The Dakota Access Pipeline Company is preparing to drill under the river today. That portion of the pipeline could be completed within 5 hours. Come to Road 130, Boone County, Iowa.
Our Season of Creation
-
Reading Time: < 1 minute
-
Reading Time: 5 minutes
The election conversation gets narrower and narrower the closer we get to November 8. I’ve already told you what I plan to do. I’ve also urged my readers to vote for Hillary, even though when she was first nominated I said I wouldn’t talk about my plans. This began out of loyalty to Bernie but I stuck with it because I don’t see another way. However judging from the polls many people don’t agree with me.
We now know the WikiLeaks emails came from a faction associated with the U.S. intelligence community. As I’ve already said, I have a problem with the timing of this so-called coup. I’m also afraid that once the word coup is associated with our electoral process it will open the door for more of the same in future elections. Something similar has already happened. In the short time since George W. Bush openly stole the presidency, the electoral process has become a sham. I’ll hold both parties responsible for any future incidences of the dueling-coups approach to elections.
The details we’ve been given in the emails have been a diversion from what we should be talking about—our interests. Donald Trump has plenty of nefarious associations, so electing him will hardly be a vote for virtue. We should be strategizing over which candidate best serves our real interests.
Peace is one of our interests. The driving force behind the world’s conflicts today is foreign policy–and not just U.S. foreign policy. The leaders of the world are locked in an infernal struggle for supremacy, and whatever you may have heard our interests are not their interests. We were outraged by Hillary’s actions abroad and her seeming lack of concern for the consequences, but she didn’t do those things on her own account. She was only serving the status quo, which will continue on its merry way regardless of who wins this election. (The status quo was one of the things this conversation was supposed to address.)
Donald talks a good game about making peace with Russia, but what will he do when confronted with the machine? I’ll leave it to his supporters to figure this one out. One of the things they like about him is his feistiness. What do they think he’ll do when it’s explained to him that Russia stands in the way of ‘our’ victory? (I put ‘our’ in quotation marks because regardless of who wins it will be a victory for the wealthy interests behind the scenes—not for us.) Trump’s supporters might be divided on the question of what he will do, but his vice president has already said he’ll be another Dick Cheney. And Mike Pence is definitely part of the machine right down to his allegiance to Israel. Trump was strongly encouraged to choose Pence as his running mate by the way. And Russia aside, many other places in the world are ripe for intervention.
We don’t even know how Bernie Sanders would have dealt with these pressures, but we do know that if he had been elected he would have listened to us. That’s the choice he made when he turned his back on the billionaires. But Bernie intends to be influential in a Clinton Presidency–an important difference between the two candidates. Some might discount his influence in future military decisions, but the point here is that a Trump presidency will serve the machine too, and without the influence of Bernie and his progressive allies in Congress. For these reasons the candidates cannot be clearly differentiated by their foreign policy.
Domestic policy is also in our interests. Clinton has positive economic policies and they are not all due to Sanders’ influence. For example she’s been talking since January about increasing the estate tax–an important step towards correcting economic inequality. Trump’s economic policies on the other hand will increase the advantages of the wealthy.
Social policies are in our interests as well. Trump has gone all socially conservative in this campaign. Some of his followers might expect him to relax this stance if he’s elected but that doesn’t seem likely because his running mate’s social policies are downright terrifying. For example as Governor of Indiana Pence signed an abortion bill that required parents of an aborted fetus to give it a funeral. However the law was blocked by a federal judge.
According to an article on politifact.com Clinton’s campaign website lists 32 topic headings, some as specific as Alzheimer’s disease and animal welfare. Trump’s web pages offer broad statements without details. In addition, Trump is known to shift his views even from interview to interview.
While Clinton changes her views, for example on the TPP, trump sometimes reverses positions within minutes. Still it’s possible to see a difference between them.
Trump has been consistent on three big economic policy items, according to Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution: raising barriers to immigration; imposing potentially large tariffs on goods from Mexico and China; and enacting large tax cuts. Clinton is more cautious. Clinton proposes a fairly small increase in taxes that would be borne almost entirely by the wealthy. Her plan would increase revenues over 10 years by $1.1 trillion. Trump’s plan, across-the-board tax cuts (but favoring the wealthy) would lower revenues over 10 years by $9.6 trillion. Moody’s Analytics predicts that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up.
In energy policy Clinton would wean the U.S. from fossil fuels by setting targets for renewable energy, while Trump would ‘revitalize’ the domestic oil and gas sector.
They agree however on increased spending on infrastructure, with Clinton offering more specifics for the budget.
Trump opposes the TPP. Clinton has moved away from her former support of it mostly as a result of her campaign against Sanders.
Clinton would increase the minimum wage nationally to $12, and in some locations, $15. Trump would leave this to the states. She would offer tax incentives for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S. She also favors increased policing of trading partners. Trump would use aggressive trade enforcement and possible tariffs. She would enhance worker training options. He has no public stance on this. She would boost federal investment by $275 billion over five years and create a $25 billion infrastructure fund. Trump hasn’t offered any details on his infrastructure expansion. She will propose a goal of renewable electricity ‘to power every home in America within 10 years. He’ll revive the fossil-fuel sector, including decreasing regulations. She would increase funding for scientific research at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. He has no public stance on this. She would create a 15 percent tax credit for companies that share profits with workers on top of wages and pay increases. He has offered few details outside of a tax plan and a comment criticizing CEO pay. She supports keeping the Dodd-Frank law and in some cases would tighten rules for Wall Street, such as taxing high frequency trading. Trump would dismantle Dodd-Frank. She would ease regulatory burdens on community banks and support innovative financing methods. He has criticized government regulation but has offered no specific proposals. She Advocates equal pay, paid family leave, earned sick days, and expanded child care. He has no public stance on these things. ((Louis Jacobson, Compare the Candidates: Clinton versus Trump on the Economy. Politifact.com, July 22, 2016.))
We still haven’t found a solution for this momentum toward war. I’ll talk about that in the next post.
-
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Lately I’ve noticed that Trump’s supporters are using bad logic to sell their candidate. I don’t imagine this post will change their minds but maybe it will change the minds of honest people who have been influenced by them. If you’re determined to vote for Trump go right ahead, but please don’t vote for him based on the wrong-headed arguments of these guys.
Their main tactic of persuasion is to call anyone who votes for Hillary ‘stupid’. They act as if this is common sense based on the Wikileaks revelations and the recent announcement by James Comey. They would like you to believe that Trump should win the White House by default. However this only makes sense if you have a very short memory.
If they were so concerned about corruption why didn’t they vote for Bernie in the primary? You remember Bernie. He’s the one who chose to run without the help of billionaires and special interests–the one they rejected in favor of a guy who’s never governed anyone, who knows nothing about policy, and who has his own record of corruption. They are now acting scandalized by the barrage of recriminations against Hillary, but where were their delicate sensibilities when Bernie was still in the race? It’s my belief that those sensibilities never existed. They were attracted to Trump for other reasons.
One guy on YouTube argues that Hillary is only a viable candidate thanks to the votes of women, while Donald Trump is the candidate of men. Men should have the final say in this race, he says, because Hillary will take us to war and men will have to fight the war. He dismisses the fact that women go to war too, but then he tends to act as if all opinions of women are beneath contempt. And when his female viewers insist that they don’t fit his mold he excuses himself by saying he’s making a ‘generalization’.
This calls for a definition. A generalization is:
A general statement: a statement about a group of people or things that is based on only a few people or things in that group; the act or process of forming opinions that are based on a small amount of information.
So in other words he excuses himself for making generalizations by explaining that he’s making generalizations. That’s just stupid.
He also seems to have forgotten how much the Donald likes ‘nuclear’. Of course my point here is not just about Donald. No election will save us from war because it isn’t the fault of one party or candidate. It’s part of our culture. And the current crisis is the result of an agenda that’s older than either of the candidates. As I’ve been saying we need a long conversation to address it.
Just this morning I found a video claiming that the WikiLeaks releases were part of a counter-coup against the Clintons and the current administration. I’m not saying I believe it but if it is a coup the fact that Assange waited until Bernie endorsed Hillary to release the first emails suggests that it favored Trump from the beginning. The link to the video is below, however if you’re a skeptic, like I am, read this article first. ((Nicholas F. Benton, Trump’s Role in a Russian Coup. FCNP.com, Oct. 19, 2016. Available: https://fcnp.com/2016/10/19/trumps-role-russian-coup/))
https://youtu.be/2vrSvFlNaaA
-
Reading Time: < 1 minute
There are no longer any restrictions on the construction of this pipeline. Now the
protestersprotectors are standing in their way…alone. Meanwhile arrests of journalists and the family members of theprotectors continue. You can donate here: https://www.gofundme.com/stand4standingrock. But they also welcome anyone able to join them in person. -
Reading Time: 2 minutes
I’ve been listening to people try to explain Hillary’s logistics after her collapse on September 11, and none of it really makes sense. Why did she go to the 9/11 event if she had pneumonia, and once she collapsed why on earth didn’t they take her to the hospital? Then, why would she go to her daughter’s apartment to be near her grandchildren while she’s deathly ill with pneumonia? Finally, why didn’t her doctor feel it was necessary to be there?
The same observers thought it was fishy that Hillary came out of her daughter’s apartment ninety minutes later and appeared to be just fine. They also thought it was strange that the Secret Service allowed her to stand on the sidewalk unguarded and that no one objected when a small girl ran up to her to get a picture. Last but not least, Hillary looked thinner when she came out of the apartment than when she went in. When they added all these things up many people decided the second Hillary must be a body double! Now here’s my question.
If that Hillary was a body double, why are they so sure the woman who collapsed at the 9/11 event was the real Hillary? If she was a fake too at least that would explain her shabby appearance and her straight, slicked-back hair-do. It would also explain the following.
Don’t you think it’s strange that two different people were able to get a shot of Hillary Clinton being hoisted into the van while the secret service guys were staring in their direction? The agents must have seen them taking those pictures but they didn’t react. What can explain that? And regardless of the circumstances, what can explain the Secret Service throwing an incapacitated former first lady and Secretary of State headfirst into a van?
Whatever these people were up to I’m afraid we’ll be facing some hard facts before this is over. Increased doubts about Hillary’s health this late in the campaign make a Trump ascendancy inevitable. We should probably be asking whether anyone in Hillary’s inner circle will benefit from a Trump presidency.
-
Reading Time: < 1 minute
An article in the Washington Post has raised the alarm that Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned.((Cindy Boren, The man who discovered CTE thinks Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned. Washington Post, September 12, 2016. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/))I’ve been thinking the same thing. It’s disturbing to even be thinking such things let alone writing about them so I’m glad someone else said it first.
The Post article proposed that the Russians or Trump might be the culprit. I disagree. Another analyst thinks it could be the people in her campaign. My suspicion is worse than that. My suspicion is so horrible I hope it’s wrong.
The toxicology tests should be done by a trusted lab leaving nothing to chance. In the meantime, Hillary should be given a new team of caretakers just to be safe.
-
Reading Time: 8 minutes
Christine Lagarde’s strange occult speech given on January 15, 2014 inspired this article. In this speech, she purposely called attention to numerology and then gave a series of misleading instructions on how to use it. This was during the time she was Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Because of the role the IMF plays today in our politics and economics, and because Legarde went to such trouble to call attention to numerology, it’s clear that the IMF is ‘The occult IMF’.
Comparing Numerology in Orpheus the Fisher
I’m using Robert Eisler’s book Orpheus the Fisher 1 to examine Lagarde’s references to numerology. On page 267 Eisler begins a section entitled Number Symbolism in Aberkios’ Epitaph. This section is in the chapter entitled The ‘Fish’ caught by the ‘Virgin’ in the Mystic Epitaph of Bishop Aberkios.
Who Was Aberkios?
Eisler tells us that Aberkios was probably bishop Avirkios Markellos of Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris. According to the Church History of Eusebius, Aberkios lived towards the close of the 2nd century A.D. His epitaph incudes a number of words that are used in an unusual metaphorical sense. In other words, he uses a Christian mystery-language. He focuses on the various mystic epithets given to the ‘fish’ (p. 251). In these epethets we can distinguish between the reference to the Leviathan and the reference to ‘the suffering Messiah himself. Eisler says he intended the latter meaning.
However, Eisler councils against insisting on the meaning, as ‘these expressions are intentionally mysterious.’ Instead, he believes we can guess the principle meaning of the document without knowing what dogma the poet had in mind. But even under these limitations, there is another surprise in store.
Eisler thinks Aberkios Invited Christians to ‘Count the Number’
Eisler thinks it can “be proved that where Aberkios invites him ‘who understands this’ to pray for his soul, he means, even as the author of Rev. 13:18, also him ‘who has understanding to count the number,’ not only him who knows how to explain the mystery-words.” And if we want to study this meaning, we should use the system found on inscribed tablets of the Dodonean oracle-priests and familiar to readers of Homer.
Numeral Mysticism in Early Christian Literature
Whatever had been known previously of numeral mysticism in Early Christian literature–e.g. the famous 666 in Revelations, the 888 for the name of Jesus (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ) in Marcus, the 801 = Omega-Alpha for the Dove (ΠΕΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ) of the Hoy Spirit, etc. –was al based, as well as the Pagan parallels of ‘Mithras’ (ΜΕΙΘΡΑΣ) or ‘Abraxas’ (ΑΒΡΑΞΑΣ) = 365, etc., on the so-called Milesian or common Greek system of expressing numbers by the letters of the alphabet, namely, A = 1, B = 2, Γ = 3 …Stigma = 6 …I = 10, IA = 11, …K = 20 …Koppa = 90, P = 100, etc.
Yet Carl Robert had shown years ago that there existed another system of number-writing, anterior to this decimal mode, found e.g. on inscribed tablets of the Dodonean oracle-priests, etc., which is quite familiar to every reader of Homer as the twenty-four cantos of the Iliad and the Odyssey are simply numbered with the twenty-four sequent letters of the Greek alphabet
These twenty-four sequent letters of the Greek alphabet are Α = 1, Β = 2, Γ = 3, . . . Κ = 10, Λ = 11, . . . Φ = 21, Χ = 22, Ψ = 23, Ω = 24—, without the supplementary signs Stigma, Koppa and Sampi used in the other series. Eisler tested the hypothesis of Wolfgang Schultz in his own book, Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt,[efn-note]On. ii. 70, pp. 164-166 (Hercher).[/efn-note] and he identifies it as the system used by the Orphic and Pythagorean mystics to conceal their innermost mystery-secrets.
On the one hand, Eisler calls this method of deriving meanings from numbers ‘ridiculous futility’, but he thought it provided enough information for anyone ‘who had understanding to count the number’. This was important because they could prove to an adept of Pythagorean lore that the ‘name’ of Jesus, ‘into which’ the Christians were baptised, could be ‘put on’ even as a heavenly ‘garment’, instead of the ‘old man’ (Col. 3:9).
“Putting on the Heavenly Garment” is Pagan, Not Jewish
This concept comes from the Pagan mysteries. It was alien to the old Jewish cult-system. However, Paul used this simile himself. (Eisler assumes he was under the influence of Hermeticism.) But the concept was also used in John 21, and possibly his source in Mark.
Eisler concludes that it is worthwhile to study this system ‘if it is in keeping with other features of the narrative, for example the precise numbers full of symbolic bearing that are given for the cubits over which Peter has to swim from the boat to the Lord Jesus, and the multitude of ‘great fishes’ caught in the Apostle’s net. Eisler lists many other examples, but to include them all in this article would be getting off the subject.
The Magic Number 7 in Lagarde’s Occult IMF Speech
At the beginning of Lagarde’s occult IMF speech she mentions the ‘magic number 7’, saying that it’s ‘in all sorts of themes and religions’. She also explains that the numbers should be compressed. However, if she was serious about counting the number, she should have explained which system she was using. Her method made no sense.
My Calculations Find the Magic Number 7 In Events She Mentions but Doesn’t Calculate
Beginning with the date of Lagarde’s speech, both January 15 and 2014 equal 7: 01 + 1 + 5 = 7 and 2 + 1 + 4 = 7. In other words, the entire date equals 14, not just the last two digits of the year as she claimed.
If we use the Greek letters for January, we get the same result. January in Greek is Ιανουȧριος, or 9 + 1 + 13 + 15 + 20 + 1 + 17 + 9 + 15 + 18 = 118. Compressing 118 gives 1 + 1 + 8 = 10. So again that’s: 1 + 0 + 1 + 5 = 7.
The 100th Anniversary of World War I
Next she tells us that 2014 will mark the 100th anniversary of World War I. The date of the beginning of World War I, June 28, 1914, doesn’t give us a 7 in the same way that January 15, 2014 does. Perhaps it’s not relevant. However the number 28 is important as the fulfillment of the number 7: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28.
The 70th Anniversary of the Bretton Woods Conference
Then she says 2014 is also the ‘70th anniversary of the Bretton Woods conference which gave birth to the IMF’. The 70 compresses to 7. International Monetary Fund compresses to 7.
The 25th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall
Next she says, it’s the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. 2 + 5 = 7.
The Berlin Wall fell November 9, 1989. November in Greek is Νοεμβριος. This is 13 + 15 + 5 + 12 + 2 + 17 + 9 + 15 + 18 = 106, which compresses to 7.
1989 is 1 + 9 + 8 + 9 = 27. (Compressed this is 9, however the number 27 may be important in itself.) November 9, 1989 is 106 + 9 + 27 = 142. 1 + 4 + 2 = 7.
The 7th Anniversary of ‘Financial Jitters’
Next, she tells us that 2014 marks the 7th anniversary of the ‘financial jitters that turned into the greatest global catastrophe since the Great Depression’. The 7th anniversary comment looks to be the main relevance of this date as well.
It’s not hard to guess why she chose January 15 for an occult speech in the year 2014, but what do the correspondences mean? Is she hinting that her cabal had a hand in those events? Unfortunately this system can be used to ‘prove’ just about anything, so it’s anyone’s guess.
Lagarde Emphasizes ‘Weakness’
However there several things in this speech we can talk about without feeling ridiculous. I’ll deal in this post with one interpretation of Lagarde’s emphasis on weakness. She described the previous 7 years as ‘weak and fragile’.
By coincidence, I was researching the relationship between the theories of Joachim of Fiore & secularism and found an article about Gianni Vattimo that seems relevant. 2Gianni Vattimo, (1936–) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a peer-reviewed academic resource.[/efn-note] I realize the connection of Vattimo with the IMF is random but it’s amazing how well it fits.
Gianni Vattimo
Vattimo is an Italian philosopher and cultural commentator, who is currently a Member of the European Parliament and a gay rights activist. He is influenced by Joachim of Fiore, but also by the works of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer and Kuhn. His ideas have influence across disciplines such as feminism, theology, sexuality studies, and globalization.
Vattimo is “well known for his philosophical style of ‘weak thought’ (pensiero debole). ‘Weak thought’ is an attempt to understand and re-configure traces from the history of thought in ways that accord with postmodern conditions. In doing so, the aim of ‘weak thought’ is to create an ethic of ‘weakness’…” But what does this entail?
The Ethic of Weakness is Vattimo’s Versions of the Decline of the West Theme
Vattimo, an ‘End of History’ type of philosopher, believes there is no longer a coherent narrative which is accepted in the West. In his view this process is a positive thing–it was initiated by Jesus Christ who came to expose society’s propensity for sacrificial religion.
Vattimo posits that history has lost its unilinear character in three principle ways: theoretically, demographically, and through mass communication. To explain the theoretical process he uses Walter Benjamin, who argues that unilinear history is a product of class conflict. Vattimo thinks demographic effects in modern Europe, in particular mass migration, have acted to undermine the notion of Europe’s unilinear history. This process is aided by mass communication which facilitates the rebellion of previously ruled peoples. In his view, the chaotic aspect of mass communication will lead to ‘emancipation’.
This view contrasts with that of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Orwell, who thought that a homogenization of society would result from mass communication. As a result of Vattimo’s reading of Nietzsche, he thinks mass communication will lead to an increase of interpretations rather than facts.
The Contradictions and Hypocrisy in Vattimo’s Diagnosis of Late Modernity
Vattimo’s philosophy is not free of contradictions and hypocrisy. In spite of his supposed acceptance of a variety of interpretations, he firmly believes that his diagnosis of the situation of late modernity makes the best possible sense of this interpretative plurality.
In another example he accepts the wearing of a cross as part of the secular furniture of the West but he rejects the wearing of the chador, which he thinks is an example of strong thought. Never mind that the chador could be worn out of choice in a ‘weak’ sense. (Vattimo is an atheist but he was educated as a Catholic.)
Weak Thought is an Agenda
Weak thought is Vattimo’s philosophical style but it’s also his agenda. It has lead him to posit that the only plausible late-modern, Western philosophical outlook is ‘hermeneutical nihilism’.” According to Vattimo, one must weaken the traces of the tradition into which one is ‘thrown’, and this can be done by twisting the old traces of Being. (Hermeneutics is a branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.)
“Determined in this manner, Vattimo’s philosophy of ‘weak thought’ involves a withdrawal from metaphysics by avoiding new foundations or complete assent to any position.”
Conclusion
Although this philosophy is all wrapped up in a new package, it’s not new at all. In fact it’s been proven over and over again to be harmful. Unfortunately our illustrious leaders have no objection to it.
Lagarde’s speech was part of an abusive relationship. She is a powerful representative of a powerful institution who gives us false and misleading information and then allows us struggle to understand.
The abuse continues today. We’ve seen the destruction of Syria, blatant disrespect for the US electoral process, and the bulldozing of tribal burial grounds in North Dakota, all directly related to out-of-control corporate power.
Philosophy is one thing. Imposing one’s philosophy on the physical world and then teasing people with this magical nonsense is another thing entirely. It should go without saying that this behavior is not acceptable.
-
Reading Time: < 1 minute
Considering the injustice done to Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the DNC, it is not sufficient for Wasserman Schultz to resign. Everyone knows she was working for Hillary Clinton. And if Clinton replaces her with Castro we’ll have exactly the same problem and Clinton won’t have given up anything. And in my opinion it is too much to ask Sanders’ supporters to sit by as yet another humiliation goes unpunished. Clinton should lose something for this, and Bernie should get more than the belated resignation of Wasserman Schultz.
Bernie Sanders
should be thenew chair of the DNC.Or I should say he would be a good chair. However, I don’t know if he even wants that position. Tulsi Gabbard might be a more logical pick. She’s already served on the DNC and she’s demonstrated her integrity by resigning in order to support Sanders. -
Reading Time: 5 minutes
I realize now the false claim that Senator Sanders is an atheist has contributed to a major blind spot regarding the meaning of his campaign—at least for me. In fact, it could be argued that the Sanders campaign has been making a religious statement about the nature of our times—a statement that has not been articulated for two thousand years.
When he spoke at Liberty University Bernie quoted the prophet Amos:
“But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5: 24)
Perhaps this association between Sanders and Amos can explain how Sanders could wage such a devastating battle against his opponents and yet accept his losses with equanimity. Perhaps his desire to win is not mutually exclusive of the focus on getting his message out.
According to Robert Eisler, this verse in Amos refers to the Messianic water of life in its original spiritual sense. ((Orpheus the Fisher: Comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism. Rare Mystical Imprints, Kessinger Publishing)) However it has also been interpreted literally. Eisler says this tug-of-war between the mystical and the literal is a characteristic of religious experience.
Many of you will be aware that the last person to be influenced politically by verses like this one from Amos was John the Baptist, and this may not seem like the most encouraging of associations for Senator Sanders. But I would argue that we are not re-enacting that old drama. While scriptural verses might give us clues about its nature and meaning, the phenomenon itself is fresh and new for our time.
Some might also be concerned that this view is in conflict with the views of one of our friends in this conversation, Pope Francis. But it is not at all. These ideas represent the meeting of all religions, especially Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, among others.
Eisler speculates that Ezekiel 47: 9-10 is another passage that influenced the doctrine of the Baptist and he presents this passage as an example of the way in which literal interpretations compete with allegorical interpretations.
The Jewish exegesis of the scriptures haven’t been handed down to us, but Eisler thinks it’s possible to reconstruct them from the commentaries of the Christian Fathers by eliminating the specially Christian features of their symbolism and retaining those elements which clearly correspond to Jewish ideas. He begins with Theodoret’s Commentary on Ezekiel:
“The Church Father refers the prophecy about the mystic stream to the sacrament of baptism, by saying ‘all those that are washed in the redeeming waters will reach salvation’. He means of course the Christian baptism, but the words could quite as well be used by a disciple of John, since the latter’s baptism is intended to save the repentant and regenerate new Israel from the ‘wrath to come’.”
And he provides a direct quote from Theodoret:
Ezekiel says also that the water will be full of fish and frequented by many fishermen: for many are they who through these waters will be fished for redemption, and numerous are they to whom the catching of this booty is entrusted…And Ezekiel says also that the multitude of fish will not resemble the number contained in a river but in the largest ocean; for the new people will not be equal in number to the old, but similar to the ocean of the nations, and it will fill the habitable world.
Also, Jerome identified the mystic stream running down from the threshold of Ezekiel’s temple to the desert with the pure water of regeneration, which God Promises to sprinkle over Israel in Ezekiel 36:24.
This water signifies, as he says several times, the grace of God to be obtained through baptism. By the fishermen, however, that stand on the river’s banks the same fishers are meant, to whom the Lord Jesus said, “I will make you to become fishers of men,” of whom we also find written in Jeremiah [16:16] ‘Behold I shall send many fishers that shall fish you’.
Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis seem to be carrying on the tradition of John the Baptist with the content of their teachings as well. Jesus said of John that he came in the way of righteousness. (Matt. 21:32) And Josephus put it this way: “[H]e taught the Jews to practice virtue both as to justice towards one another and piety to God.”
According to Eisler this means that John’s ideal was the old Jewish ṣedākah, the legal principle of justice, a religious ‘suum cuique’ involving faithfulness to our duties both towards God and our fellow-men. Eisler cites Luke for single examples of his moral teachings:
“The publicans shall exact no more than that which is due to them; the soldiers shall be content with their wages and not abuse their function as police by doing violence to people or bringing false denunciations against them; whoever has the least superabundance of clothing or meat, shall give of it to his brother in need.”
I think it is important in the context of this election, to also mention important differences of opinion that exist in Judaism regarding the proper approach of said fishermen. First, there is the conviction that men could accelerate the coming of the Kingdom and force it down immediately by certain actions, either of obedience or of disobedience to the commandments of God. John thought fervent repentance would be strong enough to bring the kingdom of heaven down by force, and Jesus indicated that he thought God approved of this when he said of John:
“But from the days of Jonah—the Baptist—until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being stormed and the violent appropriate it by force.” (Matt. 11:12 and Luke 16:16)
In the notes on page 158 Eisler explains the second approach. Speaking of taking the kingdom by force he says:
“That such an apparent violation of the Divine plans of Providence was not always considered as sinful…may be seen from the repeated saying in the Talmud, that God loves to be conquered by a sinner through repentance. For the contrary view, cp. the Rabbinic comments on Canticles 2:7: ‘I conjure you…do not stir up, do not awake love, until He pleases.’ This double entreaty is said on the one hand to charge the Israelites not to cast off the yoke of the secular powers by force and not to return by means of a revolution into the promised land, on the other hand to warn the Gentiles against making the yoke of Israel unbearable. For in both cases the wrongdoers would be guilty of forcing the Messianic Day to dawn before its time.”
This is from the chapter in which Eisler compares John the Baptist to Jonah, who ‘quarrels with Jahvé because He defers again and again in His forbearance the foretold Day of Judgment’. We know Jonah was punished. In addition, Eisler cites Rabbi Oniah’s statement that ‘four generations have already perished, because they tried to invade the kingdom’. Rabbi Oniah specifically mentions the generation of Bar-Kokhba.
Speaking of literal interpretations, some of Sanders’ followers think he should have strong-armed his way to the presidency. I would argue that this background suggest the importance of balance at the Democratic Convention.
I don’t know if Sanders would agree with the associations I’ve made in this article. I think they are reasonable based on the evidence, but either way I’m content to let things unfold however they will. I’m confidant that the ultimate meaning of this campaign will not be decided by the hard facts of this election.
-
Reading Time: 6 minutes
The YouTubers are still plying their trade, dwelling on sob-stories, ominous polls, and adding to the general rudeness and confusion any way they can. My concern is that we can be led astray regardless of where we look for our news, so we have to be clear about why we’re supporting our candidate and not be swayed by bad news. I for one, have had enough of the turmoil.
I’m surprised to find that Bernie’s endorsement has had a remarkable effect on my mental state. It’s not what I wanted, but I can see it’s what had to happen. And I also realize that nothing that has taken place in this election should have surprised anyone the way it did.
I saw some positive signs when Hillary spoke at Bernie’s endorsement news conference and I’m hopeful that she and Bernie will be able to work together. However, it occurred to me that Bernie Sanders will have very little influence if Donald Trump is elected. And that’s where we’re headed if we fall for the third party diversion. The U.S. system was not set up for multiple parties. A third party vote never works the way their voters hope it will and in this case it will probably lead to a Trump presidency. While Trump may not end Bernie’s movement, he will set it back. Trump is a big price to pay for a protest vote.
By the way, what do you suppose the odds are that just when we find a miracle-candidate with integrity and know-how, we also find a spare just waiting to save us in case he doesn’t work out–Jill Stein! Unfortunately Stein is a member of the party that gave the presidency to George Bush, back when Ralph Nader ran against him. Of course they say she wasn’t the reason Bush won, but that’s not exactly a great recommendation for trying it again.
We knew things were bad when Bernie’s campaign started. We knew our democracy was under threat. We didn’t dare to hope he would actually win, but we had to try. Then when it looked like we might succeed we suddenly forgot everything we knew about the forces arrayed against us—forces that have been gathering strength for at least a century. (And so not created by the Clintons.) We forgot for a moment how outrageous our success really was…and still is, and we have yet to fully understand how far we’ve come.
You could refresh your memory by listening to Bernie’s conference call with his delegates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na7kjo6VGuw
For a discussion of third parties in America versus reforming the Democratic Party see: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html. The following is an excerpt from that article dealing with Nader’s motives and errors:
Nader Explains The Nader Campaign
Thanks to a highly detailed post-election book that Nader wrote to chronicle and justify his 2000 presidential campaign as a candidate of the Green Party, it is possible to show how the critique in this document applies to this most recent incarnation of the egalitarians’ quest for their own third party. Although Nader is now irrelevant as far as future elections, his mentality and rationalizations live on in all those leftists who insist on building a third party despite what Nader wrought in the 2000 elections.
Nader’s main claim is that the two parties are increasingly the same, and thus there is a need for a new third party that offers voters a real choice. This claim has two dimensions to it. First, the Democrats are far worse than their liberal supporters imagine. They have been collapsing on major issues since the 1970s, forsaking their “progressive” past, and matters only got worse in the Clinton-Gore years. Nader delivers a detailed indictment of these Democratic failures, including all the rejections of his own efforts by Gore and even the Progressive Caucus in the House.
Second, and even more importantly in terms of justifying a third party, Nader argues that the Republicans are not as dangerous as the liberal Democrats claim. Bush is not exactly “Genghis Khan,” he notes at one point, and then lists the various ways Bush moved to the center in his first year in office. This point was of course laughable by 2005, which is another reason why it is worth reminding everyone of how Nader justified his campaign.
Nader’s lack of concern when contemplating a Republican presidency is very different from the usual egalitarian view of Republicans as their main opponents. It can be appreciated more fully when it is contrasted with right-wing views of the Democrats. Due to their abhorrence of “big government,” labor unions, and/or liberal social values, right wingers generally avoid third parties at all costs because they genuinely fear the Democrats as the worst of all out-groups. A Clinton or a Gore looks tame to left-wing third-party advocates, but not to right wingers, who believe that the Democratic coalition, with Clinton and Gore representing its moderate wing, spells trouble for their worldview. Gore is Genghis Khan to conservatives, but Bush is not Genghis Khan to most left activists, including Nader, and therein lies an important part of the political equation in America. The energy of zealous right-wing activists is used on behalf of the Republicans, thereby uniting all those who are right of center when they step into the political arena, but the great energies and moral fervor of the egalitarians are often used in attacking Democrats as sell-outs, leaving those who are left of center divided among themselves and often demoralized.
But it is not only that the two parties are about the same according to Nader. He also claims that it is useful for the Democrats to lose if activist groups are to be energized enough to realize their goals through nonviolent direct action and lobbying pressure. Democrats take activist groups for granted once the activists endorse them, and the activists tend to sit back when Democrats are in office. The result, says Nader, is disastrous. The Democrats put activists to sleep; they “anesthetize” activists. Thus, he argues that activist groups often do better when the Democrats are not in power.
Furthermore, he continues, it may be good for the Democrats to lose once in a while so that they don’t take the citizen groups and social movements for granted. This is necessary because “The only message politicians understand is losing an election.” This comes fairly close to saying that it was time to sink Gore, especially when read in the context of the many extremely negative things he has to say about Gore on a wide variety of issues, and most pointedly environmental issues. Here Nader’s reasoning is based on the-worse-the-better theory.
The likelihood that Nader wanted to cost Gore the election also can be seen in the fact that he chose to go to Miami to campaign the Saturday before the election. He says that’s because he hadn’t spent much time in Florida, but he did so knowing the race was very close there, and despite the fact that some of his political scientist and sociologist supporters wanted him to draw back in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida to assure a Gore victory in those crucial states.
Although Nader never publicly said that punishing Gore was his motive, that’s the impression one disillusioned supporter received when he talked to a leader in the campaign about withdrawing from swing states like Florida, or asking Nader supporters in such states to hold their noses and vote for Gore in exchange for Nader votes by Democrats in safe states. The idea was that such a move would help defeat Bush while increasing the Nader vote in safe states. This would also vividly demonstrate the importance of Nader and his constituency to a Gore Administration and Democrats everywhere, or so some of his supporters reasoned. In response to this suggestion, one of Nader’s top aides abruptly said “We are not going to do that.” When the surprised supporter asked why not, the aide replied, “Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.”
Thus far, few analysts have closely examined Nader’s motives, but a staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer also reported that Nader wanted to punish Gore and the Democrats. After meeting with Nader in the Spring of 200l, he wrote: “He (Nader) is not coy about his motives. Just as he ran for president to punish Gore and the Democrats for allegedly betraying their progressive traditions and currying favor with global corporate power, now he wants to knock off congressional Democrats who have committed the same sins.” The journalist is referring to Nader’s plan to run 60 or so Greens in the congressional elections in 2002, which failed completely.
Nader also claims there are virtues to third parties. They introduce new issues and they bring out new voters, some of whom vote for Democrats in races where the third party does not have candidates. He claims there were a million new voters in 2000 thanks to his campaign, and takes credit for the victory of Democratic senatorial candidate Maria Cantwell in the state of Washington, where she won by 2,300 votes over the incumbent Republican. He also draws on the relative successes of the third-party presidential campaigns by John Anderson in 1980 and H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 to support his brief for third parties.
Nader’s specific arguments about the Democrats and Republicans do not address the structural problem that he understands, but discusses as a mere “obstacle” to be overcome in the slow process of building a movement and a third party. He does not admit that the everyday, short-run interests of the supporters of the Democratic Party, such as low-income workers, women who work outside the home, disadvantaged people of color, and religious liberals, are likely to be ignored as more and more Republicans assume office while the third party is being built. The slant of the Bush tax cuts to favor the top few percent is the most brutal evidence of how shortsighted Nader was on this point.