a
Speaker 1: tight knit group, but we all do our own thing,
Speaker 1: and we really only come together to defeat you, to
Speaker 1: fight you. Whereas you got your default is to be
Speaker 1: as one. But you have this discipline about you that
Speaker 1: doesn't allow you to do the things we're willing to do.
Speaker 1: The drill of your regiments, the drill of your colleges,
Speaker 1: of your social usages, your clubs all impress us alike
Speaker 1: with their triviality. We do not understand it. Perhaps you
Speaker 1: will reply that this contempt is merely rationalization. We despise
Speaker 1: discipline because we lack it, and secretly we aspire to
Speaker 1: acquire it. But in fact, it is the most severely
Speaker 1: disciplined Jew who most heartily despises your disciplines. It is
Speaker 1: to modernize Jew who has thrown off the discipline of
Speaker 1: Orthodox Judaism, who comes nearest your spirit. It is the
Speaker 1: Orthodox Jew, the most Jewish Jew, who least understands you.
Speaker 1: Remember he's saying he doesn't believe in God? Why is
Speaker 1: he siding with the Orthodox Jew? Does the Orthodox Jew
Speaker 1: believe in God? And it is this Orthodox Jew this
Speaker 1: ghetto Jew, who whose apparent individualism deprives his mass life
Speaker 1: of all form and discipline. It is the Orthodox Jew
Speaker 1: who seems, of all Jews to be least accessible to
Speaker 1: your orderliness. It is this Orthodox Jew who nevertheless submits
Speaker 1: to an amazing discipline unknown to most of you. I
Speaker 1: have said that the obstinate maintenance of our identity and
Speaker 1: our religion through eighty generations of oppression, bespeaks a rigorous
Speaker 1: and effective discipline. But what that discipline is in practice
Speaker 1: you do not realize. The Orthodox Jew submits to an
Speaker 1: unrelaxing regime which you gentiles would find intolerable. It governs
Speaker 1: him in all his actions, from birth to death. That
Speaker 1: controls and directs with an iron hand, his daily occupations.
Speaker 1: It pervades with obsessive eminence every moment of his time,
Speaker 1: every moment, every function. The Orthodox Jew begins a day
Speaker 1: with long prayer, closes it with long prayer. He cannot
Speaker 1: take a glass of water without a prayer. He cannot
Speaker 1: satisfy his physical needs without a prayer. He stops for
Speaker 1: long intervals afternoon and evening to pray. The discipline extends
Speaker 1: to his relations with his wife. It imposes on him
Speaker 1: the obligation of study. It binds him to daily and
Speaker 1: hourly use of a language Hebrew, artificially maintained. It intersperses
Speaker 1: his years with numerous facts and feasts, each with its
Speaker 1: enormous burden of ritual and tradition. All this over and
Speaker 1: above the fierce discipline of the world's enmity and contempt,
Speaker 1: the discipline of me your existence in an alien and
Speaker 1: unfriendly atmosphere. Much of this religious ritual covers eventualities which
Speaker 1: you would regard as secular dietetic laws, sanitary laws, sex laws,
Speaker 1: social laws. For all life is religion to the jew
Speaker 1: and all life proceeding from God must be governed by him.
Speaker 1: But when the ritual is reduced to what even you
Speaker 1: would call the religious, it still presents a bulk of
Speaker 1: tyranny to which you would never submit, a discipline which
Speaker 1: you are incapable of suffering, a discipline which demands incessant
Speaker 1: vigilance lest a prayer be omitted, A discipline that detail
Speaker 1: that a discipline, the details of which it takes years
Speaker 1: to acquire, and into which one must be trained from childhood.
Speaker 1: And what is most relevant in this connection is that
Speaker 1: this discipline is a corporate discipline. It is directed to
Speaker 1: a common purpose outside of the individual, to the perpetuation
Speaker 1: of a people through its religion. In our religious ideology,
Speaker 1: the selfish salvation of the individual soul is a very
Speaker 1: minor theme. It is I believe in acquired dogma, and
Speaker 1: its irrelevance is proved by its unimportance. Our prayers are
Speaker 1: largely common prayers. We pray little attention to the afterlife,
Speaker 1: and even our dreams of an afterlife are associated with
Speaker 1: the Jewish people as a whole. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: As individuals We sometimes pray for personal benefits, but so
Speaker 1: infrequently that we could omit these prayers without changing the
Speaker 1: bulk of our ritual. Most of our prayers, or prayers
Speaker 1: of glorification, they link the people as a whole to
Speaker 1: God's service. They praise God for the burdens he has
Speaker 1: placed upon us, and with passionate iteration, they thank Him
Speaker 1: for having made us different from you. Again, he has
Speaker 1: said he does not believe in God. It does not
Speaker 1: need a Jewish scholar. It needs only an intelligent jew
Speaker 1: who has lived in an Orthodox or semi Orthodox environment
Speaker 1: to appreciate that all this tyranny of discipline was bent
Speaker 1: to one end, to our preservation as a distinct and
Speaker 1: separate people. We feel that we are not merely different
Speaker 1: from you. At points. It is a totality of difference
Speaker 1: and of separation, which they don't want. We have carried
Speaker 1: out with us into exile. The complete atmosphere of our
Speaker 1: national life, our holy festivals are largely national, and even
Speaker 1: in those which are predominantly religious, there is the continuous
Speaker 1: minor theme of our separate nationalism. One holiday celebrates celeberation
Speaker 1: of the Jewish people from Egypt, another the deliverance of
Speaker 1: the people from the Asiatic Greek oppressor, another the confusion
Speaker 1: of a national enemy. Still others celebrate the time of
Speaker 1: the Palestinian Harvests, the irony and tragedy of it, with
Speaker 1: appropriate prayers and ceremonies. And even in our pure religious festivals,
Speaker 1: the memory of our national institutions, our Temple, our hereditary priesthood,
Speaker 1: maintains an unbroken background of suggestion. In eighty seventy, when
Speaker 1: the temple was destroyed, and it was destroyed, so were
Speaker 1: the birth records. Think about that they're all gone. Nobody
Speaker 1: calling themselves a Jew can prove that they have any
Speaker 1: connection to that land, they have any connections to jud
Speaker 1: to historic Judaism, to that temple, to that regil industry,
Speaker 1: It's all gone. And with these recurrent climaxes in our
Speaker 1: religious life, dominated by the national consciousness, the general tenor
Speaker 1: of all our religion repeats this theme from day to day.
Speaker 1: The discipline of our religion, of our Jewishness, is a
Speaker 1: corporate discipline, the subjection of the individual to the mass.
Speaker 1: I repeat this to remind you that, contrary to your accusation,
Speaker 1: the intractability of the jew to your forms of discipline
Speaker 1: does not spring from individualism or from lack of a
Speaker 1: social consciousness conscience. We are disciplined more bitterly than you,
Speaker 1: and we bear the discipline without the assistance of narcotic rhythms.
Speaker 1: We bear our burden like civilized adults. Nor do I
Speaker 1: see any contradiction between this fierce insistence on separate national
Speaker 1: existence and our dedication to a universal ideal. We believe
Speaker 1: and feel that for such as an ideal, we alone,
Speaker 1: as a people, possessed you especial aptitude. The Orthodox Jew
Speaker 1: bases it on divine will and choice. Others like myself
Speaker 1: know not on what to base it. A special racial psychology,
Speaker 1: the results of inbreeding, the results of accident, but believe
Speaker 1: it nonetheless. Me repeat that again. The Orthodox Jew bases
Speaker 1: it on divine will and choice, others like myself. He's
Speaker 1: not an Orthodox Jew, but he is. He does this
Speaker 1: trick where he's trying to when he talks about the Orthodox,
Speaker 1: he's trying to include himself in there, although he says
Speaker 1: he's not. But by continually bringing up the Orthodox, it's
Speaker 1: you have a tendency to relate it to him, but
Speaker 1: he's not. Others like myself. No, no, not on what
Speaker 1: to base it. A special racial psychology, the result of inbreeding,
Speaker 1: the results of accident, but believe it nonetheless, there's a
Speaker 1: lot there. We shall not further that ideal by losing
Speaker 1: our identity to mingle with you and be lost in
Speaker 1: you would mean to destroy the aptitude forever. Thus universal
Speaker 1: ideal and national identity are inextricably bound up to the
Speaker 1: maintenance of this high union. We have given, consciously, seriously,
Speaker 1: without kings and courts, without metals and reviews and orders,
Speaker 1: without cheering, and without drills, a bitter and obstinate devotion,
Speaker 1: more exacting than anything you have known, and in its
Speaker 1: deliberate effects, more successful. What's he got? What's the next job? Oh?
Speaker 1: The reckoning? All right, we will save that for next time.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just a bundle of contradictions. It's
Speaker 1: extremely difficult to figure. I think the best comment I've
Speaker 1: gotten so far from somebody who's been reading along and
Speaker 1: listening to this is he is just a bitter, angry
Speaker 1: and just someone you wouldn't want to be around, which
Speaker 1: is all well and good. But they insist upon being
Speaker 1: around us. People like him insist upon being around this.
Speaker 1: It's like doctor Johnson says, individually, you know, you make
Speaker 1: choices you grow up. If you grow up in a
Speaker 1: certain area, you're going to know, you're going to know
Speaker 1: some people who are Jewish, and some you're really gonna like,
Speaker 1: and some you're gonna be like, eh, whatever. But really,
Speaker 1: what it's what it what it all comes down to
Speaker 1: is how does a group act if they're acting in
Speaker 1: their own self interest? As this whole thing that he's
Speaker 1: written here so far as self serving. Well, then there's
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. Anyway, that's it. I'll be back
Speaker 1: in a couple of days with uh. Chapter was this seven? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Chapter seven? Take care? All right? My apologies. I've been uh,
Speaker 1: I've been really busy, and I know it's been about
Speaker 1: eight days since I did chapter six, but I'm back
Speaker 1: ready to read, and let's continue. You Gentiles by Maurice Samuel.
Speaker 1: Chapter seven is called the Reckoning. I've spoken of Jews
Speaker 1: and Gentiles in mass. Certain of you will assuredly object.
Speaker 1: You cannot deal with masses as with men. You cannot
Speaker 1: indict a nation. The objection is futile. Not only has
Speaker 1: it been the universal practice to indict and to punish
Speaker 1: masses as if they had personality, and to treat nations
Speaker 1: as such, but you're doing it today everywhere. I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting because you know, he's getting ready to indicte
Speaker 1: US as a whole, specifically probably Americans as a nation.
Speaker 1: And I wonder how he would have felt about indicting Israel.
Speaker 1: I would almost guarantee that every Israeli and every Jew
Speaker 1: would have to be judges an individual. And I believe
Speaker 1: the fundamentally the practice is just, despite the objections of
Speaker 1: the few whom I shall answer here, particularly consonant is
Speaker 1: to practice with your gentile philosophy. Here is your nation X.
Speaker 1: It is composed of militarists and pacifists and mobs. The
Speaker 1: government is militaristic. Whether it represent a minority or a majority, well,
Speaker 1: now it represents in its militarism, especially in the Western Asia,
Speaker 1: if you want to call it the Middle East, it
Speaker 1: represents Israel Jews. And the militaristic government engages the whole
Speaker 1: country in its acts, is responsible for a war for oppression.
Speaker 1: How shall we treat that nation. Single out the militarists
Speaker 1: and pacifists go into the workings of it. Separate out,
Speaker 1: separate out the constituent elements. You cannot. Every member of
Speaker 1: that country is a member of the team. Must take
Speaker 1: the good with the bad, must pay the debts contracted
Speaker 1: by the government. It cannot be in nation otherwise. I'm
Speaker 1: going to apply that to Israel, mister Samuel, and I
Speaker 1: guess you have to apply it to this government too,
Speaker 1: because yeah, Israel's taken over and we've pretty much allowed it.
Speaker 1: Social engineering is the social engineering regime has been rough,
Speaker 1: and I know people don't like to hear this, but
Speaker 1: we have been victims of it. We've been subjected to
Speaker 1: it our whole lives, our parents, grandparents, all of us.
Speaker 1: How else would we how else would this government support
Speaker 1: such a disgusting anachronism like Israel. This from your point
Speaker 1: of view, and from the point of view of the
Speaker 1: workings of justice, that happens to be less defensible when
Speaker 1: the whole of a nation reaps reward or punishment, a
Speaker 1: rough general justice is executed. If it is only the
Speaker 1: will of a minority which has brought on catastrophe, and
Speaker 1: the majority must pay, then it pays for having suffered
Speaker 1: the will of the minority. H Well, I mean makes sense.
Speaker 1: You know, we've been suffering the will of a minority
Speaker 1: for a while now. Had the German masses foreseeing defeat
Speaker 1: and its consequences, Germany would never have gone war. Militaristic,
Speaker 1: militarist minority or none. The masses which obeyed their masters
Speaker 1: readily or sullenly must pay for the obedience which gave
Speaker 1: their masters strength. And the same is true of every
Speaker 1: other nation which is guilty. I mean, I believe in,
Speaker 1: you know, metaphysical justice. We allowed ourselves to be taken
Speaker 1: over by a foreign entity and we're paying for it.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of you won't believe that and
Speaker 1: won't accept that, but pretty true if you think about it.
Speaker 1: If you want to get past the cognitive dissonance, all
Speaker 1: extenuation is irrelevant. How shall the majority learn that it
Speaker 1: must not acquiesce indolently in the will of the minority,
Speaker 1: shall it not suffer the consequences of its indolence? A slow,
Speaker 1: almost impossible process, but assuredly a just one for the
Speaker 1: impotent or corrupt. Acquiesce of a acquiescence of the majority
Speaker 1: made the minority effective. But if, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: a nation suffers for the will of its majority and
Speaker 1: the minority suffers with the majority, then very clearly effective
Speaker 1: justice is being wrought, and just as clearly as the
Speaker 1: payments opposed to alter the will of the nation. You
Speaker 1: look at Israel now and probably yep, yeah, yeah. Just
Speaker 1: hold this, hold Israel up to a mirror. I think
Speaker 1: a lot a lot of people on our side, even
Speaker 1: people listening to this, watching this, I think Israel's like winning.
Speaker 1: I don't know how anyone who's paying attention could think that.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm not black pilled. So I want to
Speaker 1: allow people to black pill me. I know more than
Speaker 1: a lot of people. I will not say I know
Speaker 1: more than you, because that would be speaking generally, but
Speaker 1: I know more than a lot of people. We've seen
Speaker 1: this before, You've seen this in history. As long as
Speaker 1: there are nations in groups, these laws must hold. And
Speaker 1: as soon as these laws collapse, nations and groups will
Speaker 1: see to be It is not meaningless to say this
Speaker 1: nation is parsimonious, this nation is treacherous, this nation is cruel.
Speaker 1: It is a relevant answer. You must judge by the individual,
Speaker 1: not by the nation. When we say Scotchmen are parsimonious,
Speaker 1: we simply mean that out of a thousand Scotchmen, a
Speaker 1: larger number are parsimonious than out of a thousand Englishmen.
Speaker 1: A Scotchman whom I do not know, has therefore more
Speaker 1: probability of being parsimonious than an Englishman whom I don't know.
Speaker 1: If therefore, I have to choose for generosity between two men,
Speaker 1: an Englishmen and a Scotchman, both of whom I do
Speaker 1: not know, I would choose the Englishmen. I stand a
Speaker 1: better chance of being in the right. Naturally, the entire
Speaker 1: assumption may be wrong, and that is another matter, But
Speaker 1: it is ludicrous to deny the tendencies or characteristics in nations.
Speaker 1: In nations exist, Yeah, let's just keep applying this allt
Speaker 1: to Israel day Israel, which didn't exist when he wrote this.
Speaker 1: Only the shallow demagogue insists that a thousand Englishman, a
Speaker 1: thousand Frenchmen, a thousand Germans, a thousand Jews picked up
Speaker 1: at random, or ten thousand or one hundred thousand would
Speaker 1: react similarly to the same stimulus. Assuredly, if I have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to check up on the individual, I will
Speaker 1: do it. But if I must take him on trust,
Speaker 1: I shall sensibly assume him to possess his race characteristics.
Speaker 1: As for you Gentiles and US Jews, we have both
Speaker 1: acted on the assumption that the mass must be treated
Speaker 1: by a general law. The instinct of the gentile is
Speaker 1: to distrust the Jew, of the Jew to distrust the gentile.
Speaker 1: We only make exceptions. There is nothing inconsistent in the
Speaker 1: anti semi who says, some of my best friends are Jews,
Speaker 1: Oh dagger. I say therefore, that in the conflict between us,
Speaker 1: you have fought us physically, while our attack on your
Speaker 1: world has been in the spiritual field. Again, love, When
Speaker 1: an atheist talks like that, it is a nature of
Speaker 1: the gentile to fight for his honor. In the nature
Speaker 1: of the Jew to suffer for his whether because we
Speaker 1: are so inclined by first nature, or whether because we
Speaker 1: have so become we have so become through lack of
Speaker 1: land and government and army. This is true. You revel
Speaker 1: in force. We despise it even where we can and
Speaker 1: do exert it. It's amazing to me that like it's
Speaker 1: like what he's saying with that last sentence is everything
Speaker 1: that Jews have done since the founding of Israel, since
Speaker 1: they first started going there. Irragoon Hadana, the Stern Gang.
Speaker 1: Everything is happening in Gaza West Bank. Now they despise
Speaker 1: doing it just has to be done. And so since
Speaker 1: we have lived among you, you have instinctively appealed to
Speaker 1: brute force in combating our influence. When the reckoning is
Speaker 1: drawn up, your guilt cries to Heaven. Whatever have been
Speaker 1: your relations to each other, we Jews have at least
Speaker 1: been the common denominator of your brutality. Compared with each other.
Speaker 1: You are gentlemen, warriors, democracies we sought set side by
Speaker 1: side with us. You are bullies and cowards and mobs
Speaker 1: in vain. In vain, do your keyscant majorities wash their
Speaker 1: hands their key cints is their effective guilt. I care
Speaker 1: not that your minorities struck the blow. I should not
Speaker 1: acquit the majority, even if I could give judgment and
Speaker 1: impose punishment. That you are unable to meet us on
Speaker 1: the spiritual level is made evident by the following. We
Speaker 1: are a disturbing influence in your life, not through our
Speaker 1: own fault. If you remember the essay Israel the Psychopathic Nation,
Speaker 1: all of the Jewish philosophers, especially ones that came after
Speaker 1: this French school, guys Levinus and Ashkenazi, they all said
Speaker 1: we are never wrong. And even when they say, try
Speaker 1: to quote them, when we say, when you say we
Speaker 1: are wrong, we believe more that we are innocent. First,
Speaker 1: we are not in your midst by our own will,
Speaker 1: but through your action. And second, which is more to
Speaker 1: the point, we do not attack you deliberately. We are
Speaker 1: unwelcome to you because we are what we are. It
Speaker 1: is our own positive way of life which clashes with yours.
Speaker 1: Our attack on you is only incidental to the expression
Speaker 1: of our way of life. You too have this field
Speaker 1: open to you. As surely as we are a spiritual
Speaker 1: discomfort to you, you are a spiritual discomfort to us.
Speaker 1: Nearly is we attack you peacefully, so you waste us peacefully,
Speaker 1: and we can our numbers. But you do more than this.
Speaker 1: You bring the attack down to the physical plane where
Speaker 1: we are defenseless. You do that, you do with us
Speaker 1: as your animal whims dictate. You rob us, you slay us,
Speaker 1: You drive us from land to land, and while one
Speaker 1: of you drives us, drives us forth, the other shuts
Speaker 1: the gate in our faces. He can say this seventeen fifteen, sixteen,
Speaker 1: seventeen years after the nineteen oh five revolution in Russia,
Speaker 1: we never we attack you peacefully. From the first day
Speaker 1: of our contact, since the first of our communities in exile,
Speaker 1: you have made us the sport of your brutality. I
Speaker 1: think that's or bully, But you know you could always
Speaker 1: ask why if you feel that way. There is at
Speaker 1: least one clear note in Gentile world history, one consistent theme,
Speaker 1: the note of our agony, the theme of your cruelty
Speaker 1: because you because Jews go into cultures that they clash with.
Speaker 1: What is something that when Thomas and I did the
Speaker 1: JQ series talked about how when Jews were in Spain,
Speaker 1: a Jew and a Catholic, the fact that they could
Speaker 1: live without murdering each other. Just doesn't It doesn't compute
Speaker 1: if you understand historical Catholicism, not what you see now,
Speaker 1: and use them. And then when they're given power, like
Speaker 1: many Muslim Muslim where they've been in Muslim nations and
Speaker 1: they they've been made police or they've been made quote
Speaker 1: unquote peacekeepers, what do they do? They always end up
Speaker 1: abusing Christians. Christians let them into Christians have let them
Speaker 1: into their society. I mean, you're reading two hundred years together.
Speaker 1: They did everything they possibly could, ten twelve conferences on
Speaker 1: how to deal with these people in the nineteenth century
Speaker 1: alone in Russia they institute laws and they don't even
Speaker 1: really keep to them, don't really enforce them. But I
Speaker 1: guess because you don't let them get away with everything
Speaker 1: they want to do. That's cruel. I guess because your
Speaker 1: society that you've built for Christians or Englishmen or Germans
Speaker 1: or Spaniards and the system is designed for that, because
Speaker 1: you don't allow them to come in there and change that,
Speaker 1: that's cruel. Even from your point of view, you have
Speaker 1: been guilty on our side. At least the fighting has
Speaker 1: been clean. We have not misrepresented you on your side,
Speaker 1: the fighting has been dirty from the dawn of civilization.
Speaker 1: You have lied about us. You have accused us of
Speaker 1: murdering children that we might use their blood for ritual purposes.
Speaker 1: You have accused us of poisoning wells. You have accused
Speaker 1: us of precipitating wars. You and war is the breath
Speaker 1: of your nostrils. And you accuse us today of fomenting
Speaker 1: a worldwide conspiracy to seize the government of the world. Well,
Speaker 1: Israel Toof's book, Passover of Blood, precipitating wars? What is
Speaker 1: the what was to perish them? What was the Balfour Declaration?
Speaker 1: And worldwide conspiracy? What is all? Do not answer us
Speaker 1: that a minority does this. Does it matter to us
Speaker 1: that a minority of America preaches in the clan virtual disenchantment,
Speaker 1: disenfranfranchisement of the Jew Well, you might want to. You know,
Speaker 1: the Klan was pretty pretty much neutral not neutralized, but
Speaker 1: they were sleeping around nineteen thirteen, Leo Frank, clan didn't
Speaker 1: even Jews, weren't even on their radar. So, Leo Frank, So,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Does it matter to us that a
Speaker 1: minority of America preaches in the clan, virtual disenfranchisement of
Speaker 1: the Jew, that a minority in Germany preaches death to
Speaker 1: the Jew, that a minority in Poland slew hundreds of us.
Speaker 1: Don't get me started on Poland. I ask an accounting
Speaker 1: of you, as you ask it of one another, as
Speaker 1: the Allies ask it from Germany, as Germany asked it
Speaker 1: from France, from you as a whole. Do you see
Speaker 1: the hatred for I mean, just the seething hatred for Germany.
Speaker 1: Just these crazy national socialists just know, came together and
Speaker 1: just took power, and you know, directed their hatred at
Speaker 1: these people because they were jealous of their wealth, They
Speaker 1: were jealous of how smart they were. That's it for
Speaker 1: this minority which spreads these lies. There is a complacent
Speaker 1: majority which tolerates or accepts them. And it is because
Speaker 1: in your opposition to our way of life, you stoop
Speaker 1: to such lies that your masses respond with physical force.
Speaker 1: I care not how I care not, how ignorant a
Speaker 1: Jew is, You will not get him to believe of you,
Speaker 1: believe of you, of you such foul untruths as millions
Speaker 1: of you believe of us. Yet we have more cogent
Speaker 1: reasons for hating you, And as I hold you all
Speaker 1: responsible for these lies, so I hold you all responsible
Speaker 1: for the cruelties in which they issue. And I know
Speaker 1: that soon enough these crimson slices will be opened again,
Speaker 1: and we shall bleed from a thousand wounds as we
Speaker 1: have bled before in the Ukraine, or in Russia, in Poland,
Speaker 1: or in Germany. And who knows when the same will
Speaker 1: not come to pass in England and America, in France.
Speaker 1: What guarantees have we beyond the guarantee of public opinion?
Speaker 1: And from a public opinion which tolerates a slaughter of
Speaker 1: hundreds of Negroes, how far to the public opinion which
Speaker 1: will condone the slaughter of Jews. Let us spark, but
Speaker 1: carry far enough down into the recesses of your animal natures.
Speaker 1: There's the uh, there's calling us quilliam. How you gloated
Speaker 1: among the Allies over stories of Germans blown to pieces,
Speaker 1: cut to pieces, and in the Central Powers over stories
Speaker 1: of Englishmen Frenchmen done to death. Your comic journals made
Speaker 1: merry over them a good oak from life. An Englishman
Speaker 1: shaking his head, saying, Molly, I don't think this air
Speaker 1: bayonetal go through more than two Germans at a time.
Speaker 1: Your women applaud them, your children scream for blood, democracy
Speaker 1: vibe in bestiality with an aristocracy and royalty. How shall
Speaker 1: we trust you? You mean like how Randy Fine says
Speaker 1: he want to see more dead children and celebrates it.
Speaker 1: He's not the only one the way. Don Bacon, a
Speaker 1: allegedly a gentile, says that we need to amend the
Speaker 1: First Amendment to for anti anti Semitism laws. If we
Speaker 1: are willing to forget the past. Is not your past,
Speaker 1: You're present? Is not the blood libel alive today? Blood libel? There?
Speaker 1: It is one more for the Bengo card and it's
Speaker 1: convent companion viper the elders of Zion? Well POI yeah,
Speaker 1: he's uh? Has he mentioned Henry Ford? Yet? Henry Ford
Speaker 1: was talking about the elders of Zion will poison work
Speaker 1: forever in the blood and never break out? Did not
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans read these
Speaker 1: legends without protesting, without seeking to punish the libelers. Do
Speaker 1: we not know how easily your morality fits your mood?
Speaker 1: Kill the Jews, kill the Jews, the christ killers? Does
Speaker 1: indeed ring strange these days. But does a damn good
Speaker 1: dose of lead for the Jewish Bolsheviks sound very remote? Huh? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean the Bolsheviks. I don't think they were a
Speaker 1: majority Jews, majority of the thought leaders were definitely over represented,
Speaker 1: according to Juris Leskin in his book The Jewish Century.
Speaker 1: But is are we going to deny that the war
Speaker 1: on the Orthodox Church and on Christians that the Jewish
Speaker 1: Bolsheviks carried out? See he's so close to the event.
Speaker 1: Now there's no Internet, none of this, you know, He's
Speaker 1: just this is this is still going on as he's writing,
Speaker 1: this revenge against Christendom in Russia. And if arguing from
Speaker 1: the individuals the mass, your clans and your awakening maggyars,
Speaker 1: your chester Tins, and your dow Dets shall call us
Speaker 1: choose sharks and swindlers, shall we not answer with better
Speaker 1: warrant by the millions of our murdered by the Inquisition
Speaker 1: and the Crusades, by the smoking ruins of the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and the swinging body of Leo Frank Dastard's murderers and thieves.
Speaker 1: There it is there, it is the Inquisition, in the
Speaker 1: Crusades based they were based I'm sorry the Inquisitions. It's
Speaker 1: probably the greatest legal system in the history of mankind,
Speaker 1: and the Crusades. One of these days maybe the Inquisition
Speaker 1: will have to cover the Crusades. We have talked about it.
Speaker 1: But that as that is the end of chapter seven.
Speaker 1: So I will leave you with that, and I will
Speaker 1: try to be back seriously in a couple days with
Speaker 1: part eight. Once again, I apologize for how long it
Speaker 1: took me to get out part seven. Take care now,
Speaker 1: thank you bye. All right everyone, Once again, my apologies.
Speaker 1: I wish I could get these out quicker, but I
Speaker 1: have been insanely busy. Let's do chapter eight of Maurice
Speaker 1: Samuel's You Gentiles, and the title this is but as moderns,
Speaker 1: all right, let us have done with recollections and recriminations.
Speaker 1: You say you have spoken hitherto of conditions which you're vanishing,
Speaker 1: of Orthodox Jews, mostly of old customs and emotions which
Speaker 1: you're dying out. You yourself are not an Orthodox Jew,
Speaker 1: nor are we medieval Christians. We see the Jew gradually modernizing.
Speaker 1: He becomes more like us, more difficult to recognize as
Speaker 1: a Jew. Granting there are occasional relapses, we are still
Speaker 1: moving toward real tolerate rance. The present age is not
Speaker 1: like any age before it, and the modern Jew is
Speaker 1: not like any Jew before him. You have lasted two
Speaker 1: thousand years in exile. You will not last forever. All
Speaker 1: those ceremonials of yours are breaking down your discipline, your
Speaker 1: defensive mechanisms. At least in America, England, France, Germany, Russia.
Speaker 1: You are changing, becoming like us, taking your share in
Speaker 1: all our activities, sports, civic duties, achievements, arts. You have
Speaker 1: spoken hitherto in the terms of a world which is
Speaker 1: fitfully dissolving. You've ignored the liberal Jews, the radical Jews,
Speaker 1: the modernized Jews, the agnostic Jews, now becoming the dominant
Speaker 1: element in Jewry and approaching us, mingling with us, solving
Speaker 1: the problem without deliberate effort. Do not your own radicals
Speaker 1: renounce their Jewish connections. Will not your modernized Jews be
Speaker 1: the first to denounced the thesis of this book. I
Speaker 1: have already said, anticipating the subject, that there is the
Speaker 1: same difference between the Jewish atheists and the gentile atheists,
Speaker 1: between the orthodox Jew and the believing Gentile. I have
Speaker 1: said or implied that the religion itself is but practical
Speaker 1: expression of the difference between us, not the cause of it.
Speaker 1: It is true that the expression of a view serves
Speaker 1: to strengthen it, as the exercise of a faculty serves
Speaker 1: to develop it. But expression does not create a view,
Speaker 1: nor exercise a faculty. Even conscious adherence to the Jewish
Speaker 1: people is but partial expression of our Jewishness. It was
Speaker 1: not the conscious desire to remain a people which gave
Speaker 1: us the world to endure. It was our unavoidable commonality
Speaker 1: of feeling which made us and continued us as people.
Speaker 1: Repudiation of the Jewish religion, or even of Jewish racial affiliation,
Speaker 1: does not alter the jew. Some of us Jews may
Speaker 1: delude ourselves, as some of you gentiles do, but in
Speaker 1: effect modernizations seems to have done nothing to decrease the
Speaker 1: friction between us. Interesting the dislike continues, and though your
Speaker 1: masses may not know why they dislike us, there must
Speaker 1: be a sufficient reason. It is Germany, the mother of
Speaker 1: the modernized Jew, that gave birth with him to modern
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. Where the old ostensible reasons for disliking the
Speaker 1: Jew collapse, new ones, more self conscious were substituted. When
Speaker 1: modernization removed the old, superstitious form of expression. The professor
Speaker 1: replaced a priest science religion. We are disliked on scientific grounds,
Speaker 1: as we were disliked on religious But both the scientific
Speaker 1: and the religious reasons were rationalizations. The true reasons underlay
Speaker 1: these analyzes. Nor can the revulsion of the war, with
Speaker 1: its release of primitive instincts, be blamed for this German
Speaker 1: anti semitism as dates the war. The higher anti semitism
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with it, either conscious religion or localizations.
Speaker 1: Like patriotism. It is true modern anti semitism. It is
Speaker 1: the old dislike of the Jew, transvalued into modern terminology,
Speaker 1: and it has been evoked by the appearance of that
Speaker 1: new phenomena, the westernized Jew. For many Jews were fooled
Speaker 1: by appearances. They took the word of the gentile literally.
Speaker 1: The gentile said, we dislike you because you are different
Speaker 1: from us in religion and usages. You are separate, you
Speaker 1: are old fashioned. And the Jew, believing these charges to
Speaker 1: mean what they say, abandoned his customs and his usages,
Speaker 1: took to baptism, became externally similar to the gentile, thinking
Speaker 1: thus to evade the issue. It failed, for no sooner
Speaker 1: had he made this change in himself, than the gentile
Speaker 1: shifted ground went from the religious to the ethnic. That
Speaker 1: is not why jew stopped being religious. If you're listening
Speaker 1: following the two hundred Years Together series, the Stettl system
Speaker 1: kept most of the Jews as basically slaves to the
Speaker 1: higher elite Jews. As soon as they had a chance
Speaker 1: through rising democracy laws that gave people more liberty individually,
Speaker 1: they jumped at the chance to get away from their elites.
Speaker 1: Maybe there were some who were like, oh, the gentile
Speaker 1: will treat now now this he's deceiving and for sooner
Speaker 1: had he made this change in himself, and the gentile
Speaker 1: shifted ground went from the religious to the ethnic? Well,
Speaker 1: why is it? Because there is just something inherent there? Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: but what is it if they didn't like you when
Speaker 1: you were religious and then you gave up your religiosity
Speaker 1: and now you're just ethnic, what's the problem. What happened
Speaker 1: in Germany is happening elsewhere. As fast as the Jew modernizes,
Speaker 1: so fast does dislike of him adapt itself to the
Speaker 1: new situation and find a new excuse where the Jewish
Speaker 1: dislike it is the modern Jew who is disliked equally
Speaker 1: with the old fashioned, the klan, the console, the dearborn, independent,
Speaker 1: the dwa gross the action. Francais no longer preached a
Speaker 1: modernization of the Jew as a solution to the Jewish problem.
Speaker 1: No Jew, however modern or radical, is acceptable to the
Speaker 1: anti semi. It is now a racial question. But you
Speaker 1: still have an answer, you say, these new forms of
Speaker 1: anti Semitism are hangovers. We have had anti Semitism with
Speaker 1: us for a long time. It is hard to get
Speaker 1: rid of the effects linger along after the cause disappears.
Speaker 1: But in time again, why this I deny? For I
Speaker 1: am convinced that the modernized Jew, as long as he
Speaker 1: retains the quality of the Jewish people, that is, as
Speaker 1: long as he inherits predominantly Jewish characteristics, is as objectionable
Speaker 1: to you as the orthodox Jew was to your fathers,
Speaker 1: And for the same basic reasons. The effort of the
Speaker 1: Jews to enter your modern life, to become part of it,
Speaker 1: has been essentially ineffective, by which I mean that through
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands, though hundreds of thousands of us have
Speaker 1: taken on your garbs, speak like you, look like you,
Speaker 1: share your countries, institutions, games do all we can to
Speaker 1: avoid friction. Yet we fail to offer in cross section
Speaker 1: the same significance as any cross section of hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of you. Our ability to imitate extends only to inessentials, appearances,
Speaker 1: surface desires, and ambitions. We fail to be gentiles. The
Speaker 1: modernized Jew still stands apart from the modern gentile world,
Speaker 1: and his effective contribution to its life is as disastrously
Speaker 1: different as if he put on the phylacteries every morning.
Speaker 1: The old racial seriousness, somberness, still persists in one hundred
Speaker 1: years of modernity. We enable race, have given little more
Speaker 1: than mediocrity to your way of life. Our best work
Speaker 1: has been the old true work of our people, fundamental
Speaker 1: and serious examination of the problems of man's relations to
Speaker 1: God and humanity. In the arts we have been second rate,
Speaker 1: third rate, while in moral effort we have exceeded any
Speaker 1: living race and have produced an overwhelming number of revolutionaries
Speaker 1: and socialists and iconoclass of the true prophetic type. We
Speaker 1: have in science, bell letters, and the plastic arts been
Speaker 1: a thoroughly minor people. And even if in these last
Speaker 1: fields we have done comparatively well for our numbers, which
Speaker 1: I doubt our preponderant contribution of fundamental moral effort still
Speaker 1: makes modern Jewry a secularized replica of old religious Jewurry. Again,
Speaker 1: why the astonishing thing is that this took place despite
Speaker 1: desperate conscious efforts on our parts to become like you.
Speaker 1: We joined your armies and fought in them beyond our numbers. Well,
Speaker 1: that's questionable. Yet Jewish passivism. Yet Jewish pacifism and pacifist
Speaker 1: gave the tone to your world's pacifism. We have joined
Speaker 1: your capitalistic world. Oh man, Oh, he's really going to
Speaker 1: do this all right. We have joined your capitalistic world
Speaker 1: in deliberate emulation and rivalry. Yet Jewish socialism and Jewish
Speaker 1: socialists are the banner bearers of the world's armies of liberation.
Speaker 1: Four million modernized Jews, a ludicrous, ludicrously small number, have
Speaker 1: given to the world's iconoclastic force, its chief impetus and
Speaker 1: by far its largest individual contribution. American England put together
Speaker 1: with they're almost two hundred millions have not played that
Speaker 1: role in world iconic's icono clasm, which a handful of
Speaker 1: Jews that played. Had we produced as vigorously in art
Speaker 1: and science, we should have flooded the arts galleries and
Speaker 1: the libraries. But in these we have shown no special aptitude.
Speaker 1: We may have done as well for our numbers as England,
Speaker 1: as France or Germany, though even this I doubt well.
Speaker 1: It just gave it a couple more decades, and you
Speaker 1: had the libraries and the art galleries and the trash
Speaker 1: we see there. We modern Jews of the Western world
Speaker 1: are this fundamentally, are this in this fundamentally different from you.
Speaker 1: The occasional in you revolution and against the game is
Speaker 1: dominant in us. Your instinct is truer than you know.
Speaker 1: The dislike of your modern world for the modern Jew
Speaker 1: is as relevant as the dislike of your old world
Speaker 1: for the Orthodox Jew. He's basically saying that Jews had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with capitalism technically, that is, they have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with capital They're not creators for the
Speaker 1: most part, they're subverters. They subvert other people's businesses, worm
Speaker 1: their way in, or they financialize everything. So he's basically
Speaker 1: saying it's almost like he's saying that capitalism, which if
Speaker 1: you look at it, and especially once you start getting
Speaker 1: into late eighteen hundreds, you see who the most prominent
Speaker 1: quote unquote capitalists are, then you and you see that
Speaker 1: he's celebrating that it's a socialists and as the radicals,
Speaker 1: that's who the Jews are. Yet Marx clearly said we
Speaker 1: need capitalism. Yeah, it's kind of remarkable. He doesn't really
Speaker 1: have a He's either lying or he's just clueless and
Speaker 1: has allowed himself to be blinded. All right, this is
Speaker 1: probably the most famous chapter out of this book, So
Speaker 1: let's knock it out. That was such a short chapter.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to leave you at twelve minutes. Let's
Speaker 1: run through this. We the Destroyers Chapter nine. If anything,
Speaker 1: you must learn and are learning to dislike and fear
Speaker 1: the modern and assimilated Jew more than you did the
Speaker 1: old Jew, for he is more dangerous to you. At least,
Speaker 1: the old Jew, kept apart from you, was easily recognizable
Speaker 1: as an individual, as the bearer of the dreaded Jewish
Speaker 1: Jewish world idea. You are afraid of him and loathed him,
Speaker 1: but to a large extent he was insulated. But as
Speaker 1: a Jew assimilates, acquires your languages, cultivates a certain intimacy,
Speaker 1: penetrates into your life, begins to handle your instruments, you
Speaker 1: are aware that his nature, once confined safely to his
Speaker 1: own life now threatens yours. You are aware of a
Speaker 1: new and more than disconcerting character at work, and the
Speaker 1: world you have built and are building up, a character
Speaker 1: which crosses your intentions and thwarts your personality. The jew,
Speaker 1: whose lack of contact with your world had made him
Speaker 1: an effective, becomes effective. The vile is uncork. The genius
Speaker 1: is out. His enemity to your way of life was
Speaker 1: tacit before today it is manifest and active. Help himself.
Speaker 1: He cannot be different from himself, no more can you.
Speaker 1: It is futile to tell him hands off. He is
Speaker 1: not his own master, but the servant of his life will,
Speaker 1: For when he brings into your world his passionately earnest, sinisterly, earnest, righteousness,
Speaker 1: absolute righteousness, and speaking in your languages and through your institutions,
Speaker 1: scatters distrust to yourselves. Through the most sensitive of you,
Speaker 1: he is working against your spirit. You, gentiles, do not seek,
Speaker 1: or need or understand social justice as an ultimate ideal.
Speaker 1: This is not your nature. Your world must be fashioned
Speaker 1: as to give you the maximum of play, adventure, laughter,
Speaker 1: animal lyricism. Your institutions frame themselves to this end. Your
Speaker 1: countries and ideals flourish most gloriously when they serve this
Speaker 1: end most freely. All ideas of social justice must be
Speaker 1: subservient to this consideration first, then ultimate justice only as
Speaker 1: it can serve the game. I do not believe that
Speaker 1: we Jews are powerful enough to threaten your way of
Speaker 1: life seriously now. Yet we are only powerful enough to irritate,
Speaker 1: to disturb your conscience, and to break here and there
Speaker 1: the rhythmic rush of your ideas. We irritate you as
Speaker 1: a sardonic and humorless adult irritates young people by laughing
Speaker 1: at their play. For the real irritation lies in the
Speaker 1: fact that to our queries regarding your life, there is
Speaker 1: no answer on our level. As to yours. Regarding our life,
Speaker 1: there is no answer on yours. We Jews are accused
Speaker 1: of being destroyers. Whatever we put up we tear down.
Speaker 1: It is true only in a relative sense. We are
Speaker 1: not iconoclass. Deliberately, we are not enemies of your institution
Speaker 1: simply because of the dislike between us. We are a
Speaker 1: homeless mass seeking satisfaction for our constructive instincts, and in
Speaker 1: your institutions we cannot find satisfaction. They are the play
Speaker 1: institutions of the splendid children of man and not of
Speaker 1: man himself. We try to adapt your institutions to our needs,
Speaker 1: because while we live, we must have expression, and trying
Speaker 1: to rebuild them for our needs, we unbuild them for years,
Speaker 1: because your chief institution is the social structure itself. It
Speaker 1: is in this way that we are most manifestly destroyers.
Speaker 1: We take part in the economic struggle for existence, this
Speaker 1: necessity we share with you, but our free spiritual energies
Speaker 1: point away from this struggle, for unlike you, we have
Speaker 1: no pleasure in it. You gentiles fight because you like
Speaker 1: to fight. We fight because we have to and in
Speaker 1: order to win. It is not in a spirit of
Speaker 1: hypocrisy that you have turned your business world into a
Speaker 1: sporting arena with joyous flourishes, slogans, pretenses. It is not
Speaker 1: in a spirit of hypocrisy that you talk of playing
Speaker 1: the game while you cut each other's throats in the markets.
Speaker 1: That's hilarious, you mean it. You're advertising propaganda books with
Speaker 1: their sentimental appeals or not lies, they are the true
Speaker 1: evidence of your spirit. I'm sorry, sir, but Edward Burnet's
Speaker 1: not a gentile, and as you're writing this book, he's
Speaker 1: writing propaganda. It is only when we Jews to use
Speaker 1: these methods that there is hypocrisy. For we see starkly
Speaker 1: through your life illusions, yet we are forced to use
Speaker 1: them in self defense. But our inmost longings turn from
Speaker 1: this fierce and clamorously happy struggle. While your inmost longings
Speaker 1: are part of it. You give your best to it,
Speaker 1: your souls, yourselves, your souls. We give only our cleverness
Speaker 1: to it. This is why, in spite of the popular
Speaker 1: delusions of the contrary, there are hardly any Jews among
Speaker 1: the world's wealthiest men. Please yeah, I mean is that true? Now?
Speaker 1: What's the percentage of billionaires? The greatest financial institutions, as
Speaker 1: well as the world's greatest businesses, are almost exclusively non Jewish.
Speaker 1: Dislike of the Jews in business springs from the feeling
Speaker 1: that we regard all your play conventions with amusement or
Speaker 1: even contempt. Our abominable seriousness brings jarringly into your life mood.
Speaker 1: But you feel our disruptive difference most keenly, most resentfully
Speaker 1: in our deliberate efforts to change your social system. Yes, correct,
Speaker 1: we dream of a world of utter justice and God's spirit,
Speaker 1: a world which would be barren for you devoid of
Speaker 1: all nourishment, bleak, unfriendly, unsympathetic. You do not want such
Speaker 1: a world. You are unadapt for it. Seeing in the
Speaker 1: dazzling lights of your desires and needs, our ideal is
Speaker 1: repellently morose. I mean, so is that what they're doing?
Speaker 1: Is that what Eretz Israel is is building a is
Speaker 1: we dream of a world of utter justice and God's spirit,
Speaker 1: a world which would be barren for you to avoid
Speaker 1: of all nourishment, bleak, unfriendly? Is that what it is?
Speaker 1: Is that nourishment? What you do? Is it friendly? Is
Speaker 1: it sympathetic? Is it hopeful? How then shall we live?
Speaker 1: We do wrong to thrust these ideals upon you, who
Speaker 1: are not for justice or peace but for play living.
Speaker 1: But we cannot help ourselves any more than you can
Speaker 1: help resenting our interference. While we live, we must give
Speaker 1: uttering to our spirit. The most insistent effort on our
Speaker 1: part will fail to change our nature. What is an
Speaker 1: atheist believe spirit and nature? Is not that you are
Speaker 1: untouched by poverty, by human degradation, not that you do
Speaker 1: not wish at times that these unhappy things could be destroyed.
Speaker 1: But this is not in the direct line of March
Speaker 1: of your life in social injustice. If social injustice will
Speaker 1: remove together with the game, you would unquestionably recall both
Speaker 1: life before everything, freedom, joy, adventure. I talk here of
Speaker 1: the modern and not of the orthodox Jew. I talk
Speaker 1: of the Jew as alien as you to forms of
Speaker 1: our orthodox and consciously Jewish life. This is the Jew
Speaker 1: who forms the backbone both of the audience and contributor
Speaker 1: to your radical and revolutionary organs. The Jew who is
Speaker 1: precipitating center of spasmodic and inconsistent efforts for justice. This
Speaker 1: man in your midst is not to be recognized on
Speaker 1: the surface as a Jew. He himself repudiates in all
Speaker 1: sincerity his Jewish affiliations. He is a citizen of the world.
Speaker 1: He is a son of humanity. The progress of all mankind,
Speaker 1: and not of any single group of it is in
Speaker 1: his particular care. It is to this Jew that liberals
Speaker 1: among you will point to refute my thesis. And it
Speaker 1: is precisely the Jew who best illustrates this truth. The
Speaker 1: unbelieving and radical Jew is as different from the radical
Speaker 1: gentile as the orthodox Jew from the reactionary gentile. The cosmopolitan.
Speaker 1: The cosmopolitanism of the radical Jews springs from his feelings
Speaker 1: shared by the Orthodox Jew, that there is no difference
Speaker 1: between gentile and gentile. You are all pretty much alike.
Speaker 1: Then why this fussing and fretting and fighting. The Jew
Speaker 1: is not a cosmopolitan in your sense. He is not
Speaker 1: one who feel feels keenly the difference between national and
Speaker 1: nation and overrides it. For him, as for the Orthodox Jew,
Speaker 1: a single temper runs through all of you, whatever your
Speaker 1: national divisions. The Radical Jew, like the Orthodox Jew, is
Speaker 1: a cosmopolitan in a sense which must be irritating to you,
Speaker 1: for he does not even understand why you make such
Speaker 1: a fuss about that most obvious of facts, that you
Speaker 1: are all alike. The Jew is altogether too much of
Speaker 1: a cosmopolitan, even for your internationalists. Nor is the handful
Speaker 1: of you who, against the desires and instincts to the
Speaker 1: mass of you, proclaim social justice as a life aim.
Speaker 1: Is a Jew any more truly at home at one
Speaker 1: with Ismailiu than the old time Jew in his world.
Speaker 1: Our very radicalism is of a different temper. Our spur
Speaker 1: is a natural instinct. We do not have to uproot
Speaker 1: something in ourselves to become radicals dreamers of social justice.
Speaker 1: We are this by instinct. We do not see it
Speaker 1: as something revolutionary at all. Think of the video of
Speaker 1: the Witch with the all seeing eye speaking for the
Speaker 1: world Jewish Congress, talking about all the things that Jews
Speaker 1: have done for America, every single one of which has
Speaker 1: sought to destroy our culture, the founding culture, and did
Speaker 1: it is tacit with us, But with you it is
Speaker 1: an effort and a wrench. Your very ancestry cries out
Speaker 1: against it in your blood, and you become silly and
Speaker 1: enthusiastic about it, with flag waving and shouting and battle
Speaker 1: hymns in all the regular game psychology property your world
Speaker 1: in a way of life. Even of this you make
Speaker 1: a play. But such as these radical and international movements
Speaker 1: are the modern Jew, the best and most thoughtful modern Jew,
Speaker 1: that is, is nearer to them than to your anything
Speaker 1: else in your world. He is the only true socialist
Speaker 1: and cosmopolitan, but in such a true and tacit sense
Speaker 1: that he is completely distinguished from all of you. It
Speaker 1: is one of many vital paradoxes, a thing illogical and
Speaker 1: yet true to life. It is our very cosmopolitanism that
Speaker 1: gives us our national character, because we are the only
Speaker 1: ones who are cosmopolitan by instinct rather than by argument,
Speaker 1: we remain forever ourselves. That's read that again, because we
Speaker 1: are the only ones who are cosmopolitan. By instinct rather
Speaker 1: than by argument, we remain forever ourselves. Basically, what he's
Speaker 1: saying is if you have a Jew, if you have
Speaker 1: a Jewish radical out there, and you have a Gentile
Speaker 1: radical out there, the gentile is arguing the Jew just
Speaker 1: is in everything we are destroyers, even in the instruments
Speaker 1: of destruction to which we turn for relief. The very
Speaker 1: socialism and internationalism through which our choked spirit seeks utterance,
Speaker 1: which seem to threaten your way of life, are alien
Speaker 1: to our spirits, demands, and needs. You're socialists and internationalists
Speaker 1: are not serious. The charm of these movements, the attractions
Speaker 1: such as it is which they exercise, is only in
Speaker 1: their struggle. It is the fight which draws your gentile radicals.
Speaker 1: And indeed, it is only as long as there is
Speaker 1: an element of adventure in being a radical, that the
Speaker 1: radical movement retains any individuality. And it is only in
Speaker 1: the fierce period of early combat that you welcome us
Speaker 1: choose as allies. You're deluded in this, so are we.
Speaker 1: You go into the movement boldly adventurously, we darkly tacitly. Basically,
Speaker 1: what he's saying is, if those people, those gentiles who
Speaker 1: ran to join the Bolsheviks, ran to join any kind
Speaker 1: of far left psychotic movement, Genziles are running their bold
Speaker 1: and adventurously. Jews were running there because they are. You
Speaker 1: make it a game. We do it because we cannot
Speaker 1: help ourselves. And sure enough, in the end the split
Speaker 1: comes again. The liberal and the radical er is apt
Speaker 1: to dislike the jew as the reactionaries are. The liberal
Speaker 1: and the radical do not use the weapons of the reactionaries,
Speaker 1: but the dislike is there finds expression in anti Semitic
Speaker 1: socialists and workers' movements, and in the almost involuntary contempt
Speaker 1: which springs to the lips of countless intellectuals. Philosophies do
Speaker 1: not remold natures. What your radicals want is another form
Speaker 1: of the game with our rules. Their discontent joins hands
Speaker 1: with Jewish discontent, but it is not the same kind
Speaker 1: of discontent. A little distance down the road, the ways
Speaker 1: part forever the Jewish radical will turn from your social movement.
Speaker 1: He will discover his mistake. He will discover that nothing
Speaker 1: can bridge the gulf between you and us. I believe
Speaker 1: the movement has already started, the gradual secession of the
Speaker 1: Jewish radicals, their realization that your radicalism is of the
Speaker 1: same essential stuff as your conservatism. The disillusionment is set
Speaker 1: in a century of partial tolerance gives us Jews access
Speaker 1: to your world. In that period, the great attempt was
Speaker 1: made by advance guards of reconciliation to bring our two
Speaker 1: worlds together. It was a century of failure. Our Jewish
Speaker 1: radicals are beginning to understand it dimly. We Jews, we
Speaker 1: the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you
Speaker 1: will do will meet our needs and demand. We will
Speaker 1: forever destroy because we need a world of our own,
Speaker 1: a God world which it is not in your nature
Speaker 1: to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that
Speaker 1: faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the
Speaker 1: enmity between the game and God. But those of us
Speaker 1: who fail to understand that truth will always be found
Speaker 1: in alliance with your rebellious factions until disillusionment comes. The
Speaker 1: wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust
Speaker 1: that unwelcome role upon us. I don't think I need
Speaker 1: to explain anything. I think it's all right there. All right,
Speaker 1: be back in a couple of days. I'll try to
Speaker 1: be back in a couple days as soon as possible.
Speaker 1: You take care of everyone, right, all right again, I
Speaker 1: apologize for doing this what seems to be a week
Speaker 1: apart on episodes. I really need to be doing this more.
Speaker 1: Make every effort to do it. Sorry, no promises, but
Speaker 1: let's move on to episode chapter ten of Maurice Samuel's
Speaker 1: You Gentiles. Let's see what he has to say. This
Speaker 1: one's called the Games of Science. Illusions changed the instruments
Speaker 1: of their expression, but they remain the same illusions. Religions
Speaker 1: changed their gods, but remained the same religions. The atheist
Speaker 1: gentile has made science as god he, but it has
Speaker 1: not changed his religion. In the scientific field, the atheist
Speaker 1: gentile tells me, we will find world unity in science.
Speaker 1: There is no room for the subconscious. For the subconscious,
Speaker 1: and it is a subconscious which dictates the eternal enmities.
Speaker 1: Place your relations on a conscious basis, and you may
Speaker 1: have differences to be adjusted, but not enmities. The solution
Speaker 1: of the Jewish gentile problem, as of every instinct problem,
Speaker 1: lies in the pursuit of truth through science. All other
Speaker 1: problems are not really problems, but purely technical matters to
Speaker 1: be settled by the application of mathematics. And as we
Speaker 1: will learn to make this distinction between instinct problem and
Speaker 1: technical task, the greater is a discredit into which the
Speaker 1: former falls, the clearer is the attention that we bring
Speaker 1: to the latter. The greatest contribution to science to human
Speaker 1: advance has been the opening of paths to our free intelligence,
Speaker 1: so that the unconscious and subconscious mind, with its inheritance
Speaker 1: of the best, might fall into decutude. The truth alone
Speaker 1: will save us, and in science is truth. I do
Speaker 1: not wish to go into an examination of the nature
Speaker 1: of truth. I do not wish to question the validity
Speaker 1: of scientific truths. I don't believe that for a second.
Speaker 1: I am ready to admit that scientific truths are truths
Speaker 1: in an accepted sense of this word, or if there
Speaker 1: are mistakes, if this or that scientific theory is wrong,
Speaker 1: I will not argue that therefore the scientific method is wrong,
Speaker 1: or that science itself does not go nearest to the truth.
Speaker 1: My contention is at science. The examination of facts in
Speaker 1: literal terms is quite irrelevant to the spiritual problems of man,
Speaker 1: and we're get in someplace. I mean, what does an
Speaker 1: atheist mean by spiritual? But you know, hey, science is accurate,
Speaker 1: but its accuracy is pointless for spiritual purposes. The truths
Speaker 1: which are unveiled by the scientific method, and which it
Speaker 1: is to which it is the special aptness of this
Speaker 1: method's unveil, do not matter to anybody. Science teaches us
Speaker 1: that the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the
Speaker 1: Sun around the Earth. Does it really matter which is
Speaker 1: the case? Science teaches us that the occasional retrogression of
Speaker 1: fact and the observed motion of the planets is not
Speaker 1: due to cycle to cycle in epicycle, orb in orb
Speaker 1: but to change the perspective produced along the plane of
Speaker 1: the ecliptic ecliptic during the revolutions of the planet around
Speaker 1: the Sun. Well, what of it? It has revealed the
Speaker 1: fact that certain diseases are due to the action of
Speaker 1: minute parasites, that there is a marvelous structural parallel between
Speaker 1: man and beast, that forms of energy are interchangeable, that
Speaker 1: the Earth is extremely old, that there were other forms
Speaker 1: of life on the planet before us, that we are
Speaker 1: merely a point in space. All this is accurate. But
Speaker 1: is any of it? But is it of any importance?
Speaker 1: I ignore, of course, the obvious advantages which were supposed
Speaker 1: to accrue from the application of these facts, the conquest
Speaker 1: of nature, as it is bombastically called. Though even these
Speaker 1: advantages are vitiated by our inability to exploit them decently,
Speaker 1: it should be vitiated. I believe it is not to
Speaker 1: these advantages that the science hasts alludes. When he talks
Speaker 1: of the spiritual value of science, he means pure science,
Speaker 1: the perception of these truths for their own sake, or
Speaker 1: more accurately, for the sake of the change which may
Speaker 1: produce in our attitude towards life, the universe, each other.
Speaker 1: But science and revelation of scientific truths have no effect
Speaker 1: on our attitude toward life, the universe, and each other.
Speaker 1: The mood of the mind of man, the temper of
Speaker 1: his outlook, is essential nature. This totality of spiritual reaction
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with the additional number of facts
Speaker 1: which science reveals. It would not alter the effective mood
Speaker 1: a civilized man if it happened that light will reveal
Speaker 1: this the radiation of corpusles, rather than as waves in
Speaker 1: the ether. Whatever that may mean there may be eighty
Speaker 1: eight elements or eight hundred and eighty eight. The atom
Speaker 1: may be a kind of solar system, or it may
Speaker 1: be a figure of speech. Life, may be the function
Speaker 1: of a complicated molecular structure, or it may be an illusion.
Speaker 1: Whichever should turn out to be true, we should remain
Speaker 1: the same. Our only concern is with the exploitation of
Speaker 1: these things for physical advantages, and as far as that
Speaker 1: is concerned, it does not matter whether we have the
Speaker 1: truth or have hit on a method by conventional hypotheses.
Speaker 1: The ptolemaic system of astronomy could permit the calculation of
Speaker 1: eclipses as accurate, as accurately as the Copernican cycle cycle
Speaker 1: in epicycle orb in orb works as effectively if the
Speaker 1: figures are closely enough washed as ellipses with the Sun
Speaker 1: at one at one of the foci. For science as
Speaker 1: a game, a particular systematization, which might well be any
Speaker 1: other systematization. Indeed, despite the prodigious number of facts which
Speaker 1: science has unveiled, no new type of spiritual outlook has
Speaker 1: been evolved. Is the general consciousness or self consciousness of
Speaker 1: the modern materialists different in effect from that of the
Speaker 1: civilized stoic or more than or more than two thousand
Speaker 1: years ago. If you substitute stress in the ether for
Speaker 1: the numa, if you substitute the laws of gravitation or
Speaker 1: some electromagnetic formula for each other, or for tension, will
Speaker 1: that alter your response to the universe? Science is so
Speaker 1: far a game, indeed that self confessedly it deals with symbols.
Speaker 1: Only these are pure abstractions. The ion x to the
Speaker 1: end the theory of relativity. We juggle with figures, with symbols,
Speaker 1: with arrangements. The things or truths or facts which are
Speaker 1: supposedly represented are utter utterly beyond our apprehension. To take
Speaker 1: the simplest illustration, the sun is ninety two million miles
Speaker 1: from the Earth, the moon a quarter of a million miles.
Speaker 1: Neither one of these distances means anything to any human
Speaker 1: being a million or ten million, or one thousand billion.
Speaker 1: We have no spiritual reaction to any of these figures.
Speaker 1: They are symbols or counters in the game, and themselves
Speaker 1: intelligible to no one. Or to take the most significant
Speaker 1: of new scientific facts a truths the truth theory of relativity.
Speaker 1: Its application is only to the game or system. No
Speaker 1: man himself reacts to its implications. He uses it in
Speaker 1: the laboratory, in the observatory, he cannot bring it out,
Speaker 1: He cannot even lift it off the paper. Indeed, such
Speaker 1: a revolution was brought in our conception of the universe
Speaker 1: by the exposition of the theory of relativity. That if
Speaker 1: scientific truths had any significant, any spiritual significance, there should
Speaker 1: have been a religious revolution in its wake. Since the
Speaker 1: dawna science, we have been I mean, he doesn't understand
Speaker 1: how revivals work, which is not surprising at all. Since
Speaker 1: the DNA science we have been blind to a tremendous
Speaker 1: and fundamental truth, and all inclusive and inescapable truth, namely
Speaker 1: that the motions of light rules all our measurements of
Speaker 1: a time and space and mass, that the length of
Speaker 1: a lign or of a period of time is nothing
Speaker 1: but a function of varying values. A terrific and sublime discovery,
Speaker 1: one might say. Yet not only does it fail to
Speaker 1: make a particle of difference to the spiritual attitude of
Speaker 1: scientists towards the universe, they cannot even theoretically integrate it
Speaker 1: into a spirit with a spiritual system. All the effective
Speaker 1: spiritual value of the theory of relativity is things are
Speaker 1: not what they seem. To this suspicion, which is a
Speaker 1: basic spiritual reaction of a man to the universe, the
Speaker 1: theory of relativity adds nothing, and most of the theory
Speaker 1: of relativity is an additional but superfluous illustration. But as
Speaker 1: shall be told by the scientist, it is not any
Speaker 1: individual scientific revelation which matters. What matters is a scientific outlook.
Speaker 1: As such, the conception of the universe as an ordered
Speaker 1: and harmonious process, the elimination of the providential and accidental,
Speaker 1: the final and decisive removal of the Taumatollurgical science means
Speaker 1: neither the theory of evolution, nor the discovery of the basilis,
Speaker 1: nor the theory of relativity. Science means a cancelation of
Speaker 1: the inherited instinct errors. In brief, science is a substitution
Speaker 1: of reason for superstition. But even at that variation, I
Speaker 1: can tend the scientific pursuit of truth has given nothing
Speaker 1: to our knowledge of the ultimate secret of things. What
Speaker 1: the scientists would call the scientific outlook in accordance with
Speaker 1: the above definition, has nothing to do with the scientific
Speaker 1: study of phenomena manner by nature untraumaturgical or traumaturgical in
Speaker 1: their reaction to the universe. Well that one second, I
Speaker 1: want to look with this. Let's see what taumaturgical refers to.
Speaker 1: Something related to taumaturgy, which is the practice of performing
Speaker 1: miracles or magic, especially in a religious context. If you
Speaker 1: knew that, good on you. I'm very unfamiliar with those terms,
Speaker 1: and I've studied, studied a lot of things. Science in
Speaker 1: its modern sense does not make them untraumaturgical. It is
Speaker 1: one of the most basic qualities of human life. This
Speaker 1: particular variety of outlook on the universe. I say it
Speaker 1: existed before the advent of what we denote under the
Speaker 1: restricted term of science. I say it would exist just
Speaker 1: as strongly in these types of men, though not a
Speaker 1: single discovery had been added to human knowledge of phenomena
Speaker 1: since the time of Aristotle. I say that those science
Speaker 1: should add a million startling new revelations to its old ones,
Speaker 1: it would not increase or decrease the number of men
Speaker 1: who have the untoumaturgical outlook. I referred to the Stoics
Speaker 1: and said that Stoicism contained as untoumaturgical and outlook as
Speaker 1: any that modern science claims to have inspired. But even
Speaker 1: if this were not true, I should not change my opinion.
Speaker 1: For life at firsthand taught me this view, and what
Speaker 1: I know of history I used only as an illustration.
Speaker 1: Life at firsthand was taught to me taught me that
Speaker 1: knowledge of science has nothing to do with the superstitious
Speaker 1: or unsuperstitious, with a taumaturgical or untaumaturgical, with idealism or materialism.
Speaker 1: I have known thoroughly ignorant men who see life quite rationally,
Speaker 1: apparently untroubled by unconscious impulses, men who see life quite rationally,
Speaker 1: apparently untroubled by unconscious imple men who have the scientific
Speaker 1: outlook without knowing or needing science. I have known thoroughly
Speaker 1: scientific men who are profoundly taumaturgical, who are saturated with
Speaker 1: the spirit of superstition. It is not the knowledge of
Speaker 1: facts which changes the man. A man may believe in
Speaker 1: ghosts and yet may not be superstitious. He may merely
Speaker 1: be mistaken. Another man may believe neither in ghosts nor
Speaker 1: in anthropomorphic God, and yet be essentially of the superstitious type.
Speaker 1: It is not even a question of sophistication. I have
Speaker 1: known simple and primitive peasants, quite illiterate, who are as
Speaker 1: clearly rationalist and scientific and outlook as any professor inspired
Speaker 1: by complete knowledge of the revealed mechanics of the world.
Speaker 1: I've known cultured city dwellers rotten with sophistication, whose surface
Speaker 1: cynicism could not hide their subjections to the terror of invisible,
Speaker 1: unrevealable possibilities. Scientific genius is only the genius of the ingenious.
Speaker 1: Men who by their nature are materialists, spend their energies
Speaker 1: in building intensely ingenious scamata, wherein the known facts of
Speaker 1: life constitute the soul material. But these ingenious scamata do
Speaker 1: not alter their nature with their shape or with the
Speaker 1: quantity of their material. The mechanics of the universe might
Speaker 1: be thus or thus. Things might work in this way
Speaker 1: or in that way. It might be one formula or
Speaker 1: another formula, but the spirit of the thing is the same.
Speaker 1: For hundreds of years, capable minds of search constructed, reconciled,
Speaker 1: their knowledge of the mechanism is indefinitely greater than any
Speaker 1: man's knowledge a thousand years ago. Yet men who know
Speaker 1: as little of these mechanics as was known a thousand
Speaker 1: years ago have come to the same conclusion regarding the
Speaker 1: nature of the universe. There is in science a certain
Speaker 1: naivete the belief that facts differ in their nature, the
Speaker 1: belief that a fact which it is more difficult to
Speaker 1: unearth is therefore profounder than a fact which is obvious.
Speaker 1: The belief that a microbe, because it needs a microscope
Speaker 1: to reveal it, touches truth more deeply than the flea
Speaker 1: which can be seen with a naked eye. Yet a
Speaker 1: fact is not more valuable for being difficult to access,
Speaker 1: any more than a thought is more profound by having
Speaker 1: been made obscure. In the end, it comes to this, science,
Speaker 1: which is the accumulation of literal fact, hopes that the
Speaker 1: accumulation of facts will reveal the nature of fact. Science
Speaker 1: seems to believe, if I may use these rather clumsy locutions,
Speaker 1: that some facts are of a different order from other facts,
Speaker 1: going nearer to the sources of the nature of things.
Speaker 1: This is untrue. All facts are on the same plane.
Speaker 1: Facts are not explanatory but expository, and what they expose
Speaker 1: is of the same natural or material as that which
Speaker 1: we know. Without science to expect facts to reveal the
Speaker 1: nature of facts is to expect the microscope to reveal
Speaker 1: the nature of the microscope. You can examine one microscope
Speaker 1: by means of another, but its nature or secret is
Speaker 1: not accessible to this mode of examination. It is of
Speaker 1: a different order. The chain of facts is everywhere uniform.
Speaker 1: When you know one inch of this chain, you have
Speaker 1: learned as much as you can learn from a mile.
Speaker 1: If the chain of causes and effects fact related to
Speaker 1: fact is indefinitely long, any length of it is equally insignificant.
Speaker 1: A thousand years is not nearer to internity than a
Speaker 1: moment of time in time. There is indeed a certain
Speaker 1: vulgarity in the appeal to quantity. It is a democratic vulgarity,
Speaker 1: the belief that one million mediocre people have more spiritual
Speaker 1: significance in one mediocrity, that size affects quality, that one
Speaker 1: thousand new facts mean more than a hundred old facts.
Speaker 1: There is in all this even the vulgarity of provincialism
Speaker 1: and cockney fashionableness, the belief that the latest is the best.
Speaker 1: But vulgarity is most patent in the common assertion that
Speaker 1: science is of spiritual value because there reveals to wonders
Speaker 1: of the universe. So marvelous a structure, they say, arouses
Speaker 1: our astonishment and our reverence, the glory of God's house
Speaker 1: and the infinite wisdom of his ways. Science leads to
Speaker 1: religion because it teaches us both our insignificance and the
Speaker 1: amazing cleverness of creation. I hold this to you to
Speaker 1: be patently vulgar, because it is an appeal to headlines,
Speaker 1: recourse to the stimuli of the advertiser for the benefit
Speaker 1: of a stupid and jaded public. The thinking man needs
Speaker 1: no science as to teach him the wonder of creation.
Speaker 1: He needs neither a telescope nor a microscope in order
Speaker 1: to see God, nor do formulate teach him the nature
Speaker 1: of God. Life itself, being the staggering wonder of mere existence,
Speaker 1: feels completely the crams beyond all possibility of addition the
Speaker 1: faculty of astonishment and bewilderment in the sensitive man. Those
Speaker 1: doom existence has become commonplace by familiarity, or who have
Speaker 1: never been smitten prostrate by the riddle of existence, need
Speaker 1: a crescendo succession of shockers to touch their British minds.
Speaker 1: They didn't know the marvel of the universe until they
Speaker 1: learned of electricity, but now that electricity is commonplace as sunlight,
Speaker 1: they need a theory of relativity. And when that has
Speaker 1: played out as an advertising stunt for the ingenuity of
Speaker 1: the Almighty, they will need something else. It's hard to
Speaker 1: tell if he's if he's against learning, if he's scared
Speaker 1: of it, if if this is just simply you can't
Speaker 1: know anything, so don't bother goy. I mean, reading all this,
Speaker 1: and I mean I understand most of it. Sometimes he's
Speaker 1: just going off on tangents that make no sense. But
Speaker 1: I mean there's a certain there's a certain nihilism in
Speaker 1: all of this, this chapter more than any other. He's
Speaker 1: not really It's almost like he's just taken a time
Speaker 1: out after he's told you that we are the destroyers
Speaker 1: and we will never stop, to basically try to convince
Speaker 1: you that you can't know anything, that there's no truth
Speaker 1: and it's all doom. Maybe somebody else sees see something
Speaker 1: else in this other than frustration just in trying to understand,
Speaker 1: trying to make sense of somebody who, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is just basically trying to sound smarter than he actually is,
Speaker 1: or he's insanely intelligent and he's doing all this to
Speaker 1: convince you that facts don't mean anything. He keeps coming
Speaker 1: at it from a spiritual sense, but he keeps referring
Speaker 1: to the spirit. It's a god. And I mean, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't believe in any of these things. I mean,
Speaker 1: I assume most of you at this point believe that
Speaker 1: when he talks about gods, he's God. He's talking about
Speaker 1: himself and the Jewish masses. That's all I can think of.
Speaker 1: Such vulgarity and sciences is not a whit different from
Speaker 1: the vulgarity of city mobs, which with astonishment when first
Speaker 1: they see an electric light, but afterwards smile pityingly at
Speaker 1: those who manifest astonishment. Well, I mean, that's just familiarity
Speaker 1: breeding contempt. That's a human It's very human. I think
Speaker 1: everyone knows that the man of the mass mistakes impudent
Speaker 1: familiarity for understanding. Because he uses the electric chair, the telephone,
Speaker 1: and the telegraph every day, he imagines that he is
Speaker 1: wiser than the barbarian who has never known of them.
Speaker 1: If at all, he is less wise, being too impudent
Speaker 1: to know his own ignorance, the fool to say it
Speaker 1: in his heart, there is no God is the city
Speaker 1: fool to whom nothing is wonderful anymore. And those who
Speaker 1: do not wonder do not know God. I think that
Speaker 1: there is some truth in that, that the greatest way
Speaker 1: to keep and perpetuate a good relationship with God is
Speaker 1: through mystery. But I don't That's not what he's saying here.
Speaker 1: It's almost like he's quoting this to try to create
Speaker 1: a common ground. It is not significant that the greatest
Speaker 1: human cry of wonder of the Bible was the utterance
Speaker 1: of men who knew nothing concerning the Plesiosaurus, the Amiba,
Speaker 1: the nebula of Orion, Mendon, Yelev's tables, Bodie's law, the
Speaker 1: theory of Kwanta. In them, the marvel of existence shocked
Speaker 1: like a clash of symbols. The echoes of that first
Speaker 1: fresh amazement still put to shame the sophisticated stammering of
Speaker 1: the wise age. Have all the revelations of science brought
Speaker 1: just a single utterance like that of job. Though a
Speaker 1: man should master all the ingenuities of science, though he
Speaker 1: should should double and trouble them, though he should know
Speaker 1: all the workings of his own body and of the
Speaker 1: stellar systems. Though Earth's past and future, that through Earth's
Speaker 1: fat past, and though Earth's past in future, the past
Speaker 1: and future of all life should lie open before him.
Speaker 1: Can he say or feel more than this? Can sciences
Speaker 1: even add anything to skepticism? In doubt? Shall he who
Speaker 1: suspects that all life is a phantasm perception itself the
Speaker 1: shadow of a shadow, and are very whispers to ourselves
Speaker 1: that ten times tampered with instruments of things which are
Speaker 1: not ourselves. Shall he that suspects that between himself and himself, himself,
Speaker 1: speaking in himself, listening, himself, thinking, and himself thought of,
Speaker 1: there looms world without end, system within system, aberration within aberration.
Speaker 1: Shall such a one be rendered more doubtful? Because the
Speaker 1: sky is not an inverted bowl above our heads, because
Speaker 1: disease is carried not by demons but invisible fleas. If
Speaker 1: the whole is insecured, it's the double insecurity of a
Speaker 1: part make any difference? If all is illusory? Does it
Speaker 1: matter that there were particular little illusions within the general illusion.
Speaker 1: If we suspect the very instrument of our perception, if
Speaker 1: we doubt our senses and our thoughts, if we doubt
Speaker 1: our very doubts, and in the end from a frantic
Speaker 1: hunting of protein shadows relapse into utter silence and impotence.
Speaker 1: What additional impotence is to be derived from the correction
Speaker 1: of unscientific errors? The worlds wonder, the world's debt, the
Speaker 1: terror and illusion of life. These things lie patent to
Speaker 1: the naked eye life at first, and teaches everything the
Speaker 1: blind cannot see, even through a microscope. What then, is
Speaker 1: science and wherein lies its lore? Why are men drone
Speaker 1: to its service? Why do why do the best enables
Speaker 1: give up their lives to its pursuit? Science which can
Speaker 1: be of no ultimate value in bringing us nearer to
Speaker 1: the roots of life, to Godhead, and to its secrecy.
Speaker 1: Science is a game, a convention. The charm of science
Speaker 1: is the charm of gentile life. The ultimate does not matter.
Speaker 1: Within the system, there is the lyric grace of rhythm
Speaker 1: and harmony. If science, you know, if if they believe
Speaker 1: that the charm of science is the charm of gentile life,
Speaker 1: if they believe that that is what gentile gentile has
Speaker 1: just looked to, science would be any Is it any
Speaker 1: wonder that they would seek to take over the science
Speaker 1: and absolutely slant them into their direction, especially the soft sciences,
Speaker 1: the social sciences, the scientific development of your Western world
Speaker 1: is an inevitable consequence of your nature. It is inevitable
Speaker 1: that you should worship science because your very skepticism is
Speaker 1: a substitution of one set of illusions for another, the
Speaker 1: adoption of one set of conventions in place of another.
Speaker 1: I do believe that that is something that Westerners and gentiles,
Speaker 1: Gentile Westerners, they worship science. I think that it's hard
Speaker 1: to argue against that. Now, you may not, but you're
Speaker 1: just proving the rule there. So if he recognizes that
Speaker 1: other Jews are recognize that, and they've seen sorts of
Speaker 1: take them over as much as possible and lean them
Speaker 1: in your direction. And that's when when you hear Thomas
Speaker 1: talking about a social engineering regime. One of the easiest
Speaker 1: ways to do that would be to influence science as
Speaker 1: much as possible. I mean, basically all of psychology is
Speaker 1: for You are bound to find spiritual value in science,
Speaker 1: because you do not want ultimate spiritual value, only the
Speaker 1: spiritual value of immediate lyric enjoyment. You who worship gods
Speaker 1: instead of God must naturally worship science. Science is merely
Speaker 1: idle worship for icons, instruments, for incantations, formulae, the palpable,
Speaker 1: the material, the enjoyable. Science is not a serious pursuit,
Speaker 1: your grave professors of chemistry, astronomy, physics, Your Nobel Prize
Speaker 1: winners are but bald or bearded schoolboys playing mental football
Speaker 1: for their own delight and the delight of spectators. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: Does I vote the argument? I've always heard it's a way,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the ways they try to prove
Speaker 1: high Jewish iq is their Nobel Prize winners. They did
Speaker 1: Jews somehow after or this seek Nobel prizes, but they're
Speaker 1: just bald or bearded schoolboys playing or did they have
Speaker 1: to become Nobel Prize winners to surpass that? And how
Speaker 1: are Nobel Prize winners picked? Does God pick them Nobel prizes?
Speaker 1: Nobel Prizes are chosen no differently than oscars are given out. Science, then,
Speaker 1: is an art, though it's technique is of so peculiar
Speaker 1: in nature as it divided from all the other arts.
Speaker 1: But we most easily recognize that as an art because
Speaker 1: the true sciences takes an artistic delight in science, and
Speaker 1: because your science is not serious, we Jews have never
Speaker 1: achieved it in any peculiar pre eminence. We have our
Speaker 1: few exceptions. We can master as well as you the
Speaker 1: system and the scheme, but we lack the spiritual urge,
Speaker 1: the driving joy, the illusion that this is the all.
Speaker 1: In all, we know nothing of science for science's sake,
Speaker 1: as we know nothing of art for art's sake. We
Speaker 1: only know of art for God's sake. If there is
Speaker 1: art or beauty in our supreme production, the Bible, it
Speaker 1: is not because we sought either. The type of the
Speaker 1: artist is alien to us, and just as alien is
Speaker 1: the delight of the artist. The artist is one who
Speaker 1: seeks beauty, goes out of his way to find her.
Speaker 1: But the Hebrew prophet, who who wrought so beautifully, did
Speaker 1: not go out of his way to find God. God
Speaker 1: pursued him and caught him, hunted him out, and tortured
Speaker 1: him so that he cried out. Until this day, you
Speaker 1: have no artist in your sense. Such art as we
Speaker 1: have created has been the byproduct of a fierce moral purpose.
Speaker 1: Let's see. But what do we have upcoming after this
Speaker 1: Hollywood pornography? It's never it's about money. It's about money
Speaker 1: and corruption. That's it. Art and science. This is your
Speaker 1: gentile world. The lovely and ingenious world, kaleidoscopic, graceful, bewilderingly seductive,
Speaker 1: A world at it's best of lovely apparitions, banners, struggles, triumphs, gallantries,
Speaker 1: noble gestures and conventions. But not our world, Not for
Speaker 1: us Jews, for such field of the cloth of gold delights.
Speaker 1: We lack imagination and inventiveness. We are not touched with
Speaker 1: this vigor of productive playfulness. Under it arrest, we take
Speaker 1: part in the ringing melee and give an indifferently good
Speaker 1: account of ourselves. But we have not the heart for
Speaker 1: this world of yours. I could almost picture him, and
Speaker 1: I'll finish with this. I could almost picture him looking
Speaker 1: at all the Jewish artists and scientists and everything these days,
Speaker 1: the people who relish it so much, the Weinstein's and
Speaker 1: the Weinstein brothers, and he would from what he says here,
Speaker 1: I would almost picture him. If he's being completely honest
Speaker 1: in all this, which I doubt that he sees them
Speaker 1: as like the downfall of Judaism. Why would these Jews
Speaker 1: care about these things unless they were subverting, which I
Speaker 1: leave all doors open, all right, thank you. I'll try
Speaker 1: to come back to the next chapter is called the Masses.
Speaker 1: I will, and I doubt he's talking about the Catholic Church,
Speaker 1: so I'll try to come back as soon as possible.
Speaker 1: All right. I apologize for taking so long in between these.
Speaker 1: I want to get it over with and move on
Speaker 1: to something something new. This is as much this needs
Speaker 1: to be read. This person is insufferable, and I'm so glad.
Speaker 1: I was so glad. I never I would never have
Speaker 1: a chance to know him. Take care everyone, Thank you, bye.
Speaker 1: All right everyone, here is part ten of you gentiles.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to knock these out a little faster now.
Speaker 1: I'm probably just going to do two chapters because I
Speaker 1: have an idea for the next book, and I'll be
Speaker 1: completely off of this subject because I need a break
Speaker 1: too much talking about this lately, and uh, we'll look
Speaker 1: at something else. Have an idea, might change my mind,
Speaker 1: always do, but yeah, it's there, so all right. This
Speaker 1: is chapter eleven, The Masses. It would be absurd to
Speaker 1: pretend that the Jewish masses are distinguished from your masses
Speaker 1: by a conscious by a conscious appreciation of the differences
Speaker 1: the difference I've described. Indeed, very few, even of the
Speaker 1: thinking Jews, understand the nature of the problem. It is
Speaker 1: certain that the westernized masses of Jews are doing their
Speaker 1: best to minimize or to ignore the difference between jew
Speaker 1: and gentile. They and their leaders assert frequently and vehemently
Speaker 1: that there is no difference. Jew and gentile are alike
Speaker 1: except in their opinions regarding certain very simple matters of faith.
Speaker 1: You too, will assert, even if we grant this distinction
Speaker 1: between gentile and Jewish genius, are we to understand that
Speaker 1: it permeates the masses, that the strain of seriousness is
Speaker 1: to be found in your households of thousands, what thousands
Speaker 1: of yes, westernized workers, lawyers, salesmen, merchants, manufacturers, contrasting with
Speaker 1: a corresponding levity or a lack of seriousness, and the
Speaker 1: same classes among us. It is incredible. The same language,
Speaker 1: the same occupations, the same sports, the same pursuits are
Speaker 1: common to both of us. Let any intelligent man live
Speaker 1: first for ten years among middle class gentile families and
Speaker 1: then change his miliu completely and pass into the environment
Speaker 1: of middle class, assimilated Jewish families. What will there be
Speaker 1: to give him the impression of another world? Will he
Speaker 1: not find the same amusements, the same ambitions, the same morality,
Speaker 1: the same taboos, the same abilities, and the same stupidities.
Speaker 1: Did not the Jewish and gentile middle class families admire
Speaker 1: the same heroes, vote for the same politicians, read the
Speaker 1: same newspapers and magazines, frequent the same theaters, weep over
Speaker 1: the same movies, laugh at the same comic strips. But
Speaker 1: the question cannot be put so simply. The world is yours,
Speaker 1: and you are the ones who set the standards. You
Speaker 1: are the ones who supply the material for the reactions.
Speaker 1: And when the Jews want to become part of your world,
Speaker 1: enjoy its privileges and pleasures, we must accept your standards.
Speaker 1: Speak as if it were the same language. But just
Speaker 1: as a word can never mean quite the same thing
Speaker 1: to two persons, so a common expression does not mean
Speaker 1: the same emotion. The fact is that as long as
Speaker 1: Jews retain their identity, there is a same tension between
Speaker 1: your middle classes and hours as between your geniuses and hours.
Speaker 1: Our middle classes, even when thoroughly modernized, retain a certain
Speaker 1: individuality which is repugnant to you. And though at four
Speaker 1: and though if forced to a yes or no questions
Speaker 1: answered to the question above, enunciated I should have to answer. Yes,
Speaker 1: there is a difference, difficult to describe, but felt it
Speaker 1: resents it. Nonetheless, our modernized Jews have done their best
Speaker 1: to take up your life and become part of it.
Speaker 1: But despite outward appearances, they have failed. There is, first
Speaker 1: of all, too eager and intensive desire to be gentile.
Speaker 1: What you do tacitly, and by the grace of and
Speaker 1: by the grace of God, we do deliberately and in
Speaker 1: the gracelessness of ambition. You go into this new life
Speaker 1: of yours. We can toort ourselves into it. In one
Speaker 1: or two generations. We would achieve what it took you
Speaker 1: one hundred generations to reach. We take up your life
Speaker 1: with an anxiousness, a ferocity which is its own undoing.
Speaker 1: Whatever in you can be imitated, we do imitate admirably.
Speaker 1: But though you cannot quite define it, you are aware
Speaker 1: of a deception. It's interesting they haven't had their own
Speaker 1: nation at this point for I guess nineteen hundred years,
Speaker 1: but it's longer than that. I mean, first the Greeks
Speaker 1: and then the Romans, and look look at how they failed.
Speaker 1: They can't even survive on their own. They lash out
Speaker 1: at everyone around them, They want to kill everyone around them.
Speaker 1: They have delusions of grandeur of taking over large swaths
Speaker 1: of land in the Middle East. It's it's evil in
Speaker 1: a sense, and I hate to say evil because yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm looking for a better word. It's it's malicious in
Speaker 1: a sense, the things they do. But it's also very incompetent.
Speaker 1: I mean, they could easily have destroyed the Palestinians, destroyed
Speaker 1: their neighbors simply if they're so smart, they could have
Speaker 1: figured this out a long time ago. They don't have
Speaker 1: to be going through this now. But either this is
Speaker 1: the only way that they in their being can do it,
Speaker 1: or they like it. I don't know. I don't know. Violence,
Speaker 1: and you know mega violence and war has always been seen,
Speaker 1: is something that just happens, not that you would enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Whatever in you can be imitated. We do imitate admirably.
Speaker 1: But though you cannot quite define it, you are aware
Speaker 1: of a deception. Our patriotisms are hysterical, our sports pursuits
Speaker 1: are unnaturally eager, our business ambitions artificially passionate. He's describing
Speaker 1: that it's this is not who they are. So when
Speaker 1: they it almost seems like when they and I don't
Speaker 1: think he's trying to say this. I'm trying to figure
Speaker 1: things out here from what he's saying. He's basically saying,
Speaker 1: when we try to imitate you, it's forced and we
Speaker 1: don't know how to do it. It looks like inevidently
Speaker 1: becomes failure, Like they are a people who are meant
Speaker 1: to wander. And the fact that they found this thing
Speaker 1: and they stopped. Even if you buy it, even if
Speaker 1: you buy the cause cause our theory, which I do,
Speaker 1: there still are Jews there that are probably direct descendants,
Speaker 1: but it's I think they've just even the cause AARs
Speaker 1: have just taken on a spirit of if any of
Speaker 1: you know your old Testament, just how obstinate every forty
Speaker 1: to eighty years, they would just revert back to child
Speaker 1: sacrifice and things like that, which is why they kept
Speaker 1: being punished over and over again. We see the same
Speaker 1: apparent ends as you, but not in the same spirit.
Speaker 1: Would you have us fight and die for country, We'll
Speaker 1: do it as well as you would you have us
Speaker 1: run fast box skillfully, We'll do it. Would you have
Speaker 1: us build up enterprises, We'll do that too. But one
Speaker 1: thing we cannot do. Do it for the same reason
Speaker 1: and in the same spirit, and they can't do it
Speaker 1: for the benefit of anyone else but them. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying for the benefit of all Jews, because that's bullshit.
Speaker 1: I mean, anyone who's following two hundred years together knows
Speaker 1: that the elite Jews do not the lower class Jews
Speaker 1: and the poorer Jews and even the middle class Jews.
Speaker 1: That's he's mentioning here, or look down upon German Jews
Speaker 1: at this time, we're looking down upon pali settlement Jews.
Speaker 1: When you hear about oh we were we couldn't go
Speaker 1: into we weren't allowed into golf clubs. Yeah, most of
Speaker 1: the time that was German Jews who were the Enlightenment
Speaker 1: and hit them a lot earlier. Looked down upon palae
Speaker 1: settlement Jews trash. Since you insist we will measure values
Speaker 1: with your standards and register the results, but you know
Speaker 1: you feel that the standards are not ours. We betray
Speaker 1: ourselves singly and en mass. We haven't the manner we
Speaker 1: have and we haven't the manners, for manners are but
Speaker 1: a manner with you. We Jews are lacking in manners
Speaker 1: because manners, as you have evolved them, are a spirit,
Speaker 1: a reflex of your playworld. Manners cannot be copied. One
Speaker 1: must have the aptitude for this charming triviality. A single
Speaker 1: note of insistence spoils at all, and we choose insist
Speaker 1: too much. And just as Jews are without manners, so
Speaker 1: they are without vulgarity. Well, I have observed that between
Speaker 1: the vulgar gentile and the so called vulgar Jew there
Speaker 1: is a singular and dreadful difference. The vulgar type of
Speaker 1: gentile is not repellent. There is in him an animal
Speaker 1: grossness which shocks, embraces, but does not horrify. He carries
Speaker 1: it off by virtue of a natural brutality and brutishness,
Speaker 1: with which provide a mitigating consistency to his character. But
Speaker 1: the lowest type of Jew is extraordinarily revolting. There is
Speaker 1: in him a suggestion of deliquescent putrefaction. The gentile can
Speaker 1: be naturally healthily vulgar. The Jew corrupts into vulgarity. He
Speaker 1: has not the gift for it. What is vulgarity in
Speaker 1: the gentile is obscenity in the Jew. I am able
Speaker 1: to watch, either with amusement or indifference, a vulgar performance
Speaker 1: on the gentile stage. On the Jewish stage, I find
Speaker 1: it intolerably loadsome in the company of low and Brutish gentiles,
Speaker 1: in the company of low and British gentiles loose. I
Speaker 1: may not feel at home, but I can be an
Speaker 1: unmoved spectator. But when Jews try to imitate this behavior,
Speaker 1: I feel my innermost decency outrage. Well mannered gentile society
Speaker 1: rejects us. So does vulgar gentile society. Wow. That says
Speaker 1: a lot. An individual genius cannot be taken as the
Speaker 1: higher type of the people which produced him. But in
Speaker 1: the mass, there is an inevitable correspondence between the product
Speaker 1: of the geniuses of a people and the people itself.
Speaker 1: Studied actu actuarially, the people finds utterance in the geniuses.
Speaker 1: There is an undoubted consistency in all the products of
Speaker 1: the greatest Jewish minds. Whether we take their statistics laterally
Speaker 1: through an age or vertically through history, we will obtain
Speaker 1: a similar result. Whether we begin with the Bible and
Speaker 1: take the sum total of our work down to Karl Marx,
Speaker 1: or confine ourselves to a single country and generation America today,
Speaker 1: for instance, with Untermeyer, Lewis sohne frank hect We will
Speaker 1: find the same appeal to fundamentals, the same passionate rejection
Speaker 1: of your sport world and its sports mentality, the same
Speaker 1: ultimate seriousness, the same inability to be merely playful, merely romantic,
Speaker 1: merely lyrical. It is unthinkable that the masses of a
Speaker 1: people can mean one thing, its genius is another. Or this,
Speaker 1: so the utterances of great minds will lose all relevance,
Speaker 1: would become pointless and impotent. If we symbolize a people
Speaker 1: as a single organism, its geniuses may be likened to
Speaker 1: an organ of self consciousness. And the self consciousness of
Speaker 1: a man is not an independent function, but the instrument
Speaker 1: of all of him. All his body and being. Thinks
Speaker 1: through the brain that which genius illuminates in the life
Speaker 1: from which it springs, the amorphosis crystallized in it. The
Speaker 1: confused diffusion is brought to a focus, so that the
Speaker 1: pattern is made clear. Our geniuses in the midst of
Speaker 1: your world are an alien and destructive element. More clearly
Speaker 1: revealed that such, because they are articulate, they are spokesmen,
Speaker 1: or better said, ourselves in utterance, They like us, being us,
Speaker 1: cannot join your game. You say, because they lack imagination.
Speaker 1: In a sense, it is true. We are unimaginative, as
Speaker 1: old people are unimaginative. In the presence of young people.
Speaker 1: We neither play with emotions nor with things. We lack romanticists,
Speaker 1: as we lack inventors, because we lack inventiveness. That is
Speaker 1: true even among the masses where diffusion confuses. An apt
Speaker 1: instance points to the truth. Among our simple people, you
Speaker 1: do not find the delight in constructive trifles, which is
Speaker 1: one of your characteristics. Your simple people like to build things,
Speaker 1: fix this and that in the house, play the handyman.
Speaker 1: They take pleasure in putting up shelves, looking to the plumbing,
Speaker 1: adding and altering. We're devoid of this kind of craftsman's pleasure.
Speaker 1: We do what is necessary only because it is necessary,
Speaker 1: and as a man, engage happily in such pleasant, childlike pursuits.
Speaker 1: Resents the chilling indifference of an unsympathetic onlooker. So your
Speaker 1: world resents are uncalled for analysis of your acts and occupations.
Speaker 1: This is your life, and you enjoy it. Why do
Speaker 1: we disturb you with questions concerning ultimate values? We lack inventiveness.
Speaker 1: You will say that springs from our lack of vitality.
Speaker 1: Men are lyrical because life sings in them. They are
Speaker 1: inventive because life is restless in them and drives their
Speaker 1: fingers to activity. Some may call that the faustian spirit,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure he would decry. I will not argue
Speaker 1: the cause of the difference. But lacking inventiveness, we also
Speaker 1: lack sympathy for it. And you're to let you call
Speaker 1: inventiveness the conquest of nature. But the boast is to
Speaker 1: us a foolish and childlike boast. The problem with which
Speaker 1: man is faced cannot be answered by scientific inventions. The
Speaker 1: conquest of nature does not lie in evolving keener sight,
Speaker 1: swifter motion, larger strength. This is about magnification, which leaves
Speaker 1: the element of the problem untouched. Can you conquer not
Speaker 1: nature but the nature of things? For it is in
Speaker 1: the nature of things that the bitter problem resides. If
Speaker 1: science should double the span of human life, will the
Speaker 1: nature of life and death be altered? Will we not
Speaker 1: feel as mortal as insignificant? Will we even be able
Speaker 1: to be aware of living longer? If science should bridge
Speaker 1: the planet's in the stars, will the new playground be
Speaker 1: larger than the old? To those that live in it,
Speaker 1: you have found a whole world. Since the days of
Speaker 1: the Greeks, they lived on a tiny plot of land
Speaker 1: and ant hill, and you have a gigantic globe to
Speaker 1: build on. What differences it made? What significant conquest have
Speaker 1: you achieved? Not things, but the nature of things baffle us,
Speaker 1: the dreadful circle, the eternal balance. For every gain, a
Speaker 1: compensating loss, for every new revelation, a new deception, for
Speaker 1: every new extension, a loss of intensity. The nature of
Speaker 1: things cannot be solved because we partake of that nature.
Speaker 1: We can never get round ourselves. We can only turn round.
Speaker 1: Your world spends an enjoyous illusion of progress. We untouched
Speaker 1: by that illusion, destructive of your mood. Stand aside, static
Speaker 1: serious we will be satisfied with nothing but the absolute.
Speaker 1: That alooftiness speaks clearly or obscurely in our masses as
Speaker 1: well as in our geniuses. Dealing with objects instead of
Speaker 1: with laws, they betray the same enthusiastic object activity in
Speaker 1: their attitude to your world. And as long as they
Speaker 1: retain their Jewish identity, they will, despite denial and effort
Speaker 1: to the contrary, remain the same. All right. Chapter twelve,
Speaker 1: Solution and dissolution. Does the situation which I have described
Speaker 1: constitute a problem? Or is it merely one of the
Speaker 1: insoluble difficulties of life, which, being insoluble, should be understood
Speaker 1: as such and suffered tacitly. Death is not a problem,
Speaker 1: being inevitable, is this struggle between our two worlds as inevitable?
Speaker 1: Shall we resign ourselves to the struggle and do what
Speaker 1: we can to mitigate its worst effects? Or shall we
Speaker 1: continue the search for a complete solution? The one solution
Speaker 1: which is generally offered as complete and satisfactory, is quite
Speaker 1: apart from its feasibility, not a solution at all, only
Speaker 1: a dissolution. Does disappearance of the Jewish people by complete
Speaker 1: submergence in the surrounding world would not in reality solve
Speaker 1: the problem any more than one solves a chess problem
Speaker 1: by burning chess board and figures, But it would seem
Speaker 1: to do the next best thing. It would apparently destroy
Speaker 1: the situation which grace the problem. The problem, with that
Speaker 1: having been solved, would at any rate cease to exist,
Speaker 1: And by the dissolution of the Jewish people can be
Speaker 1: meant only one thing. The disappearance of Jewish identity individuals
Speaker 1: in individuals or masses, the complete obliteration of Jewish self
Speaker 1: consciousness down to the very name and recollection. When it
Speaker 1: will be impossible for any man to say to himself,
Speaker 1: I am a Jew, or my father or grandfather was
Speaker 1: a Jew, this consummation will have been achieved. There is
Speaker 1: only one instrument to this end, free and unrestrained intermarriage.
Speaker 1: This is interesting considering Jonathan Greenblad from the ADL the
Speaker 1: other day was to crying Jewish intermarriage. But we know
Speaker 1: how he feels if a German said they only want
Speaker 1: to marry another German. I mean, is the whole thing about,
Speaker 1: you know how calling out hypocrisy and I mean it's
Speaker 1: just a lot of that just comes from them. They
Speaker 1: you know, what's good for them is not good. What
Speaker 1: they advocate for themselves, they cry criminal for others. This
Speaker 1: act or fact alone will count the mere changing of names,
Speaker 1: the substitution of religious forms, the so called liberalization and
Speaker 1: modernization of Judaism is ineffective. It is a matter of
Speaker 1: common observation that there is no inverse ratio between the
Speaker 1: westernization of the Jew and anti Semitism, and this very
Speaker 1: fact will have to be considered again in its relations
Speaker 1: to the feasibility of this proposal. If we talk of
Speaker 1: the submergence of the Jew, we must not play with words.
Speaker 1: Words alone cannot submerge the Jew. If there is anything
Speaker 1: in what I have said, you cannot make a gentile
Speaker 1: of a Jew by arguing with him any more than
Speaker 1: by lynching him. He mentioned Leo Frank earlier, so I'm
Speaker 1: assuming I don't know what that means. You can make
Speaker 1: his children half gentile, his grandchildren only a quarter Jewish,
Speaker 1: and so on till the balance is perfect. And this
Speaker 1: truth seems to have worked out in the minds of
Speaker 1: some Westernizing Jews. Reform Judaism or modernized Judaism is the
Speaker 1: halfway house to baptism, or at least to inner marriage.
Speaker 1: Its very purpose is such, despite the protestations of reform Jews,
Speaker 1: it cannot be anything else. For if the desire is
Speaker 1: to become like the world around us, then all barriers
Speaker 1: must go down, And the real barrier, the conservator of
Speaker 1: all distinctions, is our practice of endogamy. One thing is
Speaker 1: quite certain. The Jew is never baptized for the purpose
Speaker 1: of becoming a Christian. His purpose is to become a gentile.
Speaker 1: That's an interesting take that's a sentence typed in anger,
Speaker 1: certainly typed in anger. Yet, obviously you do not make
Speaker 1: a gentile of a Jew by baptizing him, anymore than
Speaker 1: you would make an arian of a Negro by painting
Speaker 1: him with osher. The sole and sufficient value in this
Speaker 1: direction of baptism is the removal of all conscious prohibition
Speaker 1: against intermarriage. Of course, even baptism is not a necessary preparation.
Speaker 1: Jews marry gentiles without this preliminary formality. The case is
Speaker 1: somewhat different here. This is a natural wastage or attrition.
Speaker 1: Individual passion, not policy, is to cause, though the effect
Speaker 1: is the same, the disappearance of the Jew, and it
Speaker 1: certainly connotes, even if indifferently, the renunciation first of Judaism
Speaker 1: and then of Jewish affiliation. A Jew married to a
Speaker 1: Gentile may remain a Jewish obstensibly as he is. In fact,
Speaker 1: his children seldom, if ever, profess Judaism, or as see
Speaker 1: it themselves. With the Jewish people, You know, you really,
Speaker 1: you really just have to wonder, how do you First
Speaker 1: of all, how would you ever have a conversation with
Speaker 1: this person about the subject matter of this? Can you
Speaker 1: imagine trying to interview him when he was alive about
Speaker 1: this book, and it certainly connotes, even if indifferently, the
Speaker 1: renunciation first of Judaism and then of Jewish affiliation. A
Speaker 1: Jew married to a Gentile remain may remain a Jew
Speaker 1: ostensibly as he is. In fact, his children seldom, if ever,
Speaker 1: professed Judaism or as associate themselves with the Jewish people.
Speaker 1: In this case, the evasion is even more dishonest than
Speaker 1: in the first. A man who professes to belong to
Speaker 1: the Jewish faith, in the Jewish people, and who nevertheless
Speaker 1: give his children to the Gentiles, is making the best
Speaker 1: of both worlds. He evades the odious name of renegade,
Speaker 1: which attaches to the baptized Jew also having his conscience,
Speaker 1: and at the same time contributes effectively to the dissolution
Speaker 1: of the Jewish people. It is well to note that
Speaker 1: the westernized or reformed Jew maybe may deplore the practice,
Speaker 1: but will not exclude such a man from the temple.
Speaker 1: The Orthodox Jew consider such a man lost to Judaism.
Speaker 1: The view, whatever its ethics, is clearer and healthier. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you just can't help but read this, and you know,
Speaker 1: just have a you know, have an Englishman or a
Speaker 1: Welshman or an Irishman argue the same, and yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: you know what it was. It's just I don't want
Speaker 1: to be the magine if the role is a reverse person.
Speaker 1: But it's so once you realize the hypocrisy of it,
Speaker 1: it says more about that. It just it informs how
Speaker 1: much more, how they will never because they care so
Speaker 1: much about themselves, they will never be able to fit in.
Speaker 1: And that's clearly what started this book out by saying,
Speaker 1: but I want to consider it not the accidental, but
Speaker 1: the deliberate or political accidental. Inner marriage being accidental and
Speaker 1: therefore uncontrollable is not a policy. Baptism is a policy.
Speaker 1: The weakening of Judaism, by the removal of its nationalist
Speaker 1: implications and by its modernization, is also a policy, the
Speaker 1: same policy, in fact, more circumspect and less self confessed.
Speaker 1: The policy has as its objective the solution of the
Speaker 1: Jewish problem by the dissolution of the Jewish people. I
Speaker 1: will consider later later whether this policy can obtain the objective.
Speaker 1: The question here concerns the objective, will the dissolution of
Speaker 1: Jewish identity by free and prolonged marriage resolve the struggle
Speaker 1: of the two types that I guess that's the question.
Speaker 1: Or will the struggle continue in another form, less obvious
Speaker 1: but equally uncomfortable. Will the struggle center around isolated individuals
Speaker 1: recurrent types, or will the final product be homogeneous and
Speaker 1: in relation to this particular struggle static. Both a negative
Speaker 1: and affirmative answers to this question are unsatisfactory. Suppose, on
Speaker 1: the one hand, the struggle continues. Suppose the Jewish character
Speaker 1: persists in strains, breaks out in individual atavisms long after
Speaker 1: the Jewish name is perished. The problem will be the same.
Speaker 1: Your world will be confronted with recurrent instances of alien
Speaker 1: and destructive types, all the more dangerous because they are
Speaker 1: not isolated and a recognized repute at a group. Their
Speaker 1: power of destruction will be the greater because they will
Speaker 1: work from within. The Jewish problem will have disappeared, but
Speaker 1: the Gentile problem would remain as bitter as ever. It's
Speaker 1: an interesting tact he is taken here. You almost have
Speaker 1: to admire the You almost have to admire the argument here.
Speaker 1: Let us examine the negative answer. Suppose there are no
Speaker 1: reversions to type. Suppose the Jewish so completely absorbed this
Speaker 1: to be lost beyond possibility of detection in the surrounding world.
Speaker 1: Such a consummation, if possible, calls for one inevitable condition,
Speaker 1: that is, the proportionate judaization of your world. It is
Speaker 1: unthinkable that so vivid an element as a Jewish people
Speaker 1: should be absorbed into your world without producing an appreachable
Speaker 1: alteration in its constitution. A world that has absorbed the
Speaker 1: Jews will be, to the extent will to that extent
Speaker 1: be a Jewish world. There's prophecy, and this is precisely
Speaker 1: the condition which you refuse to admit. You want no
Speaker 1: tampering with your identity. You want to remain what you are.
Speaker 1: You have no intention of meeting us at the point
Speaker 1: of balance. You do not want a world tinged with
Speaker 1: Jewish blood. You want us to be absorbed in you
Speaker 1: without leaving a trace, and with the best intentions in
Speaker 1: the world. We cannot oblige. We can, in that sense
Speaker 1: no more destroy ourselves than we destroy a single particle
Speaker 1: of matter. But I shall show in the following pages
Speaker 1: that all this talk of dissolution is academic. Even if
Speaker 1: you should tolerate and prospect both of these alternatives, there
Speaker 1: are insuperable of obstacles which make it highly improbable that
Speaker 1: you will ever that you will ever be faced with either.
Speaker 1: All Right, end it right there and come back and
Speaker 1: make every effort to try to finish this up this week.
Speaker 1: All right, take care everyone, and I hope you're getting
Speaker 1: something out of this. All right, We've got two more
Speaker 1: chapters and one page left, so this is you Gentiles
Speaker 1: by Maury Samuel, Part eleven. You're going to finish it up.
Speaker 1: Sorry about I meant to finish it up earlier. Had
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of work done on my mouth, still
Speaker 1: being done, waiting for certain bridges to come in and
Speaker 1: everything like that, trying to fix a problem I've had
Speaker 1: for a long time. There's gonna be mouth noises. I
Speaker 1: know there's been mouth noises up until now. Part of
Speaker 1: the new work is to get rid of those mouth
Speaker 1: noises and everything because of partials that I've been suffering
Speaker 1: with for years, not really suffering, but yeah, so forgive
Speaker 1: anything that sounds terrible, but yeah, let's finish this up.
Speaker 1: So I want to start on something new as soon
Speaker 1: as I get the choppers. The last chapter that we
Speaker 1: did was called Solution and Dissolution. This one is called
Speaker 1: the Mechanism of Dissolution, Chapter thirteen. This would be an
Speaker 1: ideal condition, presumably, the merging together of Jew and Gentile,
Speaker 1: for the production of a world neither holy gentile, nor
Speaker 1: yet duel with Jew and gentile, but composed of both
Speaker 1: in certain proportions fixed by our numbers and the laws
Speaker 1: of heredity. That is, at least the best solution within view,
Speaker 1: and if we are to be reasonable on paper, at
Speaker 1: least it would be the only one to be considered.
Speaker 1: But we must remember that this ideal cannot be realized
Speaker 1: in one generation, or in two, or in five. If
Speaker 1: we were to assume the assumption is an absurd one
Speaker 1: that within this generation the Jewish world could be won
Speaker 1: over to this point of view, it would still need
Speaker 1: four or five generations, probably more, to obliterate our identity.
Speaker 1: At that it would call for forcible interm marriage, for
Speaker 1: even when we cease to believe in endogamy, we will
Speaker 1: practice it because our affections so incline us. It would
Speaker 1: have to become a sort of principle that, in the
Speaker 1: name of the great ideal of a solution of the
Speaker 1: Jewish problem, the Jew shall be forbidden morally, at least
Speaker 1: to marry among his own but it is clear that
Speaker 1: even if intensive propaganda were to break down, it could
Speaker 1: not for reasons I shall return to our prohibitions the
Speaker 1: int intermarriage. It would have to work progressively. It would
Speaker 1: take many generations to carry the change successfully through all
Speaker 1: the strong strongholds of Jewish life. And when we add
Speaker 1: to that the time thus needed, the time needed for
Speaker 1: actual absorption by intermarriage, we are faced with a task
Speaker 1: of centuries. But I deal with ideal conditions. I will
Speaker 1: deal with a single, large group of Jews determined to
Speaker 1: abandon their identity and to lose themselves and their children
Speaker 1: in the surrounding gentile world. Cald we know well that
Speaker 1: their children will not yet be assimilated in the full
Speaker 1: sense of the word. Children of mixed Jewish gentile percentage
Speaker 1: still carry the Jewish stigma. The child of a half
Speaker 1: Jew and complete gentile is in better plight, and a
Speaker 1: Jewish great grandfather is hardly any handicap at all. The
Speaker 1: third generation, as the saying is, produces the gentleman it
Speaker 1: needs at least these three generations of intermediary stage, probably more.
Speaker 1: It would be absurd to expect absorption in a single generation.
Speaker 1: It never happens there's needed a transition period, and is
Speaker 1: this transition period which you gentiles will not tolerate, even
Speaker 1: if you believe, as most of you do, that the
Speaker 1: best thing that could happen to the Jew would be
Speaker 1: his complete absorption by inner marriage. You oppose tacitly, but
Speaker 1: not the less obstinately his steps in this direction. You
Speaker 1: want us to intermarry. You don't want to intermarry. You
Speaker 1: want us to produce gentile offspring without having taken your
Speaker 1: sons and daughters as mates. In other words, you want
Speaker 1: an end without permitting the means. The prospect of a
Speaker 1: jewless world is charming, indeed, But who will enjoy the
Speaker 1: actuality your grandchildren and great grandchildren, and who will have
Speaker 1: to pay the price of the first embarrassing contact, the
Speaker 1: first difficult intimacy Jewish sons and daughters in laws, Jewish
Speaker 1: fathers and mother in laws, you yourselves. The prospect is
Speaker 1: too distant, too hypothetical to exert any influence. It is
Speaker 1: much too much like the promise of heaven and the
Speaker 1: threat of Hell. I just love that there's no consideration
Speaker 1: for separation, and just go to your own land. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, I think he died in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy four in New York. I don't think he ever
Speaker 1: wants to live in Israel. Curious. I've alluded more than
Speaker 1: once to the fact that westernization of the Jew is
Speaker 1: nowhere a guarantee against anti Semitism, indeed conscious modern antisemitism.
Speaker 1: The formulated fear of the Jew is the racial bearer
Speaker 1: of alien and dangerous ideas, is to result of Westernization.
Speaker 1: Far from encouraging or tolerating our intermarriage with you, you do
Speaker 1: not even relish the results of our westernization or gentileization.
Speaker 1: It is an amazing and terrifying paradox. You would like
Speaker 1: us to be absorbed, but you shrink from the process.
Speaker 1: The inoculation is painful, even revolting. You are uneasy and
Speaker 1: unhappy when we swarm into your universities, your professions. The
Speaker 1: nearer we come to you, the more you dislike us. Wow.
Speaker 1: You dislike us because we are different. And when we
Speaker 1: make efforts to overcome the difference, we are forced into
Speaker 1: a proximity which rouses your inmost resentment. The ku Klux Klan,
Speaker 1: the Awakening Magyars, the consul no longer warn you against
Speaker 1: the religious and secluded Jew. The ghetto and the Talmud.
Speaker 1: They warn you against the baptizing Jew, against the assimilating Jew,
Speaker 1: against the intermarrying Jew. They warn you, indeed, against that
Speaker 1: part of the Jewish people which is apparently in the
Speaker 1: process of realization of that ultimate ideal. The disappearance of
Speaker 1: the Jewish people. Another aspect of the mechanics of dissolution
Speaker 1: makes clear difficulties somewhat more subtle, but even more effective.
Speaker 1: The death of a people or of a type can
Speaker 1: be natural only race suicide is an idea as an
Speaker 1: ideal is contradiction for an ideal, as a manifestation of
Speaker 1: life deliberately to set before ourselves, the objective of self
Speaker 1: elimination would be as absurd as a man, as absurd
Speaker 1: as a man insisting on watching himself fall asleep. It
Speaker 1: can be done tacitly. Only it can happen, but it
Speaker 1: cannot be propagated. We might drift out of consciousness, but
Speaker 1: every effort to accelerate the pace would retard the process.
Speaker 1: To appeal to Jews to cease to be Jews because
Speaker 1: they are Jews is to accentuate their Jewishness. Of course,
Speaker 1: the effort has been made. But with those grotesque and
Speaker 1: unnatural results, which are in part responsible for your aversions
Speaker 1: of the process. There is nothing more ludicrous and pitiful
Speaker 1: than the Jew who has made his gentilization a deliberate ideal.
Speaker 1: His anxious self repression, his self disclaimers, his demand to
Speaker 1: be considered a gentile, His uneasy sense of inferiority, his
Speaker 1: impoinite resentment of all that reminds him of his origin,
Speaker 1: make him an object of scorn. Alike to you and
Speaker 1: to us, there are assimilated Jews who hate with an
Speaker 1: ignoble and consuming hatred the unassimilated part of the Jewish people.
Speaker 1: Jews who, rousing your secret contempt as renegades, in your
Speaker 1: resentment as intruders, attribute their discomfort falsely to those Jews
Speaker 1: who are most obviously Jewish. For the gentilization Jew is
Speaker 1: reluctant to admit that his very gentilization accentuates his Jewishness
Speaker 1: to you, his only recourse, to say the last remnant
Speaker 1: of his self respect is to blame the unassimilating Jew.
Speaker 1: In eager self vindification, he points out the object lesson
Speaker 1: of the sufferings of Orthodox and National Jewies and associates
Speaker 1: his own severer sufferings with the same cause. He deliberately
Speaker 1: ignores the fact that the cradle of the newer anti
Speaker 1: Semitism is to country which witnessed the first efforts of
Speaker 1: the jew to make a high ideal of assimilation. Germany,
Speaker 1: which in the nineteenth century offered the classic example of
Speaker 1: Jewish assimilation, both internal in adaptation of our own life
Speaker 1: and external in baptism and intermarriage, also became the country
Speaker 1: of classic anti Semitism. Terrified at the infiltration of Jewish blood,
Speaker 1: the German gentile recasts formulae of Jewish hatred and such
Speaker 1: wise as to arrest the process. I'm all I'm hearing
Speaker 1: is is that people are different and they should separate.
Speaker 1: But that's really the issue, isn't it. They don't want
Speaker 1: that much like many people make the claim that black
Speaker 1: people feel like they have a right to access to
Speaker 1: white people. Same thing here, same thing I mean, well,
Speaker 1: I mean you could just go to your you know,
Speaker 1: you have your own country, now, you could just go Well,
Speaker 1: that's anti Semitism. Maybe it's just logic. Wh examine the
Speaker 1: mechanism of dissolution in detail and come down to an
Speaker 1: examination of its working on the individual. We understand better
Speaker 1: the revolting character, at least of at least as first effects.
Speaker 1: It is one thing to say that a people in
Speaker 1: the first stages of dissolution is as horrible a spectacle
Speaker 1: as a body in the first stages of putrification puture faction.
Speaker 1: But this sounds somewhat academic, perhaps even metaphysical. Even so,
Speaker 1: there is little conveyed in the statement that a country
Speaker 1: is starving. We realize the import of the statement only
Speaker 1: when we speak of hungry men and women. When we
Speaker 1: examine the personal reactions of the deliberately assimilating Jew, we
Speaker 1: see more clearly why he is not a pleasant spectacle,
Speaker 1: either to Jew or to gentile. A Jew who has
Speaker 1: made the repression of his Jewishness an ideal must be
Speaker 1: prepared to suffer and to seem to ignore every slight,
Speaker 1: every rebuff which he encounters. He must not permit an
Speaker 1: open sneer to sting him into Jewish self consciousness. Such
Speaker 1: a weakness would undo his purpose. He must seem to
Speaker 1: be unaware of the caiseal coolness which follows the accidental
Speaker 1: revelation of his origin. He must bear silently with those
Speaker 1: countless unspoken snubs, half snubs, un uttered queries, faint ah yes,
Speaker 1: astonishments which will be his lot until the day of
Speaker 1: his death. He must not feel himself implicated in a
Speaker 1: general slander of the Jews. He may only protest in
Speaker 1: a generous disinterest. This sort of way as a fair
Speaker 1: minded gentile. An angry retort or repudiation might be the
Speaker 1: ruin of him. He would suddenly realize the intolerable nature
Speaker 1: of his position. It is not an easy thing to
Speaker 1: kill one's self by degrees. Such a Jew has the
Speaker 1: whole way to go. He is not entering a world
Speaker 1: already made it easier for him by an admixture of
Speaker 1: Jewish blood. He does not move forward to a partly
Speaker 1: prepared position. All is alien around him. His claims have
Speaker 1: no precedent. There is something pitifully impotent in his demand.
Speaker 1: But I am an Englishman like you, an American like you.
Speaker 1: I have no affiliations outside of it this country, except
Speaker 1: those general human affiliations which I share with you. I
Speaker 1: feel for my co religiono iss abroad, nothing more nor
Speaker 1: less than you feel for your fellow Christians among the Turks.
Speaker 1: Between me and my fellow Jews in this country, there
Speaker 1: is nothing more than between Protestant and Protestant, Catholic and Catholic,
Speaker 1: or if he is baptized, this incriminating confession may presumably
Speaker 1: be omitted. Quote. I am part and parcel of your country.
Speaker 1: Our forefathers came later, but our posterity will stay as long.
Speaker 1: There is no difference between you and me, except a
Speaker 1: very slight difference of faith, nothing really worth mentioning. In
Speaker 1: all else we are utterly alike. Do not let yourself
Speaker 1: be misled by the apparent contrast between me and my
Speaker 1: unassimilated co religionists. It is merely a matter of externals.
Speaker 1: In a little while, in a generation or two, they
Speaker 1: will be like me, indistinguishable from you. They will be Americans,
Speaker 1: or Englishmen or Frenchmen. In every respect, your destiny in ours,
Speaker 1: your outlook, and ours, your hopes and hours are identical.
Speaker 1: End quote. But his plea falls on skeptical ears that
Speaker 1: there is that in the very name of Jew which
Speaker 1: invalidates his protestations. And the more vehemently he urges his case,
Speaker 1: the more suspicious and uneasy you become. For he is
Speaker 1: urging as an accomplished fact, that which is nothing but
Speaker 1: a hopeless personal aspiration. Your demand is not connected with
Speaker 1: behavior or with reviews. Neither of these makes the American
Speaker 1: or the Englishman. It is a question of identity. You
Speaker 1: want us to be Anglo Saxons, or two sons if
Speaker 1: you are, if you are to call us Englishmen or Germans,
Speaker 1: and we cannot be that. At best. Our great grandchildren
Speaker 1: can be as nearly that as matters, But we cannot
Speaker 1: remarry our great grandparents. We cannot but exasperate you by
Speaker 1: such important, importunate assumptions. That strangers, aliens to your blood
Speaker 1: should come to dwell in your midst is one thing
Speaker 1: that they should claim, after a sojourn of a generation
Speaker 1: or two, complete identity with you, as absurd as it
Speaker 1: is insolent. And even if they should dwell in your
Speaker 1: mysts a thousand years, yet should keep apart, neither giving
Speaker 1: nor taking in marriage. They are not identical with you.
Speaker 1: In those words our ancestry, our forefathers, there are implied
Speaker 1: the dearest and tenderest of human associations. The love of
Speaker 1: his forbearers and of his posterity is all that man
Speaker 1: has of earthly immortality. The pride and affection, which are
Speaker 1: the natural counterparts of these concepts, are as narrow and
Speaker 1: as broad, as potent for good and evil, as sexual
Speaker 1: love as life itself. Shall we come to you and
Speaker 1: share your ancestry? Shall we intrude on these exalted recollections
Speaker 1: with a we two? You cannot help resenting these claims
Speaker 1: They savor at once of ingratiating humility and arrogant blasphemy.
Speaker 1: Try you will, you cannot make the concession. You are
Speaker 1: trapped it by a vital paradox. You may ask, what
Speaker 1: difference is there between a Jew claiming to be an
Speaker 1: American and an Italian claiming to be one? Is it
Speaker 1: more humiliating for one than the other? Is the Italian
Speaker 1: of our ancestry more than you? There is some similarity
Speaker 1: in the plight of all foreigners, and we Jews suffer
Speaker 1: all that foreigners suffer. But our case is unique, because
Speaker 1: we are unique. If there is anything in what I
Speaker 1: have said, the cleft between you Americans and Italians, Frenchmen
Speaker 1: and Germans is but a wide jump as compared with
Speaker 1: the chasm between us and any of you. What is
Speaker 1: true of the gentile foreigner in this regard is ten
Speaker 1: times true of us. For our very record testifies against us.
Speaker 1: The older, the past from which we attempt to flee
Speaker 1: the closer it pursues us. To you, who share with
Speaker 1: us the human attribute of pride of ancestry, it seems
Speaker 1: incredible that, having retained our identity for one hundred generations,
Speaker 1: we should abandon it in one suspicious and odious for
Speaker 1: you suspect rightly that in this tenacity of identity, which
Speaker 1: has outlived so many nations and civilizations, there is implied
Speaker 1: a kernel of individuality which is as which is as
Speaker 1: singular in its nature as it is in its history
Speaker 1: Among yourselves. Assimilation is problem enough. The birth and death
Speaker 1: of nations is attended by war, wars, pains, humiliations. But
Speaker 1: what you have done a thousand times, a dozen times
Speaker 1: over in the last four thousand years, we have not
Speaker 1: done once. We cannot assimilate. It is so humiliating to
Speaker 1: us that we become contemptible in submitting to the process.
Speaker 1: It is so exasperating to you that even if we
Speaker 1: were willing to submit, it would avail us nothing. Which
Speaker 1: brings us to the official last chapter. Is there any hope?
Speaker 1: Considering everything he's been saying, what do you think chapter fourteen?
Speaker 1: Is there any hope? There is little more to be said.
Speaker 1: I would only like to sit down before concluding a
Speaker 1: few considerations might which might help to clarify the issue
Speaker 1: between us. For I cannot believe that the contest between
Speaker 1: our two ways of life will come to an end
Speaker 1: within measurable time. And I cannot believe that while the
Speaker 1: contest continues, it will ever be lifted to purely spiritual levels.
Speaker 1: That's I mean. I mean, it's a great prediction. Don't
Speaker 1: you know you don't have to play the lottery. I
Speaker 1: don't think you're gonna win. I mean, I will not
Speaker 1: confound eschatology with daily experience. If ever the dream of
Speaker 1: the prophet should come true, If ever men should live
Speaker 1: at peace with each other, expressing their antagonisms with that enmity,
Speaker 1: why they will no longer be men but another species,
Speaker 1: and talk of jew and gentile will be as irrelevant
Speaker 1: then as it might have been twenty thousand years ago.
Speaker 1: The world is getting better, no doubt, but the improvement
Speaker 1: is not to be measured in generations or centuries, and
Speaker 1: what will come to pass ten thousand years from now
Speaker 1: does not concern me in connection with this problem. Certainly,
Speaker 1: I have no patience with those who bid us weight
Speaker 1: to bid us wait dumbly for the apotheosis of mankind,
Speaker 1: as though the millennium were right around the corner, as
Speaker 1: though every year registered a perceptible and even considerable improvement.
Speaker 1: If ever, within the span of one generation mankind could
Speaker 1: suffer visible improvement, it should have been now within the
Speaker 1: generation which witnessed the war. But only the fool and
Speaker 1: the professional optimists will assert that our way of life today,
Speaker 1: our utterances, our emotions, our ambitions are at all cleaner
Speaker 1: than they were ten years ago when the war started,
Speaker 1: the same handful of sensitive men and women struggle hopelessly
Speaker 1: against the passions of humanity, the same ugliness and meanness,
Speaker 1: the same selfishness in lying, the same lust for bloody adventure,
Speaker 1: the same delight physical triumph, the same wilful self deception
Speaker 1: and abuse of lovely phrases have us in thrall. The
Speaker 1: race is still to the swift, and the battle to
Speaker 1: the strong, and the goal and the prize are what
Speaker 1: they were ten years ago. What I say then is
Speaker 1: not prompted by the hope that words of mind or
Speaker 1: of anyone else can give a new complexion to the
Speaker 1: general struggle between jew and gentile, But only by the
Speaker 1: desire to clarify, for the encouragement of a few, the
Speaker 1: nature of this struggle, convincing them perhaps that behind the
Speaker 1: sordid stupidity which seems to govern our Jew Gensaur relationship,
Speaker 1: there may be found a compensating grain of eternal principle.
Speaker 1: And my concluding words or address less to practical expectations
Speaker 1: than to the desire for completeness. So you get to
Speaker 1: the end of the war, there's some World War one, No,
Speaker 1: Germany is basically decimated, taken over visibly by people of
Speaker 1: Jewish persuasion. Austria is actively being starved. People are noticing
Speaker 1: that the only people running the black markets in say
Speaker 1: Vienna or yeah, in Vienna are Jews. Where do they
Speaker 1: get the food from? They're noticing that the Communists who
Speaker 1: are coming over and destroying farms are a certain group.
Speaker 1: And you want to talk about how, oh, because of
Speaker 1: the war, people should just say there's losers in war,
Speaker 1: especially that war. And then the Germans find out that
Speaker 1: basically Jews were bribed, there was bribery going on, or
Speaker 1: there was persuasion going on that if Jews got were
Speaker 1: able to persuade the United States to get into the
Speaker 1: war on the side of the Allies, that they would
Speaker 1: Jews would get the vow for declaration. They found out
Speaker 1: about that almost immediately. You didn't think that that was
Speaker 1: going to cause a problem. You thought people were just
Speaker 1: gonna be like, Oh, the horrors of war, war of
Speaker 1: which your people won. Really, yeah, Why are we Jews
Speaker 1: prepared to give you, which, in my opinion, you should
Speaker 1: consider sufficient obedience to the laws of the state and
Speaker 1: readiness to defend it, even if against our inmost belief
Speaker 1: in time of danger. This constitutes a full payment for
Speaker 1: the privilege of citizenship and the protection of the laws.
Speaker 1: But this offer on the part of the Jew becomes
Speaker 1: inadequate when the state begins to assume functions which seemed
Speaker 1: to me totally beyond its capacity. What was intended only
Speaker 1: for the regulation of the external actions of a given
Speaker 1: group in becoming a growing tyranny against the inmost values
Speaker 1: at man, an attempted violation of our most inaccessible privileges.
Speaker 1: And this despite the professions of your statesmen and political thinkers.
Speaker 1: It is acknowledged in principle that a man's religion is
Speaker 1: beyond the reach of law, and his God need neither
Speaker 1: pay taxes, nor take out citizenship papers. But the acknowledgment
Speaker 1: of this principle is gradually becoming meaningless. Perhaps it never
Speaker 1: had any meaning in light of the growing spiritual tyranny
Speaker 1: of the state. Perhaps nothing that you can ever that
Speaker 1: you have ever feared from the economic tyranny of socialism
Speaker 1: approaches the oppressive spiritual tyranny of your great democracies. These
Speaker 1: seek to control not only the acts, but the emotions
Speaker 1: of the individuals. They would compel us to love and hate,
Speaker 1: to admire and despise as part of our civic duty,
Speaker 1: and not content with that part of us which alone
Speaker 1: affects the well being of government. Would also conquer and
Speaker 1: control that part of us which belongs to no one
Speaker 1: but each man and God. They would control our culture,
Speaker 1: as though culture were controllable except for the purposes of destruction. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a mouthful tell us in which language to create,
Speaker 1: as though they could fructify us and direct our ecstasies,
Speaker 1: as though these were run along wires and commanded by switches.
Speaker 1: Our obedience, our tribute, our bodies will not do. They
Speaker 1: will have the very secrets of the heart of their
Speaker 1: of the heart torn out of us and delivered to
Speaker 1: Washington or Berlin or London, and the terror of socialism.
Speaker 1: They depict the intolerable misery of the man who can
Speaker 1: claim nothing for himself, but must yield up the fruit
Speaker 1: of his labor down to the last husk, to the
Speaker 1: disposition of the state. But they have instituted a spiritual
Speaker 1: socialism infinitely more hideous. And for economic equality, they have
Speaker 1: substituted a spiritual hejemanith illgeneity, sorry, which the communists can
Speaker 1: never hope to parallel in the physical field. And woe
Speaker 1: to him who dares to practice private initiative in the
Speaker 1: spiritual socialist state. His punishment is not only spiritual, but
Speaker 1: physical too. And we choose the most obstinate and most
Speaker 1: enduring centers in this respect are the best measure of
Speaker 1: vindictive fury with which this tyranny is armed. If then
Speaker 1: the struggle between us is ever to be lifted beyond
Speaker 1: this physical your democracies will have to alter their demands
Speaker 1: for racial, spiritual, and cultural homogeneity within the state. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it would be foolish to regard this as a possibility,
Speaker 1: for the tendency of the civilization is in the opposite direction.
Speaker 1: That's why you need a world war, and that's why
Speaker 1: you need a devil, and that's why you need the
Speaker 1: worst event that ever happened in history. Remember what Daryl
Speaker 1: Cooper and I said. What Daryl Cooper said, Well, there
Speaker 1: are Jewish question episode. He said, well, it turns out
Speaker 1: that the way you integrate the Jews, which was JQ
Speaker 1: Jewish question after Marx's initial one, was you basically had
Speaker 1: to make Christian nations not Christian anymore. There was a
Speaker 1: steady approach toward the identification of state with race instead
Speaker 1: of with the political state. And since this is largely
Speaker 1: beyond your conscious control, it is perhaps as foolish as
Speaker 1: it is futile to expect to change. I mean, I
Speaker 1: haven't gone forward to look and see later in his
Speaker 1: life if he was a Zionist. I am assuming he's
Speaker 1: a raging Zionist. But look what he's saying here, saying,
Speaker 1: you know, you expect to have a state based on race? Ugh. Uh.
Speaker 1: The best fighting unit is a nation which is homogeneous
Speaker 1: in blood and emotions, no less than in political allegiance.
Speaker 1: And since the chief function of the state is to fight, witnessed,
Speaker 1: a proportion of your taxes spent in payment and preparation
Speaker 1: for wars. You will inevitably demand the subordination of all
Speaker 1: human functions to that end. But this is really crying
Speaker 1: out in pain as he gets struck, especially with what's
Speaker 1: to come, or crying crying out in pain as you strike. Sorry.
Speaker 1: The demand for racial homogeneity, racial homogeneity within the state
Speaker 1: has led in America, still the most unexploited country in
Speaker 1: the whole world, to the exclusion of the immigrant, and
Speaker 1: particularly of the immigrant who will not lend himself to
Speaker 1: the type of assimilation orself instructure with you' de meant.
Speaker 1: He's writing this right around the time of the nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty four Immigration Act, so you can also see an
Speaker 1: impetus for writing this, the anger behind that. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of Jewish anger behind that act because they
Speaker 1: saw it as keeping them out, without for a moment
Speaker 1: admitting that any kind of exclusion is justifiable in a
Speaker 1: world which God created before the nations appeared to disfigure it.
Speaker 1: I submit the case of the Jew is an exception.
Speaker 1: The Jew has no homeland of his own. When the
Speaker 1: Jew migrates from one country to another, it is almost
Speaker 1: invariably under the pressure of persecution. Why why would you
Speaker 1: be persecuted over and over again. Oh that's right, you
Speaker 1: explained it in this book. Thank you. To close the
Speaker 1: gate against the Jew is not the same then closing
Speaker 1: it against the Italian or the Pole. In the latter cases,
Speaker 1: you insist as certain racist state in their own homes,
Speaker 1: whether or not the land will support them. But the
Speaker 1: Jew is not being forced to stay at home while
Speaker 1: one part of the gentile world persecutes him, the other
Speaker 1: part refuses him a chance to escape for very shame.
Speaker 1: If you were capable of it, you should give the
Speaker 1: Jew free immigration everywhere. The irony of it is, of course,
Speaker 1: that it is chiefly against the Jew that anti immigration
Speaker 1: laws are passed here in America, as in England and Germany,
Speaker 1: and the liberal countries which could make room for the
Speaker 1: hunted Jew, cooperate despite a few gallant and unsustained gestures,
Speaker 1: with the most illiberal in the persecution of their common victim.
Speaker 1: He that refuses asylum to a victim fleeing from a
Speaker 1: murderer is before God a free and will income accomplice
Speaker 1: in the crime. He said over and over. He's an atheist.
Speaker 1: It's just it's so. This book is so perfect, and
Speaker 1: to me it is infinitely strange that even from your
Speaker 1: point of view, the sporting point of view, you should
Speaker 1: be able to reconcile your morality with your acts. If
Speaker 1: there is anything at all in your professions, you should
Speaker 1: be filled with admiration and astonishment at the incredible pluckiness
Speaker 1: of a small people, which, in the face of infinite discouragement,
Speaker 1: has clung with such tenacity to its identity and cult.
Speaker 1: Oh man, this is so good. I love the way Jansas,
Speaker 1: without understanding us at all, you might have paid the
Speaker 1: homage of warriors to the courage of our unconquerable enemy.
Speaker 1: That you watch us with vicious irritation rather than with respect,
Speaker 1: that you load us with comely, You load us with contumely,
Speaker 1: when so much in your own instinct should have given
Speaker 1: us a peculiar place in your regard. Makes me feel
Speaker 1: that nothing which can be urged upon your conscience will
Speaker 1: avail to lighten the burden of our destiny. They have
Speaker 1: a destiny we allowed to have a destiny. We have
Speaker 1: just witnessed in America the repetition and the peculiar form
Speaker 1: adapted to this country, the evil farce to which experience
Speaker 1: of many centuries has not yet quite accustomed us. If
Speaker 1: America had any meaning at all, it lay in the
Speaker 1: peculiar attempt to rise above the trend of our present civilization,
Speaker 1: the identification of race with state. In the old world,
Speaker 1: the evil had taken root in the course of centuries.
Speaker 1: Its hideous fruits was therefore inevitable. He knows. He's just
Speaker 1: telling you.
Speaker 2: If you're if it's not a homogo, if it's a
Speaker 2: homogeneous state, we stand out like a sore thumb. You
Speaker 2: gotta let a bunch of other people in. You gotta
Speaker 2: let a bunch of people who don't look like you.
Speaker 2: You can't, don't be cohesive. Then we can come in,
Speaker 2: be cohesive and take over.
Speaker 1: Did that happen? But America seemed to offer the hope
Speaker 1: of a change. Whatever other evils America had inherited, at
Speaker 1: least this one she had avoided. America, therefore, was the
Speaker 1: New World in this vital respect, that the state was
Speaker 1: purely an ideal, and nationality was identical only with acceptance
Speaker 1: of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire
Speaker 1: point of view was a mistaken one. That America was
Speaker 1: incapable of rising above her origins and the semblance of
Speaker 1: an ideal nationalism was only a stage in the proper
Speaker 1: development of the universal gentile spirit. The ideal, which for
Speaker 1: a time constituted American nationality, disappears now and in its
Speaker 1: place emerges again with atavistic certainty, the race. It is
Speaker 1: true that even while the ideal flourished triumphant over race,
Speaker 1: the seeds of our enmity lay securely embedded in our natures.
Speaker 1: But the passing generosity keeps the seeds in slumber. It
Speaker 1: is not the first time that gentile nations, forgetting themselves
Speaker 1: for a brief period, have offered us friendship and even affection,
Speaker 1: But the strange and unnatural exultation, pasted and bitter sobriety succeeded.
Speaker 1: Why today, with race triumphant over ideal, anti Semitism uncovers
Speaker 1: its fangs into the heartless refusal as of the most
Speaker 1: elementary human right, the right of asylum, is added cowardly insult.
Speaker 1: The most elementary human right is the right of asylum.
Speaker 1: If you don't let us into subvert your culture, you're
Speaker 1: evil and cowardly. We are not only excluded, but we
Speaker 1: are told, in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws,
Speaker 1: that we are an inferior people without the moral courage
Speaker 1: to stand up squarely to its evil instincts. The country
Speaker 1: prepared itself, through its journalists by a long drought of
Speaker 1: vilification of the Jew, and when sufficiently inspired by the
Speaker 1: popular and scientific portions, committed the act. How then, shall
Speaker 1: I delude myself into the belief that the considerations covered
Speaker 1: in this chapter will produce any effect? Have we Jews
Speaker 1: not known this evil long enough? Should we not have
Speaker 1: known better by this time than to repose hope in
Speaker 1: any of the nations. Perhaps we were foolish in our overconfidence.
Speaker 1: But our credulousness does us less dishonor than your cruelty
Speaker 1: does you. And if it savors again a foolish simplicity
Speaker 1: to make this plea to you, I am willing to
Speaker 1: take the risk. This last part is called a last word.
Speaker 1: It would have been a happier task for me if
Speaker 1: I had been able to write this book with sincerity.
Speaker 1: In another tone, if I had been able to record
Speaker 1: a struggle of two ideals and types which was never
Speaker 1: compromised and obscured by physical lusts and cruelties. But rather
Speaker 1: than utter the old, untruthful courtesies, tempering resentment with caution. Intact,
Speaker 1: it would have been better not to write at all,
Speaker 1: and I was driven to write. I believe that though
Speaker 1: I may have aired here and there, I have been
Speaker 1: mainly right. And I console myself with the thought that
Speaker 1: this book offends by its assertiveness. God knows that the
Speaker 1: infinite tactfulness of thousands of other Jews seems to have offended.
Speaker 1: No less. Whatever we do, we are damned. And I'd
Speaker 1: rather be damned standing up than lying down. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's the book. I mean, how much do I have?
Speaker 1: What am I supposed to say? What commentary am I
Speaker 1: supposed to have? It's like Camp of the Saints. When
Speaker 1: I read through Camp of the Saints, there was so
Speaker 1: little for me to comment on because it was so obvious.
Speaker 1: What am I going to explain to you? I just
Speaker 1: comment for my own sake so that I feel better
Speaker 1: about what I'm reading. But I mean, this, come on, really,
Speaker 1: all right? I hope you like it. I am going
Speaker 1: to get off this subject, and the next thing I
Speaker 1: read for you all will be something different, something enjoyable,
Speaker 1: I promise you, maybe something I haven't read and we'll
Speaker 1: read it for the first time together. That would be fun.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I hope you got a lot out of this.
Speaker 1: I hope you learned a lot. And yeah, I really
Speaker 1: don't have much more to say. Take care of everyone,
Speaker 1: Thank you, I really, I'm this is only being released
Speaker 1: to supporters. I can't tell you how much I I
Speaker 1: appreciate y'all, and I might release it publicly one day.
Speaker 1: But I want to do something. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: willing to take money out of your pocket and send
Speaker 1: it to me every month, I want to do something
Speaker 1: that you can. You know, this just us, just us talking,
Speaker 1: So thank you and see you in a week hopefully,
Speaker 1: and get this while tayking care of later