Happy New Year Welcome 2017

Racism, Antisemitism, Pan, Fascism and Imperialism

Arendt, view of the  industrial antisemitism was reaction in many levels the first Napoleon to dislodge the influence of the Catholic Church, especially the Catholic Church created a unusual status the Jews, the Christian religion saw the not just derived but ownership to a truth, the transformation of believe to a political tool, sending and controlling the Jews to the fringe, the Theodosius code in 400´s C.E. relegated the Jews to the status of  adulteress (not an accident of identified the Jews with Yellow, the color used to identified prostitutes and adulterers), the restoration the push by Aristocrats and the Absolutes Monarchies took away the right of man, meaning civil right, Napoleon give citizenship is not a privilege, but the right given by geography birth and  naturalization, not privilege gave by Aristocrats, Monarchy or Imperial decree and since the existence of the Christian as Religion is based on this  privilege.

According to Arendt antisemitism was not just a question of privilege but a utilitarian based, when the usefulness was lost then become a competition for limited resources. When a National economy, based on Production or consumption limited is found then expansion weather is mercantile, colonization or simple used force, the Jews because the fate was based limited to individual the Authority of Aristocrat or Monarch since in the fringe the only work could provide was commerce or under licenses like Medical Doctors or Attorneys, Universities in general (even today) Nepotism closed access to other alternatives.

Hobbes, in Leviathan becomes the bourgeoisie philosopher, where the state is not based on law weather was divine, nature or social contract for him the private interest is the same is the public. Form him the individual not sense of solidarity or the greater good is individual selfishness is the drive for the society. Anything outside, then there is not obligation or sympathy. The consequences was racism  become the main weapon of Imperialism, and the nature of Imperialism like racism goes across national boundaries, only to be identified by specific the uniqueness, the secular identity is destroy.

Two types of Imperial forces appear the sea based and land based, the first because there is was a distance between the colony and the home land was easy to defined the other the British Empire was based, but the Russian Empire was land force a russification, then in Easter Europe take place in form of Ethnic Groups.

The russification defined a new movement based on ethnic lines, based on languages as identification of the ethnic group. In 1814 was called blood relationship (Joseph Goerres in Rheinischer Merkur, 1814 No 25) a tribal unity.   The romantic movement of the 18 Century to an ideal state in nature open a tendency of leaders as patriarchal or matriarchal structures, where individual submitted themselves to their own madness—Arendt (The origin Totalitarianism p.168), unlimited idolization of personality—the cult of individual is the hope, the believe of new religion .

Moreover, the inherent relativism in the romanticism made easy to create the other—in many case the Jew. The Pan Movement common trend in Pan-Slavic and Pan-Germanic was the Jew. Gobineau in 1853 in his Essay: Essai sur l´lnegalite des Races Humanes, theorize the reason for the decadence of any civilization, due to mingle between the races. Gobineau delusion he was a direct decedent of the Odin, using Darwin survival as biological argument created industrialist racism, where mass groups.

Gobineau proposed an Aryan Prices as the new elite, their purpose to the defended the blood. Arendt view (O.T., pp.175-176), the seeds of German Race Thinking take place in the Napoleonic Wars, and the creation of the Englishmen at the same time, where England due to the culture homogeneity and Aristocrat class in control the Englishmen/Racism was based on a national identity—a second factor the upper classes were assimilated in the gentry due to the wealth, since British Empire was based on Mercantile.

The Darwinism justify only the best will succeed--fittest, and therefore their reward was to belong. The British Racism take shape in Bureaucracy running an empire—(history of South Africa with Dutch colonizers, were they become Native by transforming themselves into  a tribe, and behaving as such, they themselves become the idealize symbol of race (Arendt O.T. pp 185-197) when they were pressure the move, like any tribe will due under the same circumstances.

Rhodes (p.200) a natural Imperialism believes in ideal expansion for the sake of expansion, introduced racism as natural tool or Imperialism—for Rhodes and other white, many Jews come to South Africa as financiers as part a nation Economic, but for Rhodes and other White British was not room, since the Economy was base expansion, and the Jews limitation there was usefulness following the Darwin logic, then they were less fit, become the lesser race. For the Jews who become part society as industrial producers and support rule as attorneys and Medical Doctors, become a treat, since the South Africa economy was based on Commodity (Gold and Diamantes), expulsion was proclaim. South Africa was the pinnacle of what a society race was to be. Rhodes culminated his ideal with Rhodes Scholarship Association funding Nordic race students to Oxford (p. 215 and the same page footnote 50).

The ideal of Rhodes take form by Lawrence, believer of the great game and Lawrence become the functionary as historical figure push by the stream to make history and being history.

The Pan are not just ideologies or politics, while the patriotism was base in loyalty to the race, in reality the Pan are movements, while the British racism come from the imperial aspiration the Pan-Germanic and Pan-Slavic come from Land Empires to justify the land capture based on ethnic and Racism. The differences the Germanic was based on Race exclusive and Slavic (Russia), was Imperial oppression to languages and the ethnic identity.

The foundation of Pan-Germanic take place in Austria-Hungary, were different ethnic groups only can take covert and comfort in their ethnic identity. The antisemitism in Austria take very violence, because their saw by all the groups closed to the oppressor (German Speaking) and part of the machinery of oppression.

Arendt define nationalism is a perversion of the state as an expression to identified the citizens as member of the state (O.T. p. 231). In the same take for Arendt Racism is denying common origin of man (O.T. p.234). The combination the Pan become messianic to the particular group a new race religion is born. Austria and Russia saw in advantage by using as culture weapon, in Russia the policy of Russification. In the case of Austria the Pan was treason, because the objective was nor the Empire but the race.

Pan-Germanic can be attributed to Georg von Schroenerer, in his view to enlarged tribal conscious only can be achieve by a glue in this case the hate of the Jews—the Linz Program in 1885 added the not Jews (O.T. pp 238-239 and foot note 84), the reason pp 240 a nation without a sate and without visible institutions (see foot note 87, same page), but the fundamental clash as previously with Islam and Christianity the choosiness, which was the mantel of the Pan. The differences for the Jews was Human redemption and the Pan was the single—their race.

The Russian take in the form of the Forgery by Russia Secret Policy upon the suggestion of Pobyedonostev adviser of Nicholas II, the hate toward the Jews was move the Jews choose themselves not God, therefore the ethnic group need to avenge such blasphemy.(O.T. 242).

The French antisemitism had an unusual characteristic which took hold with National Socialism the Pseudo-Mysticism, based a Catholic Church own mysticism. The Pan-Slavic hate was not just extended to the west, but included the materialistic west; the irrationality and Mysticism in Orthodox Church gave an emotional hold (O.T. page 246 foot note 65). Pobyedonostev describe power is only for the love the God (O.T. p.48, foot note 70) and the love the God was only the Czar. This Slavic identification is describe by Dostoyevsky Crime Punishment Raskolnikov confession, to the Czar and then to God.   

Traditionally the conservatives’ parties were created to defend the interest of the landed property, but they need a rational the God created the man to till the soil, in the Jews without nation, they have not soil, while the trans Pan ended National socialism and Soviet Russia. The national Racism base on tribalism was developed in France, with Frenchmen, and Fascism. Fascism the single party as the movement as described to include an economic program.

Leon XII saw the Industrialization dislocated the peasants and come to the city the capitalist owning the means production in conflict with producers, since Marx point and denoted a program, Leon XII a third way, described by Mussolini: The corporate state is to correct and neutralizing a condition brought by industrial revolution of the 19^th century which dissociate capital and labour industry, given rise on the one hand to a capitalist class employer, the industrial a juxtaposition. The program was the economic hearth carry by Franco and especially in Portugal the dictatorship of Salazar. In Europe Germany as example by having the workers, Managers and shareholders, of course the difficulty the one who owns the capital owns everything, in some ways this is Program described by Trumps in spirit, of Economic Nationalism, where the owner class control everything.

The Pan movement saw the Bureaucracies as vehicles for organization, in National Socialism in Germany and eventually the secular Empire of the Soviet Russia.

Print

Hannover Holocaust Memorial

Hannah Arendt

White Man last stand, Racism and Antisemitism

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (1892–1984):

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Hannah Arendt in “The Of Origin Totalitarians,” where she analyze two situations intertwined, one Antisemitism and secondly Imperialism, while Arendt does not accept the Antisemitism of 19^th Century is a continuation of Medieval a competition and demonize for ownership of God (Origin of Antisemitism, Israelowitz 2016). Arendt perspective in context the Jews because were consider outside, to maintain control, give a status base on some rights, when this was given in western Europe, many Jews from the West have issue when was extended to the Jews from the East.

The Liberal of the 19^th century saw with envious and disgusted, this was not extended; the question was not privilege but equality, when Napoleon invented the Secular nation, extended civil rights to the most outsiders the Jews. Napoleon lost, Czar and the other Monarchies (Franz Austria and Prussia) take upon a project of restoration—meaning restore absolutism, Autocratic monarchies.

Because the Jews had been outsiders, cannot understand the machination, miss reading, Arendt analyzed when the Jews lost their economic value from money lenders to Bankers (according to Her view; the Jews economic status was based on inter—nations, and now the economic Model was Bankers as Imperial, the differences just not only Networks, but networks based on race superiority, which Jews were consider less than Christian which surrounded).

The imperialism created a sense above the nation, where in Germans speaking found common ground through the culture and language given them a community without national borders, racism become, truly an international movement.

Arendt exemplified this dichotomy D´isreali, while he had no knowledge or understanding of his own Jewish identity in other hand Dreyfus epitomize the last hurried of Antisemitism in the national level and next stage through National Socialism and Fascism, become internationalize hate.  

From the loss of WWII, racism take hold in white identity, in part the failure of centralize socialism in east Europe and Russia, the idea of supplied liberal economy, leaving behind the majority whites, because historically the working class in Europe and some ways in US come from the Serfs, while minorities were left out from the blue collar Jobs—but the dynamics due to international economy, where social outsider is norm leaving the serf out.

Brexit and 2016 elections in US based on despair of the whites being delegated, the last stand, in some ways the changes as the Industrial revolution in 19^th century created inequality and Artesian economy displace by industrialization and mass production, the Artesian could not compete. The rise of National Socialism in Germany in 1930´s was due support of the low middle class and Artesian.

The economic liberalization, first the old privilege network had become irrelevant just fact of population which 2/3 humanity are China and India. Islam itself is 1.2 Billion of followers, the national networks and the decline of the white population, the internet revolution by pass old networks.

The promised the Industry will become again, is not possible due automatization, and networks are run for the minority-majority. While Putin Russia will like 19^th century sphere of influence and russification, and white society in US irrelevant—if US begin a trade war with a nation of 1.3 Billion who for the last decade have created a network independent US. For Europe the aggression of Russia is not just the annexation of the Crimea or the aggression against Ukraine. EU exist because the ethnic and national conflicts of the last 2000 Years had many times left Europe on brick, the conflict of WWI and WWII come to painful conclusion, when the round the Jews and Holocaust happen Europe was guilty for the 2000 of Anti-Semitism, and silence were not least guilty. If US begin data bases for Muslim or mass deportations or using water torture in WWII many Japanese were hang for crimes against Humanity by using such method, we stand silence we are like perpetrators.

What to do the answer is in the White Rose (1944)—boycott any company who participate and kept taps of crimes against humanity, rebel and question, do not accept, justice will happen not the ways will predict.

Fountain

Night Lights

Winds

Up and down

Consensus and Direct Democracy

The concept of consensus was introduced in the ideal of solidarity, not to competition, while they are many types of consensus, from agreement, collaboration, cooperative meaning find the best solution, egalitarian,   inclusive, participatory, and science a consensus is to obtain an epistemology or body of knowledge.

Perhaps the oldest example of consensus decision-making is the Iroquois Confederacy Grand Council, or Haudenosaunee, which has used consensus in decision-making using a 75% super majority to finalize decisions, potentially as early as 1142. Although the modern popularity of consensus decision-making in Western society dates from the women's liberation movement of the 1970s, and anti-nuclear movement the origins of formal consensus can be traced significantly further back.

Historically the Quakers introduced consensus is a form to practice their belief in Christianity, in the 17^th century (Quakers demanded the church to be an entirely voluntary, non-coercive community able to evangelize in a pluralistic society governed by a purely civil state. Such a demand was in sharp contrast to the ambitions of magisterial Protestantism held by the Calvinist majority. Quakers believed that the Roman Church corrupted itself and, through its common heritage, the Church of England as well.), from the Legatine-Arians, who in the 16^th Century were influenced by Walter, Thomas, and Bartholomew Legate (1575 – 18 March 1612, was anti-Trinitarian martyr--lower-class heretical culture in England with the cornerstones of this culture were anti-clericalism and a strong emphasis on Biblical study, but specific doctrines that had rejection of Predestination, Millenarianism, mortalism, anti-Trinitarianism and Hermeticism ).

George Fox (July 1624 – January 1691) was a founder of the Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as the Quakers or Friends, born in the strongly Puritan village of Drayton-in-the-Clay, Leicestershire, England (Fenny Drayton),  24 km west-south-west of Leicester. Imprisoned for blasphemy; a judge mocked Fox's exhortation to tremble at the word of the Lord, calling him and his followers Quakers. Following his refusal to fight against the return of the monarchy (or to take up arms for any reason), his sentence was doubled. The refusal to swear oaths or take up arms came to be a much more important part of his public statements. Refusal to take oaths meant that Quakers could be prosecuted under laws compelling subjects to pledge allegiance, as well as making testifying in court problematic.

The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule: can account, unanimous agreement, unanimous consent, unanimous agreement minus one vote or two votes, unanimous consent minus one vote or two votes, super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common), simple majority, executive committee decides, person-in-charge decides.

In groups that require unanimous agreement or consent (unanimity) to approve group decisions, if any participant objects, they can block consensus. These groups use the term consensus to denote both the discussion process and the decision rule. Other groups use a consensus process to generate as much agreement as possible, but allow participants to finalize decisions with a decision rule that does not require unanimity.

Consensus is a mechanism has room for dissent: Declare reservations, Stand aside and Object: In groups with a unanimity decision rule, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal. Other decision rules may require more than one objection for a proposal to be blocked or not pass.

Quaker-based model puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity: Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear, discussion involves active listening and sharing information, norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard, ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded. The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision. The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest. Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is unity, not unanimity.

The consensus-oriented decision-making model: offers a detailed step-wise description of consensus process: Framing the topic, open discussion, identifying underlying concerns, collaborative proposal building, choosing a direction, synthesizing a final proposal and closure.

Critics of consensus, preservation of the status quo, susceptibility to widespread disagreement, stagnation and group dysfunction, susceptibility to splitting and excluding members:  Groupthink. Consensus seeks to improve solidarity in the long run. Accordingly, it should not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of groupthink.

Direct Democracy used by the Athenians used majority voting processes.  Proponents of consensus decision-making view procedures that use majority rule as undesirable for several reasons. Majority voting is regarded as competitive, rather than cooperative, framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of compromise or other mutually beneficial solutions. Additionally, opponents of majority rule claim that it can lead to a tyranny of the majority, a scenario in which a majority places its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression. Advocates of consensus would assert that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.

Opportunit

Possibility