Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 14             B"H   June 2007             NUMBER 4

"For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"

June 2007





  • CONDOLEEZZA RICE USES THE "N" WORD! ..............Emanuel A. Winston






    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
    P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
    E-Mail: ** URL:
    Copyright © 2005 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




    From James Linduff
    Tactical Management

    Mr Shapiro:

    As I write this email, Syrian officials are removing government archives from Damascus in their preparations for war with Israel, and Iran has publicly stated that “the destruction of Israel” is almost upon the world. Hamas has established control over the Gaza Strip, and is busy cleansing the area of the last remnants of opposition. Lebanon is in turmoil.

    In Venezuela, the government of Hugo Chavez has openly allied with Iran and Syria, and began a pattern of state sponsored political repression on their Jewish population. Venezuelan Press has stated that the expulsion of 25,000 Jews may be considered at some point in the future.

    In Argentina, who has the largest Jewish population in South America, the phrase “be patriotic, kill Jews” began appearing in slogan graffiti nationally during the Lebanon War, and anti-semetic incidents are on the rise. There are also documented cases of Islamic radical cells and networks in operation in South America, which could engage in anti-Jewish activities at any time.

    In Europe, Jews also face a variety of hostile elements, which is well known and documented and generally known. Anti-semetic incidents are also on the rise, as they have been for several years now. Jews are pouring out of Europe to Israel.

    Each of these events is easily recognizable to any person with military experience as the preliminary “battlefield shaping” moves of an impending war of terrible scope. It could easily escalate into a world war.
    Mr. Shapiro, we stand at the brink of another Holocaust, and everyone knows it. I really don’t have to cite facts and figures in academic style and format to make this apparent. All one has to do is listen to the nightly news. The question is, how will modern Zionism confront the issue when the pre-war posturing is over, and the much dreaded conflict to eliminate Israel from the map and exterminate the Jewish people all over the world begins? How will Zionism help the Jewish people to survive in the face of an enemy as determined as Hitler? What will be the role of Zionism in a conflict that threatens Jews wherever they reside in the world?

    Any person of Jewish descent knows that Israel is a nation that resides partially in exile, and partially in the land. We also know this war portends to affect the diaspora and the nation of Israel equally. .

    Will Zionism and its allied elements throughout the world distinguish themselves by taking courageous action to save Jews? Will non-Jewish Zionists prove to be the first real, tangible ally the Jewish people have ever known in their history? Will Zionism prove to be a channel to action for it's adherents to use for action in saving the innocent of Israel from another Holocaust? I certainly hope so, sir. I would hate to think that the support of Israel that has been enthusiastically voiced in the press would evaporate into inaction when the real challenges start.

    If this were to happen, modern Zionism would have no choice but to melt into history as an ineffective and toothless ideal who lost when it failed, by inaction, to confront the planned genocide of the Jewish people.

    If modern Zionism does become a tangible ally of Israel, however, it would have benchmark historical implications that I need not explain to you. The scope would be enormous.

    Herman Wouk once said: "Zionism is a single long action of lifesaving, of snatching great masses of people out of the path of sure extinction." (This is My God, first edition (1959), page 264.)

    Mr. Shapiro, this email all boils down to a nothing but questions. When will we, as Zionists, begin to take the necessary actions to snatch the great masses of Jewish people out of the path of sure extinction? Do we even recognize the fact that a train wreck is approaching? How long will we tarry? Are we, as a movement, up to the challenge, or have we ran our course? Will Zionism be able to confront the new challenge of 4GW, and Assymetrical Warfare?

    I think we will sir. I think we will have new leaders who have yet to be discovered, and new talent yet to be tapped. At least I hope so.

    I urge you, sir, to examine these issues, and incorporate them into the studies produced by the Freeman Center. Especially how Zionism can be an outlet to preserve life in a 4GW warfare conflict of global scope.

    Thank you for hearing my comments on this sir;


    James Linduff



    by Emanuel A. Winston,
    Member of the Board of Directors and Research Associate of
    Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

    Negotiate - Negotiate - Negotiate and "N"ever recognize that your negotiating partner is an irredentist, irreversible, irrevocable terrorist. Presently, Rice refuses to confront Iran until Iran is fully capable of responding with nuclear missiles which, of course, will be too late for everyone.

    No doubt, after she and Bush are out of Washington, the "N" lady will deny her Chamberlain role when those nukes begin to explode. Of course, the lady who preaches "Negotiate" is no longer able to negotiate "Peace in our time" ad nauseam, she and the Bush family will have to find a super deep bomb shelter while all else must suffer the radioactivity of her negotiating.

    Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs have time and again showed their contempt for negotiations. Negotiations for Islamists are there only to gain time to develop the nuclear bomb and spread terror across the planet in the name of Allah.

    For the "N" lady this is unimportant compared to the need to leave George Bush an historic heritage as a great thinker. Regrettably, the articulate lady "N"egotiator is pathetically inept at projecting reality in real time and is actually "N"egotiating "N"othing.

    Chamberlain saved Hitler’s dream by bleating that he had achieved "Peace in Our Time" by surrendering the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia - even as Hitler was building tanks, Stuka bombers, V-2 buzz bombs to rain down on England and had a project in the works to make an atomic bomb. Hitler would have, of course, succeeded had he not worked to death many Jewish physicists after he captured them. Fortunately, some of the best scientists - like Albert Einstein - escaped to America.

    Chamberlain was too easily deceived by Hitler. On his death bed, Chamberlain said: "Everything would have been all right, if only Hitler had not lied to me."

    So what does the "N"egotiating lady Rice have in mind for the Jews of Israel. Well, at the low end, she has also armed Arafat’s legacy, Fatah. Rice refused to see the many groups of terrorists taking shelter under Fatah. Rice portrayed Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen - his terror name) as a moderate. The only difference between Abbas and Arafat was he did not have that repulsive rat face. Abu Mazen was Arafat’s companion, assistant and financier for 40 years.

    Whenever Arafat promised peace in English, he promised War in Arabic. Even the dense State Department has some translators who deciphered Arafat’s speeches in Arabic, promising to follow Mohammed’s example, lie to the world and then massacre your opponents - as when Mohammed signed the Hudaybiya Treaty promising peace to the Qaraish tribe of Jews for 10 years. But, Mohammed came back in 2 years when his forces were stronger, massacred the men, selling the women and children into slavery.

    Rice had all this information - as did Colin Powell before her but, as State Department apparatchniks, they continued to pay Arafat Billions of American taxpayers’ dollars and then continued the cash flow to Abbas when Arafat died.

    The Abbas contingent of terrorists demanded salaries paid by the U.S. and E.U. and they demanded weapons. They are still demanding after failing to defeat Hamas despite having more men and weapons then Hamas. When Hamas attacked Abbas, Fatah didn’t put up much of a fight - despite having U.S. arms, CIA training and an army three times as large as Hamas. Now we are informed that huge weapons caches of U.S. arms were taken by Hamas, adding to their weapons smuggled in from Syria and Iran. Hamas also confiscated Fatah’s immense collection of Intelligence documents, including computers with hard drives very full of vital information.

    All of this weapons’ and security accumulation has set Rice and her collaborators into a tizzy and back to hounding Israel to give up Judea and Samaria to Abu Mazen. (Keep in mind that Rabin, Peres and Beilin had already given up the seven cities on the high ridge areas to Yassir Arafat through the Oslo fiasco.) Now Bush, Rice and Baker, are pressing Olmert, Barak and Peres to fulfill their role as traitors and try to evacuate 450,000 Jewish men, women and children from the rest of Judea and Samaria to make it "Judenrein" and present it to those "moderate" Muslim Palestinians in Oslo territory.

    You do recall them dancing on the roofs as Saddam sent 39 SCUD missiles into Israel? Do you also recall the street dancing in Jenin, Nablus, etc. when there were particularly successful suicide bombings in the Subarro Pizza Restaurant, the Dolphin Disco, Mike’s Place, the Moment Café, the Hebrew University cafeteria and so on and on - which killed and gravely wounded so many Israeli teens, young children and elder citizens? These murdering terrorists are what Rice calls "moderates" much the same as her "moderates" in Gaza who were supposed to take over the Jewish farms, grow crops and lead a peaceful life. Instead, they trashed the innovative greenhouses which Israel had left them.

    That was another bite of Rice’s poisoned apple she gave to Israel. Granted she had Sharon, Olmert and Peres working as insiders to complete her Chamberlain fantasy.

    Do you have any idea how many terrorists sheltered under Abu Mazen’s umbrella. This information has been shared by first Powell and now Rice. The PLO (founded in 1964), Force 17 (Elite unit of the PLO), Hamas, Abu Nidal Organization - aka Fatah (founded by Arafat in 1959) (Al Aksa Martyrs’ Brigade - Fatah’s military wing), Fatah Hawks, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Armed wing in The Al-Quds brigades), Tanzim, PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and PFLP-General Command, DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and the Abu Nidal Organization. (1)

    These were all loosely unified under Yassir Arafat who founded the and kept funded by American and European taxpayers’ as the donor nations fed the terror machine, despite the irrefutable fact that the Intelligence Agencies of all the donor nations knew this virtual army of terrorists was all intertwined - including Al Qaeda. Perhaps Condi was out-to-lunch making empty intelligent speeches of how "Abbas is a moderate" and "Iran could be negotiated with."

    She didn’t seem as anti-Israel and ignorant of Middle Eastern Muslim history as President Bush’s National Security Advisor. Her change must have something to do with those who work in the State Department - or the air in that building.

    Surely, Chamberlain’s Ghost must have morphed into Rice.

    Now that Gaza has become a fully fledged operational global terror state, with terrorists from all over the world, presumably they will move on to the Olso cities in Judea and Samaria - of Schehem (Nablus), Bethlehem, Qalqilya, Jenin and Jericho who already operate as terrorist bases.

    Next, valuable territory Olmert, Barak and Peres intend to surrender is the Golan Heights to Syria.

    But, not to worry. Olmert is visiting Washington next Tuesday, June 19th, to be dressed down by Bush, Rice and Baker. Olmert will be told to allow in weapons to Abbas (Abu Mazen) from Jordan and Egypt - with Israel’s army trucks making the delivery. They will be under the command and guidance of Olmert’s new Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

    Collaborating with the enemy in time of war is called High Treason and is considered worthy of hanging.

    So what can Israel do to save herself and her people?

    First, she can get rid of the plague before all are killed. This is "apropos" as we read the Parasha Shavua (Portion of Torah for this coming week). Korach and his traitors challenge Moses for leadership of the Hebrews who have just escaped from slavery in Egypt and who are enduring a hard trek in the desert. G-d opens the ground and swallows Korach and his key followers. Then a virulent plague starts to kill those who agreed with Korach, killing off over 15,000 before Moses orders the High Priest Aaron who is also Moses’ brother, to intercede and stop G-d’s plague. I personally would have no objection to see Olmert and his crowd swallowed up and his cohorts in the Knesset killed by a plague but, of course, this is wishful thinking.

    As for Rice, the Bush family and the oil boys that is G-d’s province but, like the plagues of Korach, the American people will, sadly, suffer the consequences - although they are not at fault. But, I fear both the Israeli people and the American people will suffer greatly for not removing those who would destroy their nations.


    1. "Palestinian Political Violence" from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Machiavelli and the Decay of Western Civilization
    by Prof Paul Eidelberg

    Member of the Board of Directors
    Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

    Machiavelli is the father of Modernity and Democracy and the creator of Secular Man par excellence. His deceptively simple book The Prince, so often trivialized, marks the Copernican revolution in politics.1 In that sibylline work Machiavelli undertook the world-historical task of destroying nothing less than the two pillars of Western civilization, classical Greek philosophy and Christianity, whose ethics, whether derived from Nature or nature’s God, derogate from the complete autonomy of human will and desire.

    The key to modernity will be found in Chapter 15 of The Prince.2 There Machiavelli lists ten pairs of qualities for which men, especially rulers, are praised or blamed – qualities which a ruler, “if he wishes to maintain himself,” must be able to “use” and “not use” “according to necessity.”3 Some rulers, he declares, “are held liberal, some miserly...[and/or] rapacious; some cruel, others full of pity; the one faithless, the other faithful; the one effeminate and pusillanimous, the other fierce and spirited; the one human, the other proud; the one lascivious, the other chaste; the one open, the other cunning; the one hard, the other easy; the one grave, the other light; the one religious, the other skeptical, and the like.”

    Machiavelli elaborates in Chapter 18 of The Prince:

    It is not necessary for a prince to have in fact all of the qualities written above, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them. I shall rather dare to say this: that having them and observing them always, they are harmful, but in appearing to have them, they are useful – so as to appear to be full of pity, faithful, human, open, religious, and to be so, but with one’s mind constructed in such a mode that when the need not to be arises, you can, and know how to, change to the contrary.4

    A mind so “constructed” must be virtually devoid of all emotion, save the desire for power. To harbor emotions is to be susceptible to habits, and it is precisely habits that prevent a ruler from being a Machiavellian, which is to say, a perfect opportunist. To be a perfect opportunist, a ruler must change his “nature” with the times and circumstances, which means he must have no emotional predispositions (other than the desire to maintain and increase his power). This would be possible only if man is nothing more than a creature of habits – habits that can be conquered by men of the caliber of Machiavelli. (Long before Rousseau and twentieth-century behaviorists, Machiavelli let it be known that human nature – if man can be said to have a nature – is plastic or malleable.)

    But if human nature is malleable, then it should be theoretically possible to shape the mentality of an age!

    This is precisely what Machiavelli set out to do in The Prince and its companion work The Discourses. Notice that in his list of qualities that bring rulers praise, Machiavelli excludes the four cardinal virtues of Greek political philosophy: wisdom, justice, moderation, and courage! Moreover, religion (paired with skepticism) is placed last, inverting the Decalogue. Consistent therewith, the central and most significant pair of qualities is designated as “human” and “pride.” One would have expected “pride” (the Christian vice) to be paired with “humility” (the Christian virtue), but Machiavelli deliberately omits humility from the list of qualities for which men and princes are praised. Humility is at once the virtue of the weak and the guise of the “proud” – the priests who denigrate pagan virtu, i.e., manliness, while lording it over the people in the name of godliness – a devious and impotent form of homotheism.5 To complete the process of man’s deification, the creator of Secular Man simply eliminated every semblance or pretense of godliness, rendering man entirely “human.” The seed of Humanism was thus planted in Chapter 15 of The Prince. In that seminal chapter Machiavelli advanced Christianity’s historic function, which was to destroy primitive idolatry on the one hand, while facilitating the secularization of mankind on the other.

    With justice omitted from the qualities for which rulers are praised, a radically new political science appeared on the stage of world history, one that sanctifies the commonplace, not to say vulgarity, in the name of “realism.”6 In opposition to classical political philosophy, modern political science takes its bearing not from how man should live, but from how men do live – from the is, not from the ought. Again Chapter 15: “... there is such a distance between how one lives and how one should live that he who lets go that which is done for that which ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation...Hence it is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able to be not good, and to use it and not use it according to necessity.” This separation of morality from politics is the historical consequence of the Christian separation of church and state. Henceforth there are no moral limits as to what man may do. Man is at last fully autonomous. He stands, as Nietzsche was to say, “beyond good and evil”.

    Furthermore, in direct opposition to the biblical tradition, which exalts truth and truthfulness the creator of Secular Man teaches would-be rulers to practice deceit and dissimulation constantly. “A prince ought to take great care...that he appears to be, when one sees and hears him, all pity, all faith, all integrity, all humanity, and all religion.... For men, universally, judge more by the eyes than by the hands...Everyone sees what you seem to be, but few touch what you are.”7 We have here a politics keyed to the sense of touch, the most dynamic and erotic of the senses. For unlike sight and hearing – passive receptors of the written and spoken word – the sense of touch, especially in the hands, connects to the will – the will to power.

    The greatest manifestation of the will to power is not the state but the founding of an entirely new “state.” To establish such a state a founder must create “new modes and orders”: he must make the “high” low and the “low” high.8 To do this he must radically alter people’s inherited beliefs as to what is deserving of praise and blame. This will require not only great force but monumental fraud or deception. Hence the founder must possess virtu, greatness of mind and body. Extraordinary cunning and fierceness – even terror – are essential in the founding of an entirely new state. In no other way can the founder perpetuate his “new modes and orders.” Clearly, the “state” – Nietzsche will later say “philosophy” – is a construct of the mind and will of the “prince.”9

    Since all new states originate in force, hence in revolutionary violence, their founders are, and by definition must be, “criminals.” Only after they have established new “orders” do they become “legitimate” and respectable. Accordingly, what is decisive in the study of politics is not laws or legal institutions but the dynamics of power, on which alone all laws are ultimately based. Indeed, laws are obligatory only insofar as they can be enforced; otherwise they are mere words having no “effectual truth” – like the best regimes in theory imagined by the philosophers of antiquity. In Chapter 12 of The Prince, Machiavelli writes: “The principal foundations which all states have, whether new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms. And because there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws, I shall omit reasoning on laws and speak of arms.” Arms are the counterpart of the “effectual truth” mentioned in Chapter 15. There is no such thing as just or unjust laws or just and unjust regimes.

    This is precisely the doctrine of legal realism or positivism that identifies the just with the legal, a doctrine that dominates law schools in the democratic world and makes it easier for democracies to recognize and have truck with tyrannies. But to deny the distinction between just and unjust laws is to reject the concept of the “common good,” a concept which appears nowhere in The Prince.10 Neither does the word “tyrant” (in a book that commends Hiero, Agathocles, Cesare Borgia and others of their ilk as “princes”).11 The term “justice” appears only in Chapter 19 of The Prince. There ten Roman emperors are mentioned, only two of which die a natural death – the just and gentle Marcus Aurelius and the unjust and ferocious Septimius Severus. This means that justice is irrelevant in the world of politics (as implied by its omission in Chapter 15). We have in Machiavelli the Deification of Egoism, the modern euphemism of which is Individualism.

    Although Marcus Aurelius’ rule was just, whereas Severus’ rule was tyrannical, Machiavelli praises both as “virtuous.” Why? Because the ultimate criterion of “virtue”, as of praise and blame, is success (of which more in a moment). This silent denial of the classical distinction between kingship and tyranny is one of the cornerstones of contemporary political science (which propagates the moral equivalence one hears so much about nowadays). A political science that rejects the traditional distinction between kingship and tyranny can take no account of, in fact must deny, the distinction between the good man and the good citizen. The good citizen is of course the patriot who fights for his country and obeys its laws. His country, however, and therefore its laws, may be unjust – from the traditional point of view. But this means that the good citizen may be a bad man. From which it follows that contemporary political science denies the distinction between good men and bad men – which is why democratic journalists (and only democratic journalists) can publicly proclaim that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” These relativists (and their academic mentors) are examples of tamed or democratized Machiavellians.

    This leveling of moral distinctions is rooted in a leveling of the distinction between man and beast. The successful ruler, says Machiavelli in Chapter 18 of The Prince, will combine, in varying proportions (depending on circumstances), the cunning of the fox and the fierceness of a lion.12 And just as it would be absurd to condemn a lion for devouring a lamb, so it would be absurd to condemn a “prince” (by calling him a “tyrant”) for ravaging or subjugating a nation. As Machiavelli puts it in Chapter 3 of The Prince: “It is a thing truly very natural and ordinary to desire to acquire [note the deliberate redundancy]; and when men who are able to do so do it, they are always praised or not blamed...” This precept follows an account of Louis XII of France who “was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians...I do not want to blame the part taken by the King for wanting to begin gaining a foothold in Italy...” Machiavelli, the founder of a “value-free” political science, actually shows in Chapter 3 how to conquer his own country! The ultimate criterion of praise and blame is not right and wrong, but success and failure.

    We must now ask, what is the world-historical goal of Secular Man? The answer to this question will be found in Chapter 25 of The Prince. There Machiavelli subtly equates God with chance (fortuna). He then identifies chance with “woman” and playfully proclaims that man’s task is to conquer her. What he means is this. “Woman” signifies nature, and man’s ultimate goal is to conquer nature, which will require the overcoming of traditional views of human nature. This is why the word “soul” (anima) never appears either in The Prince or The Discourses. We are given to understand, therefore, that man’s nature is plastic, is unbound by any moral laws or by “conscience” (another deliberately omitted word in The Prince).13 And so, just as the “Philosopher” replaced the Olympian pantheon with a new conception of nature, so the “Prince” replaces nature (and nature’s God) with a new conception of man. This requires elaboration.

    The conquest of chance involves the overcoming of God and of all those who have traditionally diminished man by despising the merely “human.” The enemy is the “proud”: Not only the priests, who denigrate the body, but the philosophers who exalt kingship and aristocracy. To conquer chance, therefore, one must lower the goals of human life. For the higher the goals of man the more he is exposed to chance and accident. Turn now to Secular Man diluted, an inevitable bi-product of the undiluted Promethean.

    Lowering the goals of human life corresponds to leveling the distinction between man and beast on the one hand, and denying the existence of the soul on the other. Abolish the soul and human reason will have nothing to serve but the wants of the body or sensuality, and such external goods as wealth, power, and prestige. To deny the soul, therefore, is to deify, in effect, the “human, all-too-human” – what the priests referred to, pejoratively, as “human nature.”

    Machiavelli’s deification of the merely “human” is the unembellished meaning of humanism; it is the true source of Individualism and Capitalism, of Socialism and Communism, of Fascism and Nazism.

    The prerequisites for the Machiavellian conquest of nature can now be more fully appreciated. The first thing needed is a new science of politics, a politics that liberates man’s acquisitive instincts in opposition to classical moderation and Christian asceticism. However, the liberation of acquisitiveness necessitates a rejection of priests, nobles, and kings in favor of the people. Commentators tend to minimize if not overlook Machiavelli’s democratic “bias” (which is actually a world-historical project). Machiavelli’s political science had to be democratic if he was to create a new dispensation for mankind. In other words, he had to destroy classical political science, which is essentially aristocratic, if he was to create a democratic era. Machiavelli is in fact the first philosopher to contend that democracy is the best regime.

    In The Discourses he challenges all previous political philosophy by claiming that, “[A]s regards prudence and stability, I say that the people are more prudent and stable, and have better judgment than a prince” (I, 58). And in The Prince he boldly declares: “The end of the people is more honest than that of the great.14 Moreover, in overturning the Great Tradition, which praises agrarian as opposed to commercial societies as more conducive to virtue, Machiavelli praises commercial republics because such republics, like Rome, are more powerful, are more capable of dominion. Machiavelli’s political science therefore liberates acquisitiveness and prepares the ground for capitalism (and, for much more, as we shall see later). He is indeed the father of modernity.

    The Prince must thus be understood as a conspiratorial as well as a Copernican work. (Incidentally, its longest chapter, like that of The Discourses, is on conspiracy.) Far from being a tract for the times (as some have foolishly believed), this masterpiece of cunning may be regarded as philosophically-armed propaganda addressed to thinkers who might be tempted to make common cause with the “people” and create a new dispensation for mankind. Needed were “collaborators” who would come after Machiavelli and bring to completion his world-historical project. And they were forthcoming. Before discussing his collaborators, allow me to amuse the reader by the following digression.

    Machiavelli’s Use of “Gematria”

    Machiavelli was superficially acquainted with Gematria, the system by which the Hebrew alphabet is translated into numbers. For example, and as Leo Strauss discerned, Machiavelli makes systematic use of the number 13 (and its multiples) both in The Prince and in The Discourses.15 It so happens that 13 is the numerical value of the Hebrew word meaning “one” – echad. The “prince” is the one par excellence. The “prince,” from the Latin principi, denotes the “first thing,” the “beginning,” something radically “new.” “A New Prince Must Make Everything New” is the title of chapter 26 of The Discourses, where Machiavelli subtly indicates that a new prince must imitate God. It can hardly be a coincidence that The Prince consists of 26 chapters: 26 is the numerical value of the four Hebrew letters comprising the Tetragrammaton, the Ineffable Name of God.16

    Turn, now, to Chapter 13 of The Prince, the inconspicuous center of the book, and to the very last sentence. Referring to great conquerors and how they “armed and ordered themselves,” Machiavelli confides, “to which orders, I, in all things, consign myself” (italics added). Thus, in language borrowed from religion, Machiavelli confesses his faith: he bows to one god only, the god of power. (In the chapter’s central episode, that of David and Goliath, the knife replaces God.)

    But let us go back to the beginning. In Chapter 1, Machiavelli outlines, with remarkable brevity, 13 different modes by which “principates” are acquired. He completes the treatment of the subject in Chapter 11. The central chapter of this group is of course 6. Accordingly, he there decides to “bring forward the greatest examples of new principates founded by new princes, men who possessed extraordinary ‘virtue’ (a term used 13 times in this chapter). There he mentions Moses in the same breath, as it were, with three pagan law-givers. One of the pagans is Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome, who murdered his twin-brother Remus in order to be “alone,” a “first thing,” a “new beginning” – a “prince” in the profoundest sense of the term.17 The discussion is largely symbolic. To be a creator of “new modes and orders” one must destroy or overcome what is nearest and dearest – one’s fraternal loyalties, one’s subordination to ancestral beliefs and moral convictions.

    Now ponder what Machiavelli says in The Discourses (I, 9): “Where the act [Romulus’ fratricide] accuses, the effect excuses.” The act of murdering one’s brother accuses only because the denunciation of that act represents the established morality – ordinary morality. But the effect excuses because it inaugurates a new morality – an extraordinary morality. With success, however, the extraordinary eventually becomes the ordinary. And so Machiavelli, a “prince” – a “first thing” – destroys the established religious and aristocratic morality and establishes a secular and democratic morality. Nietzsche’s creator of new values, the ubermensch, is but the descendant of the “Prince.”

    Returning to Chapter 6 of The Prince, by linking Romulus and Moses, Machiavelli prompts the reader to recall that both Romulus and Moses were abandoned as infants. This blurring of distinctions between Romulus (who murdered his brother) and Moses (who saved his brother) – this moral leveling, is diabolically methodical. The number 6 represents the six directions (north, east, south, west, up and down), hence the physical world. Also, the world was created in six days. It is doubly revealing, therefore, that exactly in Chapter 6 of The Prince will be found Machiavelli’s first reference to God!

    It may now be asked: Why does Machiavelli invert the Decalogue in Chapter 15 and not elsewhere? The number 15 reduces to 6 (1+5). Man was created on the sixth day. Man, in the person of Machiavelli, becomes the creator in Chapter 15. In fact, 15 is the Gematria for another name of God: Yod Hei. Moreover, this is the only chapter of The Prince in which Machiavelli does not use historical examples to convey his radically new political science!18 In this chapter he comes into his own as a new prince, a new first thing, a creator of new values.

    To be sure, Chapter 24 also reduces to 6 (2+4). It ends with the statement: “And only those defenses are good, are certain, are durable, which depend on you yourself and on your virtue” (italics added). God has no place in the world of men. This is an appropriate transition to Chapter 25 where, as we saw, Machiavelli equates God with chance. The number 25 reduces, of course, to 7 (2+5). To many, the number 7 signifies luck or chance. (Interestingly, Chapter 7 deals with Cesare Borgia who obtained power by chance and lost it by chance.) To others the number 7 symbolizes completion or perfection, for it was on the seventh day that God rested from His creation.

    Although Machiavelli can be adequately understood without Gematria or numerology, his use of the latter is indicative of the great subtlety and painstaking care with which The Prince and The Discourses were composed. But what is perhaps most significant about his use of numerology is this. By employing numbers and numerical sequences to modulate the communication of his revolutionary thoughts, less room was left to chance. Numerology added spice to his new science of politics and therefore made it more tempting to his unknown “collaborators.”

    Machiavelli’s “Collaborators”

    Machiavelli died in 1527. His fellow Florentine, Galileo was born in 1564. Without the conquest of nature made possible by Galilean science, Machiavelli’s world-historical project would probably have died with him. While Machiavelli fathered a democratic political science, Galileo fathered the democratic cosmology needed to fashion a new dispensation for man. Galileo’s mathematization of nature – his synthesis of astronomy and physics – overthrew the hierarchically ordered and finite universe of classical (and medieval) philosophy. Heaven and earth now manifested the Idea of Equality. In the mechanistic world inaugurated by Galileo (and perfected by Newton), man can no longer rely on nature or on God for objective and universally valid standards as to how man should live. All ideas on this crucial subject were made equal. Hobbes, who had admired and visited Galileo, saw the consequences of the new “value-free” science: A war of every man against every man, wherein “nothing can be unjust” because in war “the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place.”

    In such condition [writes Hobbes], there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.19

    Men would resemble so many bodies in ceaseless motion or collision. Accordingly, Hobbes believed that only the most powerful instinct of the human heart, the fear of violent death – Hobbes’ summum malum – could provide a solid, natural foundation for political life. No wonder Hobbes regarded self-preservation as the fundamental law of nature. Only in this debased respect does nature provide a standard for mankind and even dictate a moral imperative: seek peace. Peace requires that men renounce their claims to moral or political superiority; it demands equality. It also requires the recognition that:

    Good, and evil, are names that signify our appetites and aversions; which in different tempers, customs, and doctrines of men, are different; and diverse men, differ not only in their judgment, on the sense of what is pleasant, and unpleasant to the taste, smell, hearing, touch, and sight; but also of what is conformable, or disagreeable to reason, in the actions of common life.20

    Notice that good and evil, according to Hobbes, have no more rational or objective basis than those secondary qualities of which Galileo said, “I do not believe [that they] are anything but names.”

    By dispelling men’s illusions that their ideas of good and evil have any divine sanction or are rooted in nature, Hobbes would turn mankind’s energies away from devastating religious conflicts – his current disciples say “ideological” disputes – to the peaceful conquest of nature. For this purpose he constructed a utilitarian morality based on political hedonism (in contradistinction to the apolitical hedonism of Epicurus).

    Kant, who accepted the Galilean-Newtonian physics, preferred a morality based not on men’s inclinations or some pleasure-pain calculus, but on the concept of the free moral will. His categorical imperative – “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”21 – should be understood as an attempt to substitute categories of reason for the two sources of morality undermined by the new physics: nature and God. Fundamentally egalitarian, Kantian morality is a form of secularized Christianity. Like Christianity, it is intended for men of ordinary reason:

    But the most remarkable thing about ordinary reason in its practical concern is that it may have as much hope as any philosopher of hitting the mark. In fact, it is almost more certain to do so than the philosopher, because he has no principle which the common understanding lacks, while his judgment is easily confused by a mass of irrelevant considerations, so that it easily turn aside from the correct way. Would it not, therefore, be wiser in moral matters to acquiesce in the common rational judgment, or at most to call in philosophy in order to make the system of morals more complete and comprehensible and its rules more convenient for use...?22

    Did not Machiavelli say (quoted above): “[A]s regards prudence and stability, I say that the people are more prudent and stable, and have better judgment than a prince”?

    With God and nature having been eliminated as sources of morality, man must find the source of morality in himself. He has tried to do so; every effort has resulted in dismal failure. Bringing heaven down to earth by way of Galileo’s cosmic uniformity has leveled mankind.

    Now for a rapid survey of some of Machaivelli’s “collaborators” (discussed at greater length in my book Jerusalem vs. Athens). Francis Bacon was a sympathetic reader of Machiavelli. His work, Of the Interpretation of Nature, linked science to technology.23 The purpose of the new science? To alleviate the human condition. For the first time in history, science, divorced from philosophy (the preserve of the Few, i.e., the “proud”), was to serve the Many.

    Bearing in mind that the philosophers of modernity regarded religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as their sole competitor as well as the greatest barrier to the conquest of nature and to human progress, Hobbes and Locke engaged in a subtle attack on the Bible. To convey their atheism with some subtlety, Hobbes interspersed references to God by saying everything is matter in motion, while Locke paid homage to the deity by proclaiming that human labor is the source of all value. (By the way, the “state of nature” of these two philosophers is nothing more than a hypothetical construction – really a fiction – on which to propagate a secular, political society.) Influenced by Locke’s exaltation of commerce, Adam Smith produced the Wealth of Nations, the bible of Capitalism, in which he also propagated the novel idea that war could be replaced by economic competition (a prejudice that even two World Wars has yet to dispel).24

    In Benedict Spinoza, Machiavelli had another collaborator. As may be seen in his Theological-political Treatise, Spinoza was the first philosopher who was both a democrat and a liberal; he is also the father of “biblical criticism.”25 His Treatise exalts democracy as “the most natural form of government,” for there “every man may think what he likes, and say what he thinks.”26

    Jean-Jacque Rousseau, a philosopher of democracy who nonetheless opposed the commercial society, advanced the Machiavellian idea that man’s nature is infinitely malleable, a product of historical accident. But whereas Machiavelli said that man is by nature “bad,” meaning egoistic, Rousseau held that man is by nature benevolent, that human conflict can be overcome by a “social contract” based on the “general will.” Karl Marx went further. As I have written in Demophrenia:

    Marx not only rejected all hitherto existing morality, but also the belief in the naturalistic foundation of egoism. According to Marx, egoism, no less than morality, is an historical product. And only with the simultaneous disappearance of egoism and morality will man achieve true freedom and equality, meaning genuine as opposed to a factitious democracy. How is this to be understood?

    Marx believed that man’s exploitation of man is rooted not in any defect of human nature but in the poverty of physical nature. Nature simply does not provide sufficiently for human needs. In other words, not egoism but economic scarcity is the original cause of human conflict and servitude, of human misery and inequality. But with the abolition of private property and the scientific conquest of nature, human exploitation will come to an end. Egoism, which is but a consequence of history, will dissolve, as will morality, which has ever been the morality of the ruling and exploiting class. Henceforth man will be animated by his “generic consciousness,” which alone distinguishes human nature from that of mere animals.27

    What will replace egoism and the restraints of morality will be a spontaneous fraternal disinterestedness. This, for Marx, is the only true humanism, the only true democracy.

    Democracy and the Degradation of Man

    Thanks to Machiavelli and his philosophical successors, Democracy has become the religion – the idolatry – of modernity, more immune to questioning than any revealed religion. Democracy, which until Machiavelli, and even well into the eighteenth century, was deemed a bad form of government, is today firmly established as the only good from of government – even though it is the seedbed of moral relativism. Still, it may be argued that the freedom and equality which thrive in democracy have facilitated the conquest of nature enjoined by the Torah: “...replenish the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). This was not to be expected of Greek political philosophy, given its aristocratic and agrarian orientation, nor of Christianity, given its otherworldliness and asceticism. But this means that the Greco-Christian tradition had to be overcome to facilitate man’s conquest of nature. Consider the positive consequences.

    The conquest of nature liberated countless men, women, and children from stultifying toil and suffering. Of course, much stultifying toil and suffering were exacted in the process, especially in the early stages of Capitalism. But even Marx, in his fusillades against the bourgeoisie, had to admit that Capitalism, despite its “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation,”

    has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals. It has created enormous cities and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.28

    Meanwhile, liberal democracy has liberated countless people from political bondage. By virtue of equality of opportunity, it opened the door to hitherto suppressed talents. Also, it introduced humane penal codes. The Idea of Equality destroyed much good but also contributed to human progress – or so it may be argued. It may also be argued, however, that democracy represents not the progress so much as the degradation of man! Let us explore this hypothesis.

    No less a friend of democracy than Alfred North Whitehead has written – and this was before the soul-shattering and stupefying effects of television: “So far as sheer individual freedom is concerned, there was more diffused freedom in the City of London in the year 1663, when Charles the First was King, than there is today in any industrial city in the world.”29 Industrial democracy breeds its own kind of bondage.

    True, Democracy put an end to human slavery; but human slavery in the past was not, in all instances, the unmitigated evil it is made out to be, even though its abolition in modern times was certainly justified. Paradoxical as it may seem, the demise of slavery was not the result of moral progress so much as the result of moral decline.30

    Of course, there have always been masters unworthy of having slaves. Nevertheless, when individuals were historically important, were of the caliber of a King David or of a Plato, it was fit and proper that they should be served by lesser men. Indeed, it was an honor to serve such great personages, to behold their virtues, to imbibe their words of wisdom.

    But when the importance of leading individuals declined and they were no longer worthy of human servitude, Divine Providence brought about the rise of Democracy and Science on the one hand, and the eradication of slavery on the other. The process was gradual. The less man merited slave labor, the more he had to rely on animal and hired labor. Eventually, mankind sunk to so low a level as to be unworthy even of animal labor. (Only consider how biologists began to exult in tracing their genealogy to apes and to be offended by the idea of a higher origin!) Providence therefore accelerated the development of science and technology so that animals could be replaced by machines, progressively automated (and now very much geared to the gratification of paltry desires). In other words, given the increasing selfishness and hedonism of modernity, man no longer merits being served by any living thing.31

    However, concomitant with the moral decline of the individual, there has been an outward improvement in the character of society. This dichotomy is not paradoxical. The progress of science and technology, the hallmark of Western civilization, was actually the result of egoism or moral decline (facilitated by Machiavelli’s corrosive attack on Greco-Christian morality). Rousseau writes in his First Discourse, “our souls have been corrupted in proportion to the advancement of our sciences and arts toward perfection.”32 Rousseau was not merely referring to the moral depravity of his own times, the peak of the “Enlightenment.” He regarded the relationship between corruption and the progress of the arts and sciences as if it were a law of history, a phenomenon, he says, that “has been observed in all times and in all places.”33 By corruption Rousseau had in mind the decline of civic virtue, of dedication to the common good, in other words, the ascendancy of egoism. But as we have seen, egoism is the basis of Machiavelli’s godless political science to whose advancement Rousseau contributed.

    This political science, whose skepticism or agnosticism underlies all the social sciences and humanities, has thoroughly secularized man, stripped him of sapiential wisdom, while atomizing society. The intellectual functions of Secular Man are limited to the operations of pragmatic reason placed at the service of a welter of desires. The once ordered soul is now the disordered “self.” All the emotions of the self, love included, are self-regarding – as the sexual revolution has made clear.34 The only “natural” good is the private good.35 Thus Machiavelli.

    And now consider the negative aspects of his offspring. Democracy, which enlarged freedom of expression, is witnessing an appalling decline of intellectual standards. Democracy, which elevated the principle of equality, has engendered a leveling of all moral distinctions. Democracy, which championed human dignity, is now yielding to abject vulgarity.

    In the process of this degradation, however, Democracy, with its all-pervasive moral relativism, is destroying all ideological competitors to the Torah – including democracy itself!36 The truth is:

    Democracy is nothing more than Machiavelli’s own creation; it has no intrinsic validity. Democratic freedom and equality have no rational foundation and can have no rational foundation when severed from the Torah and man’s creation in the image of God.

    The same may be said of the Sovereign State, another offspring of Machiavelli. If Louis XIV said L’etat c’est moi, he was only echoing Machiavelli’s reference to Louis XII as “France” in Chapter 3 of The Prince. The State is simply a human creation, in which respect there is no difference between L’etat c’est moi and Vox populi vox Dei. In both cases law is dependent solely on the will of the sovereign, be it the One, the Few, or the Many. The jurisprudent Isaac Breuer draws the only sensible conclusion: As long as states insist on their sovereignty and recognize no higher authority than their own laws, there can be no social or international peace. “The anarchy of mankind shows itself in continuously recurring historical catastrophes, foretold with tremendous insistence by all the Prophets, to which only the law of God can put an end.”37 The experience of six decades of the misnamed United Nations – a frequent instigator of conflict – lends weight to this conclusion. But then, is not the UN General Assembly, which renders all nations equal regardless of their moral and intellectual character, the pinnacle of relativism?

    Decadence and Disillusionment

    Relativism will be the epitaph on the gravestone of the West. Ironically, the prevalence of relativism is largely a consequence of the West’s greatest intellectual achievement: mathematical physics. The West is trapped in a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, it regards mathematical physics as the paradigm of knowledge. On the other hand, mathematical physics can tell us nothing about how man should live. The reduction of science to quantitative analysis renders it incapable of telling us anything about moral values.

    Although Nietzsche was a relativist, he recognized that relativism is symptomatic of decadence. His paradoxical position may be summarized as follows: Relativism is true but deadly, therefore relativism is false! Why? Because relativism stifles any incentive to pursue a world-historical goal, a psychological precondition of which is belief in the absolute worth of that goal. In other words, relativism undermines the will to creativity on a monumental scale. Hence relativism is deadly, contrary to Life – logically true but existentially false, for Life transcends logic.

    Relativism permeates democracy because democracy’s two organizing principles, freedom and equality, lack ethical and rational constraints. The West boasts of democracy, ignorant of how it constitutes a basic cause of western decadence. I define decadence as a retreat from life to death resulting from an inability to confront evil, since evil itself is linked to death. “I have placed before you today life and good, and death and evil...” (Deuteronomy 30:15). Unless the ethical is derived from the transcendental, there is no escape from Hume’s skepticism and relativistic epistemology.

    And so, disgusted with the moral decay of modernity, many people in the West are “returning” to traditional values, either to Christianity or to the “natural right” doctrine of classical Greek philosophy. But modernity is itself the outgrowth of the secular ingredients of the Greco-Christian tradition. The contemporary phenomenon of Christian fundamentalism, to be applauded as a moral force, lacks the fecundity required for a renaissance of Western civilization. As may be seen in contemporary art, music, architecture, economics, literature, the professions, entertainment, Christianity is conspicuous by its absence.

    As for the classics, although Jonathan Swift was correct when he likened the ancients to the Brobdingnagians and the moderns to the Lilliputians, the philosophic foundations of the classics are hopelessly obsolete. Newtonian mechanics (fully adequate for macro-objects moving below the speed of light) has relegated to the dust heap of history Aristotle’s organic, teleological, and hierarchic conception of nature – exactly Machiavelli’s own objective. But to refute Aristotle’s conception of nature is to eliminate from serious consideration any return to his source of morality.

    If this were not enough, the classics are also burdened by the cosmology of an eternal and cyclical (as opposed to a created and “linear”) cosmology. In this most crucial respect there is no difference between Aristotle and Machiavelli who also posited an eternal universe.38 Classical cosmology harbors a fundamental dichotomy: whereas Nature is purposive, History is purposeless. Existentialists also regard history as devoid of purpose. Following the mode of thought inaugurated by Machiavelli and advanced by Nietzsche, existentialism holds that man has no nature, no fixed or permanent nature. Hence there are no immutable standards by which to determine how man should live. Man, i.e., the individual, must choose his own ends or values to endow life with meaning. But this leads to the nihilism deplored by traditionalists who find their (noble but inadequate) standards of criticism in classical political philosophy.

    If history is purposeless or meaningless, if humanity is bound to eternal cyclicality, then Plato and Aristotle’s political philosophy is nothing more than a “noble lie,” a myth – as it may well have been so understood by one or both of these intellectual giants. In that case, in the quarrel between ancients and moderns, the moderns have at least the advantage of candor, however deadly the consequences. And what consequences! The road from Machiavelli’s Prince is strewn with innumerable casualties seeking meaning in drugs, sex, violence, cults – anything that may help the liberated self escape loneliness, anomie, angst, madness, and self-destruction.

    That torturous road is viewed, however, from the vantage of a Jewish philosophy of history which denies that history is purposeless or meaningless. This philosophy affords no grounds for pessimism, Weapons of Mass Destruction notwithstanding. For while man acts in freedom and pays the consequences, every act and consequence, good and bad, moves the system of history forward to an end ordained by a just and gracious God.

    Consistent with Nietzsche’s dialectical philosophy, Rabbi Kook writes: “The arising of contradictions broadens the scope of existence. Good accentuates Evil and Evil deepens Good, delineating and strengthening it.” “Just as wine cannot be without dregs, so the world cannot be without wicked people. And Just as the dregs serve to preserve the wine, so the coarse will of the wicked strengthens the existence of the flow of life...”39

    Two world wars, the bloodiest in human history, led to the restoration of the State of Israel. A third world war will lead to Israel’s final redemption.

    All references to The Prince are from the brilliantly annotated and literal translation of Leo Paul de Alvarez, The Prince. The present essay is very much indebted to the author’s teacher, Professor Leo Strauss.

    Ibid., pp. 93-94.

    Actually, eleven vices are mentioned, since “miserliness” and “rapaciousness” are listed in opposition to “liberality.” See Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, pp. 311n63, 338n139 (cited hereafter as Thoughts). This is by far the most profound work on Machiavelli.

    The Prince, p. 108 (emphasis added).

    See de Alvarez, pp. xi-xiv; Strauss, Thoughts, pp. 179, 207-208.

    A smiling Machiavelli would remind us from the grave that when Mao Tze-tung and Chou En-lai died, Western statesmen and intellectuals praised these tyrants as “great men.” The author of The Prince writes in Chapter 18: “And with respect to all human actions, and especially those of princes where there is no judge to whom to appeal, one looks to the end. Let a prince then win and maintain the state – the means will always be judged honorable and will be praised by everyone; for the vulgar are always taken in by the appearance and the outcome of a thing, and in this world there is no one but the vulgar.” Among the most notable adulators of Mao Tze-tung and Chou En-lai – the two must be held responsible for the slaughter of millions of Chinese – were an American President and his professorial Secretary of State.

    The Prince, ch. 18 (italics added). See de Alvarez, pp. vi-vii.

    See Machiavelli, The Discourses, I, 26.

    See de Alvarez, pp. ix-x. Founding an entirely new state must be the work of only one man. See note below.

    10 See Strauss, Thoughts, pp. 26, 29. Although the concept of the common good appears in The Discourses, I, 2, Machiavelli asserts that the origin of justice is force. Incidentally, this chapter reveals what Machiavelli thought of Aristotle’s classification of regimes. For a defense of the concept of the common in opposition to behavioral political science, see my Discourse on Statesmanship, pp. 9-14.

    See Strauss, Thoughts, pp. 26, 29. Note that whereas The Prince is dedicated to a ruler, The Discourses, which does refer to Hiero as a “tyrant,” is dedicated to two subjects. See de Alvarez, pp. xv-xix, and Harvey Mansfield, Jr., Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders, pp. 21-23.

    See The Prince, ch. 18. Contrast The Ethics of the Fathers: “Be the tail among lions rather than the head among foxes” (4:20).

    See Strauss, Thoughts, p. 26.

    The Prince, ch. 9. Machiavelli explains in the sequel that whereas the great want to oppress, the people only want not to be oppressed. By no means does he regard the people as honest per se. “For one can say this generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, hypocrites and dissemblers, evaders of dangers [and] lovers of gain...” (ibid., ch. 17). Of course, only a “prince” can found a state; but thereafter Machiavelli takes the side of the people – as he must if he himself is to be a “founder,” that is, of new modes and orders. Accordingly, his best regime is a commercial and imperialistic republic, reversing classical and medieval political philosophy. See The Discourses, I, 6, and Mansfield, pp. 152-155, 243.

    See Strauss, Thoughts, pp. 312n22, 313n24, 326n183; Mansfield, pp. 32n12, 67n8, 73n9.

    The Gematria of a word is the sum of the numerical values of the letters that compose it. For example: the letter Y (yod) represents the number 10; the letter H (hei) 5; the letter V (vav) 6. Hence the Gematria of the Ineffable Name YHVH is 10+5+6+5 = 26.

    Machiavelli defends Romulus’ fratricide in The Discourses, I, 9, entitled “To Found a New Republic...Must Be The Work Of One Man Only.”

    See Strauss, Thoughts, p. 59.

    Leviathan, pp. 82, 83.

    Ibid., p. 104 (italics added).

    Emanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 80, L. W. Beck, trans.

    Ibid., p. 65.

    For a discussion of Bacon, see Jerusalem vs. Athens, pp. 176-177.

    Shimon Peres still believes there is an economic solution to conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Which reminds me of Orwell’s bon mot: “A generation of the unteachable is hanging upon us like a necklace of corpses.”

    See Strauss, Liberalism Ancient & Modern, p. 244. As Strauss notes, Spinoza hated Judaism as well as Jews, an attitude Hermann Cohen deemed “unnatural” and even as a humanly incomprehensible act of treason.” I mention this in passing because one may find a similar phenomenon among certain Jews in Israel today.

    The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza (Dover: 1951), I, 207, 257, 263, 265. As others have noted, Spinoza’s Ethics implicitly identifies God with “nature.”

    Demophrenia, p. 30. I refute Marx in ibid., pp. 31-32.

    Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, pp. 12-14.

    Whitehead, Science and Philosophy, pp. 165-166.

    See Zimmerman, Torah and Reason, pp. 147-151, on which this historical view of slavery is based.

    See Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, II, 104, who attributes the spread of selfishness to democratic individualism:

    Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

    Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life, but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of conditions.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, First Discourse, The First and Second Discourses, p. 39, R.D. Masters, ed., J.R. Masters, trans.

    Ibid., p. 40.

    When Hobbes wrote that “desire and love are the same thing,” and when Freud reduced love to the merely physical, they were cultivating ground prepared by Machiavelli, who writes, “men forget more quickly the death of a father than the loss of patrimony.” Which means that filial affection is weaker than the desire for property. See Leviathan, p. 32; The Prince, p. 101.

    Doing good or pleasing others is to be understood simply as a means of gaining reputation and power. No wonder success in achieving the object of one’s desires is the ultimate criterion of praise and blame – a vulgar teaching.

    This applies to Jewish movements that have abandoned the Torah.

    Breuer, Concepts of Judaism, p. 91.

    See Mansfield, pp. 202-203, commenting on The Discourses, II, 5.

    Kook, Orot, pp. 110, 195-196. “Formal Logic fails to accommodate the contraries and insists on their separation. In reality, however, opposites combine to fertilize one another, especially in the intellectual context.” Yaron, The Philosophy of Rabbi Kook, p. 87.



    Gothic Grotesque: Precursor of Modern Horrors

    by Eugene Narrett, Ph.D.

    In the last decades of the 19th century, stimulated by the fantastic and racist mythologies of Helena Blavatsky, by Malthus, Darwin (as formulated and promulgated by T. H. Huxley), by new data from geology and by a thirst for a preeminent history, for moral and physical superiority, Germany and Austria produced occultist theorists that invented and then exalted an ancient history for the Aryan peoples. The result was millenarian evolutionary cults featuring an eternal struggle by Aryans against various kinds of aggressive sub-humans and against religious persecution of their pure race-based, nature-worshipping gnosis.

    Like the original Romantics with their quest narratives of an embattled, spiritually starved self, and their Victorian successors, contemporary to the “Ariosophists,” these Aryan cultists idealized the feudal past and all its trappings, considering it an essential expression of the German spirit. Medieval “Gothic” heraldry, for example was interpreted as a Gnostic transmission of the primary wisdom in Icelandic runes. Aryan supremacists “preached the necessity for a new feudal order and corporate state,” as suggested by Hegel; they made a cardinal point of selective racial breeding, and usually “claimed that Germans were blood descendants of the ancient [Norse] pagan gods” [1].*

    The formulators of Ariosophy, many of whom changed their names and added the aristocratic prefix, von, drew heavily on Scriptural patterns, personae, and centuries of textual and esoteric commentary; grotesque distortions of Kabbala filled nearly all their theories, creative linguistics, symbolism and numerological speculations. The swastika and a related form, the triskelion (three spinning legs joined at the crotch) by 1875 became popular symbols of their wish to displace Scriptural symbols. The appropriations of post-Modernism, its attack on identity and integrity were chillingly prefigured in their use of the “gibor-rune” (in Hebrew gibor means strength), a distorted aleph, first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and a reference to the Creator’s unity. In their subjective historicism and drive to create, personally a new mythos, a spiritual history in which man bursts through to godhead, Ariosophists continued the quest that is Romanticism (core period 1780-1835 in England the dates vary with nation). Like Romantic and subsequent “Victorian” texts their writings reveal the regressive and anxious tenor of post-Enlightenment dogmas of progress and exaltation of the Will to power and to re-create the world offset by a sense of impending collapse as seen in short lyrics like Arnold’s “Dover Beach” or sprawling epics of passion and civilizational rise and collapse like Wagner’s operas, Spengler’s Twilight of the West or serial historical novels as disparate as the Buddenbrooks of Mann of Hermann Broch’s The Sleepwalkers.

    These texts and cultists also testify to the devolution of the West as its increasing powers over and categorization of aspects of the world lead it to heightened awareness followed by denial and hatred of the Jewish content it appropriated and buried in establishing its composite culture, or perhaps one should write, cult. Recapitulating in brief compass the entire trajectory of the West, the more the Ariosophists adapted and distorted Jewish content to embody their pseudo-histories the more they demonized Jews, identifying their extermination with the salvation of humanity. In this way they are the ultimate expression of the “identity theft,” self-conflict and guilt built into formation of the West, a penultimate great wave of Roman imperial persecution and genocide. In this way too they directly influenced all Germanic culture and top Nazis, like Heinrich Himmler who sought to build a world ruled by SS supermen, a guild of priest-kings (Armanenschaft) who carried the esoteric wisdom of Nordic runes that was wholesaled for commoners in Norse myths. Bizarre as they seem, the social and political trends these cults stimulated continue to inform the crusade and jihad against Israel and the Jews that typify the mass media, geopolitics, finance and military maneuvers of the Post-War World till today.

    This neo-Gothic material is as murderous as it is juvenile, fully revealing the unleashed appetites intrinsic to the modern West’s embrace of the sensate and animal and thus of its antithesis and partner, jihad. From comic books to Hollywood’s “plausible people” personalities, to irrational great power dictates it is the substance of our times; it is the twilight of the West though not, perhaps as those who popularized the term meant it. The culture that since its inception has been obsessed with and sucking the blood of its Jewish texts and victims whom it perennially accused of its own obsession with human sacrifice increasingly confronts itself in the terrible dawn, the millennial idea it took from the Jewish Scriptures, and in taking deformed, as the following discussion indicates. Its culture of communion and death, of gigantism and rapture, of orgies and group think is the antithesis of Judaism whose emphasis on freedom, free will and responsibility, whose story patterns and metaphors it consumes and turns from radiance for all human beings into a tyranny of an elite. As the idea has devolved under Soviet influence, the elite have become superficially multicultural but the animus remains. Scripture states that G-d laughs and holds them in derision; that He and His people will have the last laugh. But Hitler’s words of 1943, “I have eliminated from the Jews all desire to laugh” are not far from being true. The West has been building Iran (Farsi for Aryan) into a machine that repeatedly vows to finish Hitler’s cultic job, -- first undertaken by Marcion (c.150 CE) who sought to purge the New Testament of all Jewish content -- while Western diplomats and their clients vivisect and straitjacket Israel.

    This neo-Gothic material is grotesque but not funny. The millenarian and apocalyptic dualism of Adolph Lanz (1874-1950, styling himself Jurg Lanz von Liebenfels) pits the Aryans (true humans) against the darker peoples (“beast men” or “pygmies” bred for sexual pleasure by sinning Aryans); a conflict that will last until the destruction of all the beast-men (Anthropozoa as Lanz termed them). Re-writing the Scriptures as only Europeans can, Lanz stated that Adam was the first beast-man and his spawn the eternal opponents of the Aryans, the least-contaminated humans. Lanz established the Order of the New Temple patterned on ecclesial semi-secret societies (he entered and then left clerical orders in the 1890s), published a widely distributed monthly, Ostara named after the northern European spring goddess (Easter in English) and developed a theory of Theo-zoology to distinguish Aryan-humans from the issue of their cross breeding with darker people. Lanz was one of the first to adopt the Indian swastika as a flag of these various cults often collectively called “Ariosophy.” His book, Theo-zoology or the lore of the Sodom-Apelings and the Electron of the Gods (1905) asserted that the gods, the original form of earthly life, had organs enabling them to receive and send electro-magnetic rays for telepathy, a faculty that had decayed due to miscegenation with Adam’s anthropozoan descendants but that Aryans could reclaim by strict in-breeding with each other.

    Not the least bizarre of these theories was formulated by an Austrian cavalry officer, Karl Maria Wiligut (1866-1946). Like the catalyst and precursor for many of these pan-German cults, Guido [von] List (1848-1919), Wiligut believed that the Scriptures originally were written in Germany for Germans and celebrated a German god, Krist. (There was much punning on the term Krist-all and crystal [Kristall in German] with a distortion of Jewish ideas about the role of gem-stones in focusing divine energy and Lanz’s own ideas about telepathy and electronic brain waves of which Aryans were said to be capable). As for Wiliger, he claimed to be the last in a very ancient line of German sages and kings who had come to reveal the Aryan origins of Christianity, including intense hatred of Jews. As will be noted, this resembled List’s claim to be descended from a thirteenth century knight and himself the last Wotanist priest-king and seer who could reveal how Nordic runes were the proto-language used to create the universe (Clarke, 41).

    Precisely when German “Biblical criticism” became ensconced in universities, elaborating with little evidence critique of Biblical events and places for which there already was evidence German folk philosophers elaborated fantastic personal theories on the origin, devolution and racial conflict of human beings.

    The exotic history of this German culture and religion, and the fervor with which it was received indicates the disordered cultural condition of the Modern era, the confusion, fantasies and madness that arose from the dogma that “man is the measure of all things.” For example, according to Wiliger, an anarchic pre-history of dwarves and giants going back 228,000 years was put into order by his ancestors, the Adler-Wiligoten (“eagle-willed gods”) about 80,000 years ago in creating “the second Bozo culture” (his first wife was from Bozen; the homonym, bose means “malevolent”). Like other Ariosophists, Wiliger designated fabulous continents and islands, like Atlantis to which this primal race of super-beings was dispersed. The Armanist “Krist religion” was asserted 12,500 years ago but was challenged by adherents of Wotan (Odin) about 9600 years ago. These Germanic schismatics crucified Baldur-Chrestos who nevertheless escaped. Lanz also had a new version of the passion story: for him it encoded an attempted rape of the Aryan Christ by the beast men. Note that Lanz’s call for strict racial segregation and harsh servitude or death for the mixed races was analogous to the thesis and proposals of American eugenicist Lothrup Stoddard (The Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy, 1920) whose apocalyptic call for “isolating the bacterial invasion…of inferiors” brought him a place on the board of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League which sponsored “Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control” conferences between the Wars, -- and then evolved into Planned Parenthood. The brood-houses (lebensborn) Himmler established as urged by Lanz (zuchskloster) and Wiligot had less totalitarian formulae in eugenic leagues in America. Thus, strange bedfellows underlie the encouragement of modern and post-modern institutions for population control with promotion of contraception and of sterile sex replacing enforced overt sterilization (as opposed to that via food additives or processing). If some of those Lanz termed “apelings” bred for deviant sexual pleasure now are supported by the State the purposes still are for control and those who give can also take away. As the Island of Dr. Moreau indicated, for more than a century dogmatic Darwinism has made us all animals and made sensitivity to pain a sign of being defective, as Sanger considered charity to be.**

    In Wiligot’s historical fantasies the Wotanists continued with their perverse form of the “pure” gnosis until attacked by Charlemagne and converted to the ‘Jewish import,’ Christianity which, Hitler averred had destroyed man’s healthy animal nature by giving us a conscience.

    Not to worry: the dispersed and exiled Wiligots, descended from air and water gods, established themselves at Vilna in Lithuania and established a vast Gothic empire that was destroyed by the Russians from the East and Christians from the West. In 1242 they found refuge in Hungary and maintained themselves against persecution by the Catholic Church, Freemasons, and Jews. Since establishing an anti-Catholic cult in Catholic Austria was a non-starter, and there was little volkish cachet in attacking Freemasons, Wiligot reverted to Europe’s default option and founded an anti-Semitic league and newspaper.

    Wiligot hated his wife Malvine for failing to bear him a living male heir to carry on his royalty. She, in turn in 1924 had him committed for “grandiose designs, occult interests and paranoid delusions” about the various groups afflicting his cult and race. Upon his release, he left for Germany and became celebrated among those deeply immersed in speculations about the gnosis in Icelandic runes in which he wrote poems and from which he deduced numerological messages. In 1933 he joined the SS and gained the intense interest and favor of Heinrich Himmler for whom he designed many symbols, including the SS death’s head and circular seal and the “eye of god” within a triangle, a symbol of Horus, the Egyptian sun god and castrator of his father (uprooting and fantastic responses to rootlessness typify all these myths). Wiliger selected the Wewelsberg hill and castle as the site for an apocalyptic battle between Europe and Asia in which he prophesied that the Aryans would save the West; he wrote lengthy memos to Hitler on these matters. Himmler duly selected the Wewelsberg as an SS officers’ college under his personal control in 1934-5. His plan for a ‘restored’ Aryan Germany ruled by the SS as godlike priest-kings was seen in more prosaic ways as it competed, throughout WW II with the vast IG Farben cartel for slave labor, buying and selling shipments of Jews for experiments, vying for economic control of conquered lands and peoples; and of course, spear-heading the holocaust. The Nazi underground has appeared on schedule. [3].

    At the Wewelsberg, pagan spring, solstice and harvest festivals were organized for SS officers and local villagers (List had focused on these rites since 1875). A mausoleum for SS High Commanders was planned, and Goodrick-Clarke writes that Himmler projected “an enormous semi-circular complex, an SS Vatican for a millenarian Greater German Reich” dedicated to “the celebration of ancient [Aryan] religion as revealed by Wiliger who had by now re-named himself, Weisthor (“wise Thor”). The King Arthur myths, various medieval kings, the Grail legend all were appropriated to the Aryan cult which may be said to be the first and most grandiose of the “counter-factual histories” of post-Modernist higher education. There is a strict, measure for measure cultural logic in the fact that 19th century “Biblical criticism” led to the replacement of the history of the Jewish people by the genocidal fantasies and racist programs of Pan German supremacists, eugenicists, and increasingly, to morbid fascination with aliens and erotic encounters between them and humans. Truth, charity and humanity became animalism, sadism and relativism with the greatest power, the State left to shape its servants to suit its purposes, very like the ‘original sin’ of the Aryans as Lanz told it...

    While the more serious researchers employed by the SS attacked Wiligot and got his budget zeroed out for the War, his vision continued to inspire the SS top ranks. More importantly, it persists in the ongoing revival of pagan-New Age cults, nature worship, and pseudo-history that complements so well the emerging world state’s interest in mass forgetting, manufactured rapture, and the dominance of fantasy and the realm of the senses. It all tends to a disorienting virtual reality and identity theft – successor to the theft of the attested provenance of the Hebrew Scriptures. As the French in the visual arts, the pan German cultists with their fellow traveling Darwinists and eugenicists led the way in Modern ideology, just as their bland but ambitious descendants lead in building the New Europe about which a few comments now are pertinent.

    The EU Constitution or Treaty that Germany and France have been pushing includes “a road map for the further development of a European military and defense policy” with a European army and Naval HQ on the Baltic [i.e. German coast, -- Friedrich Ebert Policy Institute, June 2007, “Towards a European Army”]. Given what is being done to Israel in its name, such “maps” should alarm all peoples. Also pushed by German and EU Social Democrats are a call for unified European Air Command and Army with a German role in making policy about using French and British nuclear forces. There will be a Council and Minister for Military Affairs to decide when to wage war and smaller states will be delegated to “niche capabilities.” According to defector Vladimir Bukovsky, Trilateral Commission heavies have been pushing Russian involvement in this block since 1989 [4]. The Russo – German alliance is back with the leaders of the Oceanic block pleased to play with each facet of the pyramid.

    British geopolitics that for centuries built up Prussia and Germany is now suffering poetic justice with terrible consequences for accountability in governance everywhere. During the interwar years the French pleaded fruitlessly with Britain for a multinational force to protect them and others from Germany; now the French have decided that their interests are with a German-led bloc, coercive, collective and invasive as it may be. The elite will laugh and dine together, unveiling Isis to dazzle the masses while Aryans act out their psychodrama…

    Here then is a grotesque but real history of occultism as bizarre as any Gothic tale, the literature that began to be written in the 1790s and came to dominate 19-20th popular culture. It is a terrible testament to the German thesis of “the world as Will and Idea” wielded by those who would be human gods while condemning others to beast-hood. It is an antithesis to the blessings, prayer and grace that the Hebrew Scriptures denote as the stance of G-d toward His world through the Jewish people who remain the target, the past to be buried in this New Age of giant, continental blocs swept by fantasies, terror, war and economic predation and ruin. The psalms teach that these power-mongers “will be consumed with bewildering terrors” and indeed they have created a world and mystique of, by and for terror. Of course they have: those who would bury the past have no future, and the lies of the power-mad displace the modest state and lives of service of those the Bible identifies as the Chosen People in an everlasting covenant with the Creator. A way of life based on remembrance, family, abundance and the divinity of the human soul yields to enforced forgetting, groupthink, vulgarity and imperialism, -- to a high-tech Egypt.

    As the armies of the North itch for action, it may be as Orwell wrote: “the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten; the lie became truth.”

    * The main source for this essay’s discussion of German cults is Nicholas Goodrick-Clark’s overview, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology (NY 1985; 2004).

    ** Black, Edwin, The War Against the Weak (NY 2003), 130-43

    3. Curt Riess, the Nazi Underground (NY 1944); In August 1943, Holland’s ambassador to Washington stated about the Nazi’s global network, “they must hide, they must play dead, they must wait…to gain time for preparation for WW III.” The terrorism of the Wehrwolfen in 1944-47 was only the crude harbinger of the suave Globalism to come.

    4. Bukovsky interview with Paul Belien, 2-27-06