Britannia Radio

REPORT TO THE SAGES OF EMETYA

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

(January 28, 2001)

Introduction

To my masters, the Sages of Emetya, your humble servant Veris offers the results of his investigation into the mentality and behavior of “man,” the creature now dominating planet Earth. Special attention will be given in Part II of this report to men called “Jews,” once the most intelligent and noble denizens of this planet, but now greatly diminished in mind and character and ruled by fools and knaves.

Such is the intellectual decay and moral pollution on planet Earth that I cannot recommend its colonization. Hence, to forestall further consideration of such a project, I deem it my duty to state at the outset that, as regards the present character of mankind, a more stupid, shameless, mendacious, and violent species of animals can hardly be imagined.

Originally, man was defined as homo sapiens, a rational being capable of achieving “wisdom” and “understanding,” of exercising “discernment” and “judgment,” of evincing “esthetic taste” and “refinement”--qualities which enabled man to apprehend the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

Some centuries ago, however, man’s brain was infected by a mind-debilitating virus. His reason lost the capacity of intellectual detachment or independence, such that his ideas concerning the True, the Good, and the Beautiful became conditioned by his instincts and emotions, or by his social and economic circumstances. This virus, which may be classified as Sapiential Deficiency Syndrome (SDS), has rendered man immune to noble thoughts and lofty ambitions. He now wallows in a hotbed of desires, where all desires or preferences are equally justifiable. Today this mindless creature cannot even distinguish between what is rational and irrational, normal and abnormal.

Only recently certain psychiatrists called “anti-psychiatrists” denied the distinction between sanity

and insanity. They were joined by sociologists who equated mental illness (e.g. smearing feces on walls) with “rule-breaking” or “bad manners.” These relativists went so far as to claim that insanity is the equal of sanity, that unreason has as much dignity, vitality, and worth as reason. Such was the influence of this relativism or mental egalitarianism that 55% of the public in one country, the United States of America, did not believe there was such a thing as mental illness![1]

No less significant, most psychiatrists failed to defend their profession against anti-psychiatry. The basic reason, unknown to orthodox psychiatry, will be set forth in Part II of this report. There the Sages of Emetya will see in greater detail why the human race, the Jew in particular, has degenerated and become more or less deranged. Of course, having been infected by mental egalitarianism, members of the human race now regard the most perverse behavior as “normal,” or as the vulgar say: “I’m okay, you’re okay.”

Part I: Human Nature and the Social Sciences”

Geographically dispersed, the human race consists of diverse societies which, in reality, are aggregations of individuals who unite for mutual protection and sensual gratification. Although these creatures are basically egotists, their mindless savants have produced divisions of knowledge pretentiously called the “social sciences.”

Soon after arriving on this God-forsaken planet, I decided to study these pseudo-sciences as keys to understanding the character of the human race. The ultimate purpose of these would-be sciences is to predict and control human behavior. In fact, they are nothing but diverse forms of systematized stupidity which do indeed reflect the degraded character of mankind. (Anti-psychiatry is a case in point.)

The most powerful pseudo-science is political science. It not only examines the behavior of individuals, groups, and nations, but its most numerous preceptors, known as “behaviorists,” are directly linked to the decision-making institutions of government. These behaviorists thrive in “democracies,” mild forms of despotism which, like anti-psychiatry, equate sense with nonsense, liberty with license. Steeped in mental and moral equivalence, democracies give equal things to unequal individuals, such that the most ignorant and ignoble members of society can determine who shall rule.

And yet, although democracy means the “rule of the people,” not only are the people usually devoid of any coherent ethnic character, they are also manipulated by elites via the academic, news, entertainment, and advertising media. The fact that anti-psychiatrists, supported by academics, prevailed on legislatures and judicial bodies to enact laws and render decisions releasing psychotics from mental hospitals on the one hand, and preventing their admission on the other, is indicative that democracy is a hoax. If behaviorists were honest, they would define democracy as a random collection of ignoramuses who, every few years, are imposed upon to choose between devious politicians whose vision extends no higher than man’s navel.

These illusory democracies and pseudo-sciences which condition them flourish in America and Europe. Here it is worth noting that Europe, once the home of science and philosophy, of literature and the fine arts, once regarded itself as the quintessence of civilization. With the emergence of cultural relativism, however, the term “civilization” was pluralized, and Europe, together with America, became merely “Western civilization.” This loss of self-confidence prompted various authors to predict the “decline of the West.” Today, Western civilization has been rendered meaningless, especially in democratic America, where multiculturalism, neopaganism, and the shopping center reign supreme. Nevertheless, such has been the technological and gastro-economic success of democracy in the West, that Eastern despots employ the term to dignify their own regimes.

To understand the mentality dominating this planet, it is sufficient to attend a few lectures and peruse a library at one of democracy’s institutions of higher education. A fortnight at Harvard or Oxford or the Sorbonne will do, for they differ in no essential way.

As will have been surmised, democracy’s most numerous and influential educators deny the

existence of objective truth concerning good and evil. In other words, they deny the existence of rational standards by which to determine whether the beliefs and goals of one individual, group, or nation are more valid or intrinsically superior to those of another. Reinforcing this relativism is the behavioral doctrine that humanity in general, and their rulers in particular, employ altruistic language like “peace” or “justice” or the “common good” to conceal egotistical motives or dignify self-serving ends. Cynicism is rampant.

The foundation of this cynicism was most explicitly and systematically prepared more than three centuries ago by Thomas Hobbes, an English thinker. To call Hobbes a “thinker” is paradoxical, for he denied the primacy and independence of the intellect vis-à-vis the passions. Hence he denied the possibility of dispassionate or objective thought: “Thoughts are to the desires as scouts and spies to range abroad and find the way to the things desired.”[2]

Unaware that he was incriminating and degrading himself, he emphasized that human beings are ceaselessly dominated by the desire for power, which they disguise by the use of moral fictions. Thus: “Whatever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good; and the object of his hate or aversion, evil ... For these words of good [and] evil ... are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the person of the man, where there is no commonwealth.”[3]

Some 325 years later, a modest or perhaps impudent clinical psychologist wrote: “Whether behavior is referred to as [normal or as] abnormal is based upon a social designation rather than qualities which inhere in the behavior itself.”[4] The relativism of this psychologist clearly links him to Hobbes and to anti-psychiatry’s denial of mental illness.

These thoughtless thinkers believe, contradicting themselves in the process, that teaching

relativism to their countrymen is good or salutary. In fact, relativism erodes belief in the truth or justice of their country’s cause and thereby undermines their country’s ability to persevere in any conflict with regimes whose educators are not relativists.

Unsurprisingly, conflict is the norm on planet Earth, given the egoism of human beings and the lack of unanimity among nations regarding right and wrong. Countless conflicts were indeed raging when your humble servant Veris arrived on this planet--conflicts not only between nations, but among individuals living under the same laws in the same country. Murder is a daily occurrence in American and European cities, hence in democracies whose elites are ever preaching “peace” to nations ruled by tyrants! Of course, this altruistic jargon is nothing but a facade for democracy’s all-consuming desire for security and comfort.

Here it should be noted that an entity called the United Nations was established on planet Earth to promote peace. It consists of a welter of sovereign states whose ambassadors use the devious language of peace as a fig-leaf for national self-aggrandizement. How any human organization can promote genuine peace or prevent war when egoism is the basic motive of mankind will strike the Sages of Emetya as ludicrous.

Equally absurd are behaviorists who, while propagating the doctrine of egoism-cum-relativism, hawk a dovish doctrine called “conflict resolution.” These relativists do not and cannot take ideological conflict seriously. Following Hobbes, they regard the conflicting beliefs of nations as myths or “value-systems” having no intrinsic validity. Yet, like Hobbes, they would have others believe--in contradiction to their own relativism--that peace or conflict resolution is “good.” Infected by Hobbes, they act on the mundane assumption that violent death, hence war, is the greatest evil, that fear of violent death drives men and nations to prefer peace to war. This assumption is true, of course, for affluent democrats and atheists who have much to lose by war. It is not true for wretched masses indoctrinated by a despotic religion that promises extraordinary gratification of their sensual desires in a life hereafter.

That nations prefer peace to war does not accord very well with my research at Harvard University, where I learned that 1,000 wars have been waged in the Western world alone during the last 2,500 years--astonishing testimony of human egoism, brutality, and stupidity. What is also remarkable, however, is that the Hobbesian view of human nature was anticipated in an ancient book Jews call the Torah. This Torah recognizes the egoism of mankind, if only because it repeatedly inveighs against murder, robbery, immorality, and falsehood on the one hand, while extolling kindness, justice, modesty, and truthfulness on the other. Yet most Jews living today are ignorant of the Torah. Which leads me to the most insane conflict on planet Earth.

Part II. On Nominal Jews and Authentic Muslims

Throughout my sojourn on this ungodly planet, one conflict preoccupied mankind more than any other, a conflict between Jews and Muslims. Accordingly, your humble servant Veris went to the Middle East, the area of the conflict, to study the mentality and behavior of the antagonists.

The Jews are a peculiar race, fit subject for abnormal psychology. Their political and pseudo-intellectual elites are nominal Jews ignorant of the Hobbesian origin of their diminished mentality. Many of these Jews identify with a Jew-hater Karl Marx. This “thinker” adopted Hobbes’ reduction of thought to the subrational: “The phantoms formed in the brain are ... bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence.”[5] Another perverse mind, exempting itself from its own conclusions.

Amazing how many academic earthlings have made a livelihood teaching this sophisticated

madness. I say madness because, if “forms of consciousness” merely correspond to “material premises” or economic modes of production which change from epoch to epoch, or which differ from one country to another, it follows that what humans, hence academics, deem normal or abnormal, sane or insane, has no objective validity. Precisely the relativistic conclusion of anti-psychiatry! And what is most significant, anti-psychiatry was adopted by a neoMarxist movement in the West called the “New Left,” adherents of which will be found among nominal Jews in Israel.

Like Marx, the New Left substituted organized egoism or socialism for random egoism or liberalism in the domain of economics. At the same time, however, the New Left promoted self-gratification in the domain of sexual morality. This form of egoism may be attributed to sexologists like Sigmund Freud, the founder of a pseudo-science called “psycho-analysis.”

Anticipated by Hobbes, Freud regarded the “psychical apparatus” of man and lower animals as equivalent.[6] He postulated an ensemble of instincts or passions called the “Id,” the most important of which is the “Libido,” the sex drive. The Id, he writes, “expresses the true purpose of the individual organism’s life,” which is directed exclusively to obtaining pleasure.”[7] It is from the Id--from the impact of external stimuli on the body--that the Ego is formed. “The Ego represents what we call reason and sanity, in contrast to the Id which contains the passions.”[8] In other words, the Ego is the thinking servant of the Id. It functions as the organism’s “reality principle”--Hobbes’ “scouts” and “spies”--which warns the Id to limit or postpone its lust for pleasure. Freud went so far as to say that “Differentiation between the Ego and the Id must be attributed not only to primitive man but even to much simpler forms of life.”[9]

The New Left amalgamated Marx and Freud. The doctrines of both rest on materialistic grounds.

For Freud the productions of the human mind, such as morality and religion--but not Freudian psychology--are sublimations of the Libido. Following Hobbes, who equated love with desire, Freud reduced love to sexual gratification, thus undermining the belief in sexual perversions. Nor is this all.

Freud propagated the notion that repression of the Libido is the primary cause of mental illness. Since he attributed this repression to biblical morality and religion, the New Left and its Jewish adherents in Israel were given an additional reason to reject traditional moral and religious precepts and to press for the removal of legal restraints on sexual perversions.

Now, given the primacy of the Id vis-à-vis the Ego, and the equation of the Ego with reason or sanity, it is but a logical step from Freudian psychology (and orthodox psychiatry) to anti-psychiatry. For if reason is only an instrument of the pleasure-seeking Id, what is pleasurable, hence “rational,” to one person may be contrary to what is pleasurable, hence “rational,” to another.

Since the criterion of rationality or sanity is the successful pursuit of pleasure, and since the idea of noble and base pleasures is inadmissible in an era afflicted by SDS and relativism, anti-psychiatrists and neoMarxists advocated the legalization of homosexuality and sodomy.

It is by no means accidental that Jews, i.e., Jews who had renounced the Torah, were prominent in the anti-psychiatry and neoMarxist movements. In fact, Jews were among the leading sexologists and socialists in Germany until the advent of a Jew-Hater called Adolf Hitler.[10] In any event, the decriminalization of sexual perversions was not the only bond between anti-psychiatry and neoMarxism. Both paraded under the banner of millenarianism and world peace, and of course both were unabashedly atheistic.

This ersatz mentality describes the political and pseudo-intellectual elites that have dominated Israel for some fifty years. These elites may be classified as degenerates.[11] That they appear normal (or merely misguided) to their contemporaries is merely a reflection of the degeneracy of the human race resulting from the pervasive and leveling influence of relativism.

Perhaps the clearest illustration of the degeneracy of mankind in general, and of Israel’s ruling elites in particular, is an event that occurred on September 13, 1993 in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, if not of planet Earth. On that day the President of this one and only global power conducted a diplomatic ceremony on his White House lawn witnessed by the entire world. With him were Israel’s Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and an ugly villain by the name of Yasir Arafat, leader of gang of murderers, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

It was no secret that this villainous Arafat presided over the brutal murder not only of innocent Jewish men, women, and children, but of helpless American diplomats. Yet there he was on the White House lawn, honored as a man of peace! An inevitable spectacle in a world where the distinction between what is noble and what is base has been obliterated by relativism or moral equivalence.

True, some human beings had not completely succumbed to the anti-sapiential virus. I discovered one person who could still say of Arafat: “I’ve never before seen so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man.”[12] Apparently, a few vestiges of homo sapiens who met Arafat could not wait to cleanse themselves of the touch of this pervert whose body guards also served as his lovers.[13] Yet, not only did Rabin shake hands and sign a covenant with Arafat, but that handshake was applauded by attending former American presidents as well as by Congressmen--champions of democracy and human dignity. Moreover, while Arafat was being lionized in Washington, the democratic media of the West sanitized that vile creature who, on various occasions, had expressed utter contempt and hatred for Western civilization. A revolting display of shamelessness, like dogs turning on their vomit.

And to complete this odious example of moral equivalence, I should mention a subsequent ceremony which took place in Europe, the home of democratic humanism, where this same Arafat was awarded a peace prize together with Rabin and Israel’s Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres.

* * *

I must now say a word about Muslims and the Arab-Islamic world. In that world relativism has no foothold. Yet, everywhere in that sprawling domain Arafat is embraced as a brother--a brother in Jewish blood. This barbarism is of ancient vintage, as I learned even from an emancipated Arab scholar. Thus, in the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun, an historian influenced by two illustrious Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, boldly declared that “Arabs are people who[se] ... savagery has become their character and nature.”[14] To this day it is only in Arab-Islamic states which amputate human limbs for trivial offenses

Indeed, during the last two decades, almost a million Muslims slaughtered each other in a war between Iraq and Iran; 100,000 Muslims and Christians butchered each other in Lebanon; 20,000 Arabs were murdered by their own countrymen in Syria. And what is more, after ravaging Kuwait, his Arab neighbor, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein won the support of Israel’s own Arab citizens despite his threat to incinerate them along with the Jews! All this bloodshed is done in the name of a religious doctrine which thinly adorns a hard core of evil aggressiveness.

Intimately linked to Arab bellicosity is mendacity. In this century, an emancipated Arab sociologist, Sonia Hamady, admitted that “Lying is a widespread habit among Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth.”[15] They lie not only to “infidels” but to each other. Another indication of a flawed religion no one questions in an era of cultural relativism.

Your humble servant Veris then sought evidence of what an exceptional and thoughtful Arab of old might think of Jews who made agreements with their mendacious and unrepentant enemies. Here is what Ibn Hazm of the 11th century wrote: “The height of goodness is that you should neither oppress your enemy nor abandon him to oppression. To treat him as a friend is the work of a fool whose end is near.”[16] Thus, while Shimon Peres, the Foreign Minister referred to earlier, applied for Israel’s membership in the Arab League, the aforementioned Yitzhak Rabin, who also served as Israel’s Defense Minister, signed an agreement which enabled Arafat to establish a “police force” consisting of 40,000 Israeli-armed Arab terrorists! His successors have gone even further in their appeasement of this murderer.

No one in Israel could be heard diagnosing such behavior as demented or insane. It were as if the

population were composed entirely of anti-psychiatrists!

Part III. Summary and Conclusion

We have seen, honorable Sages of Emetya, that anti-psychiatry, the culmination of anti-intellectual “thinkers” such as Hobbes and Marx, denies any rational grounds for distinguishing between sanity and insanity, as well as between good and evil. We have also seen that this mind-less and worth-less relativism dominates education in the West. If to this we add the mendacity and violence rampant in the East as well as in the West, we are forced to conclude that the human race, as a whole, has ceased to be homo sapiens, that men have truly become deranged animals.

Strange, but Jews influenced by Hobbes (a disguised atheist) and Marx (a brazen atheist) are more deranged than non-Jews. Hidden here is a matter of profound irony, indeed, of poetic justice.

By denying the primacy of man’s intellect and thereby reducing morality to subrational forces, impudent yet self-attenuated Jews have denied man’s creation in the image of God. This is the most fundamental reason why men, especially Israel’s most “progressive” elites, have ceased to be homo sapiens, indeed, have become demented.

What is so ironic is that it was none other than ancient Israel that proclaimed “God created in His own image, in the likeness of God created He him.” In this lapidary sentence was enunciated the godlike nobility of man--of man divinely endowed with a creative intellect and free will. Moreover, revealed in these few words was the only sound foundation for the moral unity of the human race. “God created man in His own image” was the first message of salvation to a welter of states which knew only arbitrary force and the abuse of power.[17]

Today, however, Israel’s ruling elites are silent about God. This silence this cannot but erode that which is distinctively human or godlike in man: again, creative reason and free will. Israel’s elites have reaped their just reward: their reason is deranged, their free will paralyzed. Nothing comparable to this will be found in human history,

One last word. Before leaving planet Earth, I did find, lost in the madding crowd, a small remnant of Jews, men of science who knew, without need of scientific knowledge, that Israel’s ruling elites were leading their country to destruction. Uncorrupted common sense told them that a people who feared violent death as the greatest evil were bound to appease their enemies, hence would eventually suffer violent death at the hands of those who (unlike Hobbes) regard violent death as a gateway to paradise. Common sense aside, these scientists also possessed information hidden and codified in the Torah which, by means of computer analysis, revealed the key actors in the Jewish-Muslim conflict, as well as terms warning of the greatest catastrophe.[18]

I asked these scientists if anything could be done to avert this catastrophe. Their answer: only an existential reaffirmation of man’s creation in the image of God, hardly to be expected, however, in a country dominated by fools who believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that politics, hence the mental legacy of Hobbes, could save Israel from annihilation.

________________________________________

Prof. Eidelberg is the founder and president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, with offices in Jerusalem and Washington, D.C.

---

NOTES:

[1]See Rael Jean Isaac & Virginia C. Armat, Madness in the Streets: How Psychiatry and the Law Abandoned the Mentally Ill (Free Press, 1990), pp. 49-62.

[2]Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956), p. 46 (originally published in 1651). Hobbes remains a subject of “dispassionate” discussion at conferences of the American Political Science Association,

[3]Ibid., p. 32.

[4]See Alan E. Kazdin, “The Modification of ‘Schizophrenic’ Behavior,” in P. A. Magaro (ed.), The Construction of Madness (Pergamon Press, 1976), p. 153.

[5]Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, The German Ideology (International Publishers, 1947), p. 14. For a refutation of Marx, see my Demophrenia: Israel and the Malaise of Democracy (Prescott Press/Huntington House, 1994), pp. 29-32).

[6]Compare Sigmund Freud, An Outline of Psycho-analysis (Hogarth Press, 1963), p. 23 (originally published in 1940), and Hobbes, Leviathan: “what we generally call understanding ... is common to man and beast” (p. 13), and “beasts also deliberate” (p. 37).

[7]Freud, An Outline of Psycho-analysis, pp. 51-53, 68.

[8]Freud, The Ego and the Id (Hogarth Press, 1950), p. 30 (originally published in 1923).

[9]Ibid., p. 51. Clearly, modern psychology is based on a materialistic conception of human nature, which is why psychiatry could not defend itself against anti-psychiatry. See my “The Malaise of Modern Psychology,” which, ironically, was published in the March 1992 issue of Journal of Psychology.

[10]See Jan Bremmer, From Sappho to De Sade: Moments in the History of Sexuality (Routledge, 1989), pp. 183-185. It is also true that homosexuals were prominent in the Nazi movement.

[11]The character of these elites was anticipated a century ago by Max Nordau, a prominent psychologist and leading Zionist. Although Nordau was a philosophical (but not consistent) materialist, he was sensible enough to recognize “That which nearly all degenerates lack is the sense of morality and of right and wrong.” Max Nordau, Degeneration (London: Heineman, 1895), 2d ed., p. 18. From this lack of morality it follows that degenerates are egotists insensitive to the feelings of others (ibid., pp. 254-259).

In a brief toast celebrating the ending of belligerence between Israel and Jordan in the summer of 1994, the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin used the word “I” no less than 33 times! The same Rabin called religious Jews “degenerates” and exhibited no remorse when Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists whom he himself had released from detention.

[12]Ion Mihai Pacepa, Red Horizons (Regnery Gateway, 1990), p. 36. Pacepa was head of Rumanian Intelligence under the Ceaucescu regime.

[13]Ibid.

[14]Cited in Mordechai Nisan, Toward a New Israel (AMS Press, 1992), p. 32. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (Doubleday, 1955), p. 73, who wrote: “Mohammed said he was sent in the power of his arms--which are signs not lacking even in robbers and tyrants... Those who believed him were brutal men ...”

[15]Cited in Y. Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Jews (Keter, 1972), p. 348. Yet the late professor. Harkabi, a moral relativist, advocated the establishment of a PLO-Palestinian state! A telling example of the deranged mentality of Israel’s pseudo-intellectual elites.

[16]Ibn Hazm’s statement is elaborated and cited in my Beyond Détente (Sherwood Sugden, 1977), p. 49.

[17]See Isaac Breuer, Concepts of Judaism (Israel Universities Press, 1974), pp. 68-69.

[18]See Paul Eidelberg, Judaic Man: Toward a Reconstruction of Western Civilization (Caslon/Huntington, 1996), ch. 10.