Kṛṣṇacandra Dāsa – Vṛndāvan: All Abrahamic religions believe that it is their right, respectively, as the ‘chosen ones of God’ to dominate the Geopolitical sphere. The Judaic influence is self evident and their attempt at world domination is increasingly becoming more real as they believe that the time of their Messiaḥ’s return is imminent. The Zionist push to establish the State of Israel has been in play since the 19th century and the need for the degradation of Western Culture became more urgent just prior to the actual realization of the Zionist backed establishment of Israel in 1948. The Second World War with its example of Adolf Hitler proved to be the perfect catalyst to firmly establish the Authoritarian Personality ideology as a male power hungry leader gone terribly wrong.

The involvement of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers in the United States of America was also necessary for both the introduction of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers agenda, to weaken the countries social cohesion as well as to provide the necessary; geopolitical, strategic, military and financial support for the State of Israel.

“There is a striking point that runs through Jewish history as a whole. Western civilization was born in the Middle East, and the Jews were at its crossroads. In the heyday of Rome, the Jews were close to the Empire’s center. When power shifted eastward, the Jewish center was in Babylon; when it skipped to Spain, there again were the Jews. When in the Middle Ages the center of civilization moved into Central Europe, the Jews were waiting for it in Germany and Poland. The rise of the United States to the leading world power found Judaism focused there. And now, today, when the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward the Old World and the East rises to renewed importance, there again are the Jews in Israel…”

Professor Huston Smith – The Religious of Man, New York: HarperCollins, 1989

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers clearly understood that the power base of human society was God centric patriarchal and so the most effective way in which to dismantle this power base was to launch an attack on the male figure. Therefore they introduced the concept of the ‘Authoritarian Personality’ into society by including it in their repertoire of polemic theories that were specifically designed to challenge Western society’s value system.

As any organizational structure requires leadership and management, the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers set their sights on the leader. Historically the leaders of society were men, both as Kings and warriors and any doubt being placed on their technique or intentions would serve to weaken their hold on the people. The doubt that they placed on the role of the leader would be to develop the polemic argument that a male leader used / misused and abused their power to subjugate others.

At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father.

SIGMUND FREUD, Totem and Taboo

God centric patriarchal societal strength was indelibly interwoven with the concept that God was a masculine figure, the king was a masculine figure, the President / Prime Minister was a masculine figure, roles models and super heroes were masculine figures and the father was a masculine figure.

Men meant leadership and the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers wanted to present that the main attribute of leadership was power and it was the wielding of that power that more or less automatically corrupted man turning them into abusive leaders. The prime example they cited of this was Adolf Hitler who was, in their eyes, the epitome of the abusive power hungry leadership.

‘Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately’ – is a quote by John Emerich Edward Dalberg that emulates this ideology.

While history glorified God / the King / the father and the man’s role in human society, the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers’ stratagem to debase this time honoured role and tradition met with alarming success.

Coupled with the Authoritarian Male they brought in the concept of ‘androgyny’ at least in the behavioural and dress sense, by denigrating the male and elevating the female to coalesce them both into a metrosexual male and a masculinised female under the ideology of ‘gender equalitarianism.’ The male or masculine role was to be seen as highly problematic and counterproductive to the growth and evolution of human society.

The masculine qualities of the male gender were now more or less redundant and in its place the feminine qualities were now seen as an improvement in the male gender. Men strove to please women and appear more socially acceptable by developing feminine qualities and attitudes that displayed a sense of ‘equality’ in the genders. The women on the other hand strove to be seen as more masculine rather than feminine in their attitude, dress and outlook in order to appear more modernistic and liberal.

There was a move towards role reversal where it was now seen as socially acceptable for the female to have a career and be the bread winner of the family. Women’s rights were seen in the light of whether or not they were being seen as equals of men in every way.

However in actual practice, two distinct processes began to develop. Firstly there was a certain denial and confusion of the female psychobiological role within human society and secondly the female role, due to changes in politically correct attitudes and legal precedent, began to become increasingly more dominant and authoritarian in orientation.

The disassociation of both the masculine in the male gender and the feminine in the female gender has led to much confusion in roles and relationships which is the precise result that the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers desired to achieve in debasing and breaking down the family structure and the role of the male in Western Society.

The most effective ideological theory that greatly influenced the breakdown or degradation of the social milieu by breaking down the male role in society Cultural Marxist Social Engineers was when they introduced the concept of the Authoritarian Personality.

The Political Correctness of the Authoritarian Personality

Horkheimer and Adorno of the Frankfurt School developed the Authoritarian Personality Theory claiming that Capitalism and Fascism were ideologies which were born of a Westernized God (male) patriarchal dominated society. The male dominated societies allegedly being Authoritarian and Fascist consequently oppressed women and minority groups. Although this work was eventually discredited for its lack of empirical research and methodology it had already had its effect on mainstream culture and introduced a powerful ‘point of reference’ into the psyche of man; the pejorative ‘Authoritarian’.

The male figure or authority figure now had a certain amount of suspicion regarding their leadership and there became a kind of ‘hyper vigilance’ regarding the potential for abuse from the authority figure. This was especially felt in the family unit where the father was now regarded with a certain degree of suspicion.

The introduction of Freudian psychoanalysis into the authoritarian male ideology had the desired effect to establish a view that normal masculine behaviour was to be seen as problematic and dysfunctional. For example; the repressed sexual urges of men lead to laws and morality that adversely affect women; unfulfilled homosexual urges lead to persecution of Gays and Lesbians; marriage suppresses the ‘man as a hunter’ urge in men who are by nature sexual predators which leads to domestic violence and other forms of marital abuse; economic impotence leads to envy and persecution of Jewish people etc.

“Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex” (Karl Marx).

Men and the man’s role are now very much considered the ‘problem’ with modern society. Men are associated with the struggle for power. Nothing makes this more evident than the view that rape is considered nothing but the ultimate abuse of power in men. There is no consideration of a Hedonistic society awry where anyone whose senses are over stimulated and agitated to the point where all they require is ‘opportunity’ to gratify their senses, in order to commit heinous crimes.

The Burglar whose desire to have more money breaks into a house not because he hungers for power over the home owner and his property, he simply cannot control his hunger for money and the perceived freedom that it brings.

The murderer does not kill out of a need to exercise his power or total control of another by extinguishing the life out of them they usually kill out of rage / jealousy or greed and they usually kill someone they know because the opportunity is readily available to them.

The drunk who exits a Bar does not wait to rape the barmaid because he desires to overpower and subsequently control her totally, it is because being intoxicated he cannot control himself what to speak of controlling his sex desire. If the opportunity arises that she is alone and it is dark he will use his strength to overcome her but it is merely a tool not his end game.

The idea that it is power that men crave is misleading and spurious. Even in political situations it is rarely power that men crave. They may enjoy it but it is not the motivating factor nor was it the stimulus or incentive to climb the political ladder. Mostly they are after fame admiration and respect. In business it is about money. So power is only a tool and means to an end not the end itself.

Ultimately the push to have the Authoritarian Personality accepted as a legitimate theory regarding the causative factors for social and personal dysfunction failed as it can never be verified empirically however the stigma of it still remains within society and has become more or less accepted as being the problem with men and the basis of their ideology of ‘political correctness’ is the dysfunctional power hungry male figure still stands as the underlying myth surrounding traditional Western God centric culture pitting it against the so called modern liberal egalitarian new age of reason culture of today.

Authoritarianism or Opportunism

The Frankfurt School authors desired to sever the Western Societies tie with its traditional cultural orientation and replace it with one that suited their Judaic Marxist Communistic agenda and in order to do so they had to degrade the traditional family structure by vilifying the male or Patriarchal aspect of Western Society.

They posit that it is the sexually repressed male that desires power over others that is the root cause of society’s ills and leads to the abuse of their positional power as a Patriarch, which culminates in war. Although the individual authors have been more or less discredited as their ideologies are considered ‘a priori’ theories that are based on sentiment rather than fact, the system of Humanistic Sciences and especially the Social Sciences still predominate in the educational ethos for the Secular Education program.

The Frankfurt Schools attempt to find fault in what they term as Western Society’s Patriarchal culture, which they describe as a negatively Authoritarian society which oppresses its people, can be more accurately described as Opportunism.

Opportunism is where a person puts their needs or wants ahead of others, without any regard for the consequence of their actions or inactions. The person uses their intelligence to gather the appropriate resources and information in order to make sure that they can take full advantage of an opportunity that may present itself. They also may chose to not take action if there is any disadvantage for them; for example a person may choose not to get involved, when witnessing a case of assault if they perceive any bodily threat to themselves.

Rape is seen as the epitome of the Authoritarian theories blame of men, where they posit; that men rape because they desire to overwhelmingly overpower a woman. They posit that men use their strength to not only over power a woman, but to oppress her completely. However when the same heinous act is viewed from the perspective of Opportunism we find an entirely different picture.

Here the man is seen as being weak and not being able to control his senses in the form of the sexual response. The man then takes advantage of an opportunity that has presented itself and he makes a decision to use his physical strength or cunning to ensnare a woman to relieve his uncontrollable sexual impulse. Here the man is seen as being weak, not powerful, as he is not able to control himself.

The lesson that traditional Patriarchal God centric society teaches the man, is that if he is not able to control his mind and senses then the law and legal system will control it for him. The modern liberalistic legal system is more interested in the manipulation of facts under an impersonal law that does not take into consideration natural justice. A legal system that is not based on the premise of Justice falls short of providing protection for not only the innocent/victims but also the criminals who experience a life that locks them into the vicious cycle of repetition of their criminal activity (recidivism).

They never learn the concept of ‘no’. For them no means a great struggle before they can eventually have what they want and desire. Similar to a child who pesters their mother for some chocolate and knows that they will eventually get what they want by continuing to pester their mother. They know that the mother will eventually give in and give them what they want. The mother’s no, actually means a very hard and painful yes.

The modern day liberalist human is like this spoiled child who wants something that it does not need. The child does not ‘need’ the chocolate it simply ‘wants’ the chocolate. There is no logic, morality or ethics involved there are only immature wants and desires.

So called modern day liberal society teaches a person that they have many choices and that it is through the exercising of this right to choose that they will experience personal growth, a higher self-esteem and ultimately freedom. However this is a fallacy as human society is being controlled totally by a set of protocols that comprise the secular democratic state and freedom is not possible in such a conditioned state. Freedom exists as an ideal only and is within the mind of the so called ‘age of reason’ man, for man is totally and with full compliance being controlled from the ‘cradle to the grave’ by the system.

For modern man cannot have it both ways. On one hand they want the right to do and say what they think or feel or want and on the other hand they have their own sense of politically correct morality that is intolerant of any opposing view or attitude. They don’t want criminals punished but they want to be protected by the law. By lowering the penalties for crime, recidivist rates are on the rise as punitive measures are continually watered down by liberalists who make decisions based on sentiment rather than logic, natural / religious ethic or appropriate morality.

However this sentimental decision is very quickly altered when the criminal commits a crime against a loved one or they themselves fall victim to crime. The criminal justice system is becoming increasingly lenient to the criminal at the expense of the victim and their families due to the hypocrisy of the modernist liberal whose ethic is based on political correctness and not rational logical thought. The liberalist is yet to realise that they cannot have it both ways. Leniency for the criminal and protection for the victim, to believe that this is possible merely proves the ignorance of the modern day liberalist to the laws of nature. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. If you are willing to commit the crime then you must be willing to do the time.

In a world where opportunism is the modus operandi of the general public then not only are the so called ‘good’ citizens going to take advantage of an opportunity, so too will the bad guys. Since the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers influence has been acculturated into Western Societies values, mores and now laws, it is only up the political pressure of lobby groups that will give increasingly more opportunities to break down pre existing ‘taboos’ which were held sacrosanct in the traditional value system of God centric Western Society. Criminals will be out on early release programs, the criminally mentally ill are being released on their own recognizance and self medicated, sexual permissiveness is increasing and opening up more opportunities to sexual taboos that were once considered amoral and abhorrent. The list goes on and on and will never be exhausted so long as society is being infected with the politically correct agenda of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers.

However, Opportunism in its full expression may not be viewed in the negative. One can use an opportunity for selfish reasons and/or one can use an opportunity for selfless reasons. The problem with this is that the so called modernist is more interested in using any opportunity for their own selfish reasons and hardly ever for altruistic. Donations being tax deductable is the prime example of charity that can hardly be considered altruistic…

By focusing on sex desire, which is the main driving force behind human activity, the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers successfully ‘liberated’ so called modern man and introduced them to the idea that a hedonistic society is more liberating for them than the traditional Western culture which was God centric and subsequently limited sexual expression.

Anti-Semitism as a “Politically Correct” agenda of the Frankfurt School

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineer’s “Politically Correct” mentality was proving to be very successful in changing the views and opinions of westernized society, however, also included in what a modern person was to consider politically correct and/or socially acceptable was the ideology of Anti-Semitism. Although the Jewish people rank as one of the world smallest ethnoreligious cultures they ranked highly on the ‘to do’ list of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers who, coming from Jewish backgrounds, were very protective of their ethnic roots.

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers all hailed from a Jewish background and therefore perceived their life and the solutions to the problems within society stemming from the view that they were Jews who were unfairly and unjustly persecuted. Freud, as a child, witnessed firsthand the racist attitude of the people in his home town and therefore formulated a world view that was very much centred on the upliftment of the Jewish people. The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers agenda was very much driven by how they themselves perceived their place and role as Jews in the various countries that they were domiciled.

Freud believed very strongly in the superiority of the Jewish people.

“Incidentally, why was it that none of all the pious ever discovered psycho-analysis? Why did it have to wait for a completely godless Jew?”

The Second World War shaped the reformation of most if not all Western and Westernized Countries as they strove to rebuild and reorganize themselves after the War. The development of the ‘identities’ of post Second World War Europe, Russia and the US, was ostensibly shaped by their opposition to Nazism and Fascism. In the making of the ‘New Post War Western Societies’ based on Judaic Cultural Marxist thought, the Anti-Semitic polemic played a very powerful role in ‘normalizing and desensitizing’ the; public opinion; legal, commerce and value systems and consequentially the multilateral acceptance of the Jewish people in countries that previously declined Jewish immigration. However, its most fundamental role was to accommodate the newly formed and highly controversial State of Israel within the Geopolitical sphere.

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers devised a very clever plan to acculturate the ideology of Anti-Semitism into the sphere of human rights which in turn was backed by the very powerful Jewish Lobby.

The Ambiguity of Blood Libel and Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism as a term is very confusing to understand. A Semite is an Arabic speaking people who come from the Middle East and Northern Africa and so this term used in relationship to the Jewish people is ambiguous and does not pinpoint the Jewish people per se which is very similar to the term ‘Blood Libel’ which is another term applied to the religious ritualistic practice of human and animal sacrifice practiced by the Judaic people.

The ‘blood’ aspect of the term refers to idea that the ‘nephresh’ or breath of God is found in the blood and it is believed that the letting of this blood aids in the process of redemption for sins against the Toraḥ for certain sectors of the Jewish Community. The release of the ‘soul’ trapped in the ‘kellipot’ husk of the human or animal body when killed according to religious principles is freed to ‘unite’ with the impersonal aspect of God. In the Judaic religious sense this is a good thing for it aids both the Rabbi or spiritual leader and their mission to liberate trapped souls and it makes God whole again in the process of ‘tikkun olam’.

As in any other religious doctrine which condones the use of blood sacrifice, the killing has a twofold benefit of aiding the priest/Rabbi/tantric etc plus it aids in the release of the souls inside the body to go to their respective destinations as prescribed under the conditions of the sacrifice.

Killing of men in the theatre of war is also seen as mass human sacrifice if the killing is arranged by the religious leaders of any culture who declare war. This is also found in the ancient Aztec cultures of South America where for the warrior to die in battle or to be sacrificed would be to appease the Gods and ultimately liberating for the warrior himself.

Blood sacrifice has another meaning as in the ideology of ‘covenant’ or ‘sealed with blood’. Many cultures have the process of blood bonding to finalize a transaction or to make an unbreakable and indelible bond between two parties. This usually takes the form of the letting of blood from the wrist which is either mingled by the rubbing of the incisions together or by dripping the blood into wine which is then drunk by both parties.

Within the Judaic tradition it symbolizes the bond or covenant between Abraham and God. Abraham entered into a covenant with God after he proceeded to offer his son Isaacs’s life in sacrifice to God. When God saw that Abraham was willing to kill his own son he, God, stopped him and entered into a covenant or contract with Abraham and his people. This covenant was binding and God, it is claimed, made Abraham and his people his chosen ones. Each Israelite male makes their own blood sacrifice thus binding them to the covenant and God by the process of circumcision which is symbolic of the letting of blood in sacrifice. As women are not circumcised and there is no provision for them in the covenant through sacrifice many say that it is through men that the covenant is enacted by God, however, some speculate that it is through the menstruation cycle that women offer their blood in sacrifice to the covenant and so are equally included in the covenant with God.

In both the Christian and Judaic faiths, the sacrifice or the letting of blood is an integral aspect of the covenant with God. Without the shedding or letting of blood there is no atonement and if there is no atonement for sins then there is no forgiveness from God. Therefore the very basis of the Abrahamic faith and their covenant or agreement with God is the letting of blood which is the process of atonement for sins against God’s law.

The Israelites of the Roman times began to misuse the ritual of blood sacrifice and so sinned against the covenant with God and therefore God in his wrath smote the people of Israel and caused the Romans to destroy the Temple, disband the Sanhedrin and to stop the ritual killings and dispersed the Jewish people throughout the world.

The Israelites have spent the last two thousand years recovering from that event;

  1. They have attained a Jewish nation
  2. Reinstated the 71 man Sanhedrin
  3. Built the ‘chamber of hewn stone’ where the Sanhedrin will preside and will be responsible to appoint the King who will replace the democratically elected Knesset
  4. Designed architectural plans for the Third Temple on Mount Moriah
  5. Taken legal action to reinstate blood sacrifice
  6. Trained the Temple Priests who will conduct the sacrifices
  7. Are attempting to breed the red cow (heifer) which will be sacrificed first to purify the land to begin building of the Temple
  8. Built the altar in which the heifer will be sacrificed (Holocaust – burnt offering)

The Christians on the other hand have a stake in the formation of Israel, the building of the Temple and the reintroduction of blood sacrifice for their own interpretation of the Old Testament predicts that they are the real recipients of God’s favour as being the chosen ones, those who have made covenant with God through Jesus, his son.

The Christians believe that Jesus being the Messiaḥ did away with the actual ritual of sacrifice replacing it with a symbolic form known as the ‘Eucharist’. The Christians, who due to the preaching of the apostle Paul, were predominately non Israelites or gentiles (goy) and the crucifixion of Jesus became symbolic of the human sacrifice where the body and blood of Jesus is eaten and drunk in the form of bread and wine thus simulating the circumcision and bloodletting of sacrifice of the Jews which enabled them, the gentiles, to enter into to the covenant with God on par with the Israelites. This is of course not accepted by the Jews who do not see Jesus as the Messiaḥ and therefore a person who has the right to change the rules of the covenant with God.

The fact that in modern times the actual letting of blood of humans and animals is performed symbolically the actual and pure process of the atonement ritual and sanctification is bloodletting through the sacrifice of an animal or a human in Biblical Scripture. Therefore even though in the Judaic faith, since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70CE, where the Romans forbade the Israelites from conducting mass bloodletting sacrifices in the Temple (Temples or synagogues are places where this ritual takes place) the Jewish people stopped performing public bloodletting rituals, however, in covert in some communities, this practice of atonement is still conducted. Once animal sacrifice is legally allowed in Israel and the Third Temple on the mount is rebuilt then the practice of bloodletting sacrifice will begin again for the Jewish people.

The process of bloodletting sacrifice is vital in the Jewish faith as it reconfirms the bond or covenant between God and the Jewish people and it is through the process of bloodletting sacrifice that God’s promise to make his chosen people grow, prosper and rule on earth in the Messianic times will be fulfilled.

Libel on the other hand means slandering someone unjustly. The term therefore does not describe the act of sacrifice but that it is considered slanderous to accuse a Jew who is discovered practicing animal / or human sacrifice. Even though history is replete with accounts of animal and human sacrifice conducted by Jewish people it is considered slanderous and now politically incorrect, to mention it in public.

Hence to use the term ‘blood libel’ is deceptively misleading and distracts from the actual event and places it in the realm of slander to even mention that the event took place or is taking place in certain sectors of the community. However there exists the irony that if a practitioner of ‘black magic’ or Voodoo is found engaging in blood sacrifice the ritual is not labelled ‘blood libel’ as this label appears to be mainly connected to any accusations or historic accounts of blood sacrifice conducted in the Jewish community in which it is clearly described as a bonafide form of religious practice.

In modern day Israel the proponents of blood sacrifice are beginning to gain support again as they attempt to reintroduce animal sacrifice into the practice of the Jewish faith in preparation for the building of the Temple on the Mount. This is naturally opposed by animal liberationists but most Jewish commentators believe that it will eventually be made legal again as it is predicted in their Scriptural injunctions and is a standard practice of their faith.

Both the terms Anti-Semitic and Blood Libel are very powerfully deceptive terms used to make the actual claims appear as destructive criticism rather that factual and/or historic accounts of events or attitudes.

The definition of Anti-Semitism is a pre-rational hatred against the ethno-religious group known as Jews with a distinction made between Jewish hatred and prejudice and other forms of stereotypical hate and injustice to other cultures and peoples. No other ethnic group, culture or religion has laid claim and/or been subjected to the degree of pre-rational hate and simultaneously protectionism that the Jewish people are afforded to this very day. Due to the effectiveness of the Jewish lobby and its inclusion in the ‘politically correct’ sphere one is not able to criticize or challenge any Jewish person, the State of Israel or their history, publically without being severely censored or vilified and in some countries, to do so is a criminal offence

The fact that this series is pointing out the role of the Jewish people in world history borders on the politically incorrect sensibilities of many people and would certainly be considered Anti-Semitic by most Jewish people and their supporters. This is how effective the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers have been in including the Anti-Semitic polemic into their agenda of liberalist Humanistic Social Theory.

In the modern liberalistic world of today the idea that to criticize the Jews or Israel is so heavily protected by Anti-Semitism that it puts the spot light on the Jewish people, which in the present geopolitical sphere, may be seen as counterproductive to their, the Jews, best interest. The Jews of today, even though they may not support the prematurely forced establishment of the State of Israel, are being labelled as Zionists. Which is a shame as many Jews do not support Israel and are some of the most outspoken against, not only its right to exist as a nation, but also against the present political policies and programs of the Israeli Government.

Many of these Anti-Zionist Jews are of the opinion that the establishment of the State of Israel is premature and so it is not sanctioned by God, and further, it is not the appropriate time to build the Third Temple on the Mount for the Messiaḥ has not taken his rightful place in world politics.

It needs to be noted that there is a difference between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism is the idea that there is a hatred for the Jewish people in general that predates the Second World War. ; Anti-Zionism is the hatred of Zionistic Jews or their affiliates that pushed for the creation of the State of Israel and allegedly pursue plans of world domination. Both attitudes include secular and non secular Jews. However it is the opinion of many modern day Jews that the general public opinion is that there is no difference between both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in the modern context and that even though the Jewish people have recovered very well since the Second World War there now exists a new form of Anti-Semitism, a type of Post War Anti-Semitism that Adorno describes in his writings on Anti-Semitism.

“National socialism continues to live on, and to this day we don’t know whether it does so only as the ghost of what was so monstrous that it didn’t even die off with its own death or whether it never died in the ?rst place—whether the readiness for unspeakable actions survives in people, as in the social conditions that hem them in.”

He termed this ‘secondary Anti-Semitism’ as they could not believe that the German people as well as the Western people in general did not still hold on to their original beliefs regarding the Jewish people and that in time ‘Nationalist’ thought and sentiment will bring it forth again.

Adorno postulated that an Anti-Semite saw in the Jewish people what they hated and repressed in themselves which is typically the Freudian Psychoanalytic theory in play. By merging Freudian thought with Anti-Semitism it lent it some form of macabre credibility to Anti-Semitism. The idea that discrimination and prejudice was born from the concept that – what a person hates and represses in themselves is projected onto someone else, was to be accepted ‘a priori’ even though it is a rather incredulous concept in itself.

It all boils down to the differing of philosophical reason in both the Jews and the Christians. The Christians believe in the grace of God and that more or less the times of Jesus are the Messianic times whereas the Judaic understanding sees that Jesus is not the Messiaḥ and therefore humanity is not in the messianic times where the grace of God is active. They believe that the work of God must still be done in the form of breaking down the older animistic and polytheistic worship of God which is still present in Western Society due to the Christian influence.

The Jews believe that the Christian sold out to predominating culture at the time which was the Roman Empire. They vested their work and prayer onto God and onto Caesar and replaced the religious rituals with state rituals of work, while the Jews maintain strict adherence to the laws of Moses, the Toraḥ, and have always withstood the influences of the ruling elite.

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers believed that the persecution of the Jewish people boiled down to the repressed feelings of anger, hate and impotence of the Christian Western Societies which took out their frustration by treating the Jewish people unequally and deprived them of their full rights as citizens of any country that they may be domiciled. This is one of the prime reasons for the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers acculturating Liberalism into Western Society. Liberalism meant equal rights and so this meant the Jewish people had a social, ethical, political and legal platform for which to have their rights given a place in Western Society.

Whereas the Western Culture with its roots in the Christian tradition view the Jewish belief system and attitudes to be critical and inimical towards Christian culture and tradition and find them unable to assimilate with the mainstream cultures in which they have been domiciled and they are concerned at the wealth, power, influence and lack of accountability of the Jewish people in the Geopolitical sphere.

Anti-Semitism proved to be the perfect tool to ensure that the Jewish people, their activities and their religious practices would be safeguarded by the politically correct conscience and laws of Western Society.

Anti-Semitism could explain away some of the reasons why the Jewish people have been evicted from many of the countries over the last two thousand years but certainly not all. The notion of the ‘eternally innocent victim’ infers some form of collective pre-rational hatred of an religio-ethnic group held by all other ethnic groups that is independent of causative factors, is incredulous when analysed rationally.

Yet Anti-Semitism stands as a very powerful issue within society and one that political correctness and in some instances laws prohibit any reasonable or critical analysis of the issue. The dichotomy of logic is where the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers would like us to critically analyse, by looking for any logical fallacies in Western God centric thought and practice, what to speak of other religious schools of thought, but it is absolutely forbidden to apply the very same process to Anti-Semitism or the Judaic religion.

Regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty the fact remains that they have never enjoyed peace in any country or nation that they have been domicile in the Western and Westernized world, which must be considered in attempting to understand the situation regarding Anti-Semitism and the State of Israel and its policies.

However, in the modern day, the Jewish people are not able to effectively shield their activities in the arena of Geopolitics. The brutal and aggressive policies of the Government of Israel since its establishment has only served to highlight the issues which make the ideology of Anti-Semitism that the Jewish people are innocent victims increasingly less believable. This coupled with the fact that Jewish orthodoxy is presently attempting to legalize blood sacrifice which is considered barbaric and abhorrent in the so called modern liberalistic world, will further highlight the Judaic people’s claim of being the innocent victims of hate.

However, if one was to take into consideration the Judaic Biblical tradition, it was God himself who has forced the Jews into a cycle of repeated exile until they gain redemption in their homeland of Israel in the Messianic times. They have since time immemorial not assimilated with other cultures due to their religious beliefs and practices being different to the mainstream cultures in which they have been domiciled which is again rising to the forefront of any criticism of their religious traditions and their involvement in the Geopolitical sphere.

However, the inclusion of Anti-Semitism into ‘Political Correctness’ was a strategic move on the part of the Horkhiemer and Adorno and other Cultural Marxists. The Jewish people and their ‘perceived’ struggle served only to get people to emotionally invest in their Political Correctness stratagem as well as to garner more support for Jewish Diaspora. It also had the added benefit of making the Jewish people and the ongoing highly controversial struggle of Israel to justify and assert itself, an almost untouchable subject. Anti-Semitism is now the ‘built-in’ excuse why Israel, the Jewish people or their policies and programs cannot be questioned or challenged as it will be seen as politically incorrect to do so.

Thus ends part 5 of Geopolitics. Part 6 will look more in depth at the role that the Political Correctness played in the various civil rights movements as well as the role it played in the degradation of the legal justice system.

Kṛṣṇacandra Dāsa

( Click here to download a PDF of Geopolitics Parts 1 to 6 )