Freemasonry is at the core of Western politics. As progressives become more clear about the shortcomings of this system, they are shocked to see Freemasons ending the democratic experiment. This is clearly the result of Freemasonry’s dependence on Plato’s anti-democratic notions. We see this dependence in US politics when Kyrsten Sinema demands unity and civility at all costs. We also see it when a presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, tells a rival faction to respect authority. This is about the role of politics in our season of creation.
We are outraged about the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians. At the same time, atrocities that are happening in other parts of the world don’t demand our attention. Apparently, we have high expectations for Israel. The question is, are these expectations realistic?
My own opinion is that they are not realistic. How can they be? For one thing, it is difficult to see Israel and her enemies clearly. First, the biblical story of ancient Israel influences our thinking. Second, there is the more recent history of Judaism and its struggles, which we think we understand, but we don’t. Most of us only know about these things superficially.
Paying Lip Service to Solve a Complicated Problem
Unfortunately, we have been paying lip service to solve a complicated problem. After October 7 we mention the Holocaust in passing to demonstrate how sympathetic we are, and then we commence pleading with the Israelis to cease firing on the Palestinians. In a previous post I even said I hoped God would save the Palestinians from Israel.
The most glaring problem with asking God to save the Palestinians is that during the Holocaust the Jewish people also prayed for help. Instead of helping them, God allowed them to be tortured and killed. That is a tragedy in itself and there is simply no explanation for it. But if God had saved the Palestinians in October 2023, it would have been the cruelest shock of all.
The logic of the biblical narrative is another problem. Saving people from the Israelis does not fit the biblical narrative from which Israel takes its meaning. Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in. This turn of events merits a comment at least. Who would have guessed in 1948 that Israel and Palestine would find themselves in this impossible position?
Actually, many people guessed something like this would happen. It would make more sense to ask what the world has been doing to promote peace since 1948. The answer is, nothing. The world has done nothing to promote peace in Israel. Why? Peace is not the purpose of modern Israel.
Morris Jastrow on The Future of Palestine
In 1919, Morris Jastrow Jr. wrote a very helpful book about Zionism. It’s called Zionism and the Future of Palestine: The Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism. 1 You might wonder why I would recommend such an old book about Zionism. I recommend it because it explains key facts about Zionism and Judaism that no one pays any attention to. They involve lost opportunities, harsh judgements, withheld love, ostracism, isolation, fear, and social degradation.
The Jewish people are familiar with these facts, but they will remain in the background. For the most part, I will be talking about the facts in the text, which are harrowing in their own way. The book begins with the Hebrew religion and explains how it became Judaism and then Zionism. Jastrow concludes in Chapter 2, “Judaism and Zionism are thus mutually exclusive, but for all that passed down the ages linked to one another as inseparable partners.”
So, if Zionism is not Judaism, what is it?
Religious, Economic and Political Zionism
There are three varieties of Zionism: religious, economic and political zionism. According to Jastrow, the older Zionism was religious, but now it’s political. If this sounds too obvious to mention, recall that Jastrow was writing in 1919.
Zionism started out as an ameliorative measure for Jewish “self-emancipation.” But it was already becoming political in Jastrow’s time. The Zionists purposely created the impression that Political Zionism was part of Europe’s 19th century movement for the reassertion of nationalities. However, Zionism did not fit that pattern. Many Jews were settled in countries where they had the same rights as their fellow-citizens. Only a small percentage were interested in Zionism. Nevertheless, the Zionists declared victory even before the Paris Peace conference.
Vague Definitions of Zionism
Confusion increased because of the vague Definitions of Zionism. Arthur J. Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a declaration dated Nov. 2, 1917, used the term ‘National Homeland’. According to Jastrow, this term was not political. It was merely diplomatic policy.
By 1918, Balfour stressed sentiment and amelioration, and still there was no sign of political Zionism. The same was true of the French and Italian governments, and President Wilson. They were merely in sympathy with the humanitarian phases of the Zionistic movement.
However, there were concerns among the Palestinians even before the end of the War. Christians and Muslims protested the program of the political Zionists, and they sent their objections to the Paris Peace Conference. And there were others who objected. They included Sir George Adam Smith, Herbert Adams Gibbons, the Honorable Henry Morgenthau, Ex-Ambassador of the United States to Turkey, and others with direct knowledge of the East and Eastern conditions.
The French Government’s Commission was not Favorable to Zionism
In 1918, the French government sent a commission to investigate economic conditions and attitudes. The commission’s report was unfavorable to Political Zionism. As a result, the Zionists put pressure on M. Sylvain Levi, a member of the commission, to retract his report. He refused, which brought the English Zionists down on him. However, it did have an effect on the terms the Zionists were using. They began to speak of the Jewish State as a possibility in the distant future. Zion would now be called the Common-wealth of Palestine.
Additional terms for the aims of the ‘Common-wealth’ project varied from Jewish Nation to Jewish culture to Jewish spirit. Sadly, many of the leaders knew nothing of Jewish history or literature. The result has been that every Zionist feels free to manufacture his own definition. This is especially true when it comes to defining a Jewish State.
Zionism in Orthodox Judaism
Orthodox Judaism has four pillars, which include the belief in one god, the belief that the Jews are His people, belief in the Messiah as God’s messenger and the belief in the return of the Jews to their native land. The Zionism of Orthodox Jews assumes an indissoluble bond between religion and nationality. But the national bond is theoretical until the time of restoration. And none of this is to be brought about through human agency. However, the orthodox longing for the return to Zion is one of the chief roots of the modern movement. (p, 17)
Economic Zionism
The movement was largely inspired by the economic aspect of Zionism. The aim was supposed to be amelioration of the pitiful condition of Jews in such countries as Russia and Romania. These Jews had no rights of citizenship and were subject to all manner of oppression. Oppression alternated with persecution and officially sanctioned pogroms. (Pogroms are the practice of the government when it turns its people loose on a minority population.)
The Jewish population in this area formed half of the entire number of Jews in the world, but the Russian Jews were the most miserable. Russia is where the modern Zionistic movement began. So, first it was aimed at amelioration for Russian Jews, and then because of the Russian government’s actions the goal became self-emancipation for the Jews.
Dr. Leo Pinsker’s Self-Emancipaton for the Jews
A Physician, Dr. Leo Pinsker, living in Odessa, introduced this project in 1881. He called it ‘Self-Emancipation’ for the Jews. It was his solution to what had become the ‘Jewish Question’. Pinsker had in mind an effort by the Jews to secure a new home in some soil where they might live safely and develop freely without the pressure of the constant struggle. This project was given more urgency by an anti-Semitic outbreak in Germany and Austria, which threatened even the Jews of more politically advanced countries. (p. 19)
However, most of the Russian Jews went to North and South America. Only a small number went to Palestine. Pinsker’s proposal lead to organizations throughout Russia, known as ‘Lovers of Zion’. Their purpose was to encourage colonization of Jews in the Holy Land. These organizations then spread to Germany and Austria due to the wave of anti-Semitism mentioned above. Finally, because of sympathy for the Jews in the East, additional branches were formed in Europe and the United States.
Jastrow was sympathetic to all of these developments. In his opinion, if Zionism had confined itself to the economic realm, the establishment of Jewish colonies would have been viewed as beneficial.
At the time of writing Jastrow reported that there were 40 Jewish colonies in Palestine, with a population of somewhat over 10,000. He believed these colonies improved agriculture and technical arts in Palestine.
Political Zionism
Herzl took this approach because he believed the existence of a “Jewish Question” in the enlightened nineteenth century was due to the fact that the Jews actually formed a separate nationality. He wanted to create a visible focus for this Jewish nationality. But this step caused more problems than it solved.
Jastrow believed religious and economic Zionism were harmless and also helpful to the economy of Palestine. But political Zionism was another matter. “When the Zionistic sentiment of Orthodox Judaism is divorced from its attachment to religion, the result is mischief. It involves difficulties that the Zionists recognize, but also dangers serious enough to condemn the entire movement as unfortunate and as threatening the position of Jews throughout the world.” (p. 25)
The Roots of Modern Zionism
According to Jastrow, three factors contribute to the rise and growth of modern Zionism: the persistence of the longing of orthodox and also of unorthodox Jews for the old homeland; the persistence of the retention of the nationalistic aspect to Judaism, even though inconsistent with the basis on which that religion rests; and the conditions under which Jews were formerly forced to live. At the time Jastrow wrote these lines, many Jews in Russia, Romania, and Poland still lived in those miserable conditions.
Sentiment is a powerful force, and attracts Jews with all aims, whether they want to make Jerusalem a nation for religious or political reasons, both orthodox and unorthodox. And sentiment had a stronger pull at a time when other nations were about to gain national independence.
Also influential were the feelings of Christian Zionists who were encouraging the movement for a return of the Jews to Palestine. Jewish Zionists seem to have overlooked the reason Zionism was important to the Christians. The restoration of Palestine is supposed to bring the second coming of Jesus. This will be followed by the disappearance of the Jews through their acceptance of the Messiah.
Jastrow thought Christian believers involuntarily placed themselves on the same plane as the anti-Semitic agitators of Germany and Austria. They were considered anti-Semitic because Zionism was a means of getting rid of the Jews in their lands.
Unorthodox Christians, on the other hand, were influenced by romantic sentiment, for example, novelist George Eliot. (p. 29) Jastrow had sympathy for the sincere Christian believer, but he called for caution:
We should in a similar spirit respect this doctrine of orthodox Judaism, though unable to subscribe to it, but this must not deter us from recognizing the source of this doctrine, and if we do so we will see the serious mischief that the Zionistic longing is bound to work when it is divorced from its attachment to religion, as is done by the leaders of political Zionism, particularly by the American and English leaders and by many of those who have become Zionists just because of this divorce.
(p.30)
Jastrow also objected to those who encouraged others to go to Israel, but who had no intention of going themselves. He called them ‘Zionists by proxy’.
The Religious History
The religious history will be discussed in a separate article. I want to make sure I get it right. Hopefully our Christian friends will make sure I do.
Back to the Present
We have high expectations of Israel. Are our expectations for Israel realistic? I don’t think so, because we don’t understand the pressures the Jewish people are under. And even though we acknowledge the terror of the Holocaust, we expect the Israelis to act as if there are no threats in the world.
If we were to go back to the period after the Enlightenment, when the Jews suddenly enjoyed the same political rights as their neighbors, we would see them blossom and begin take part in the cultural life of their various countries. Considering everything they had endured, the subsequent outbreaks of anti-Semitism must have been painfully disillusioning. And then came the Holocaust. There was the sheer terror of it, but also grief, humiliation, disbelief, and unendurable sadness. Most of all there would be lasting fear and mistrust.
And then what happened? After the War, they went to Palestine to become a military outpost for the United States and her allies. Now they are supposed to spend the rest of their lives accomplishing several impossible things a day. And what if they don’t succeed? Who is going to help them then?
A Call for a Time-Out
This is a call for a time-out. A time-out would obviously involve a cease-fire, but it would have a more inclusive understanding. We would have to make ourselves familiar with the last 2,000 years of Jewish history. But our aim would be the survival of both Israelis and Palestinians. To this end, we would have to acknowledge Hamas as party to this conflict.
Unfortunately for the time-out proposal, there is mistrust on both sides, and with good reason. Each side would expect the other to use the time-out to further its own preparations, meaning that both sides would cheat. However, we have a lot to make up for, and it’s best if we don’t blow ourselves up before we begin.
And we can’t forget the colonizing nations who have helped create Israel for their own purposes. This part of the problem will involve peacemaking on a much larger scale. Hence, a time-out.
Jeffrey Sachs says Ukraine is a lost cause. Please watch his interview regarding Ukraine. The United States’s maneuvering has led step by step to war and the destruction of Ukraine. The entire Russia/Ukraine War is the result of a U.S. regime change venture, courtesy of U.S. neoconservatives, namely, President Biden, Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan.
When Victoria Nuland first discussed replacing the Ukrainian president, she was motivated by the fact that President Yanukovich had passed a neutrality agreement to head off war. The Biden administration chose war instead. Nuland’s meddling is common knowledge–her phone call was intercepted by the Russians and replayed in the U.S. Even so, there were several opportunities to avoid this war before it started, and the Americans refused to try.
On December 17, 2021 President Putin put on the table a draft U.S. Russia security agreement to avert the war. The agreement called for several things but the most important was an end to NATO enlargement. Jeffrey Sachs urged Biden to negotiate at that time, but the U.S. declared that the expansion of NATO is none of Russia’s business. Subsequently, Zalinski called for negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality, but the U.S. blocked negotiations.
This video lays out in more detail the reasons Jeffrey Sachs says Ukraine is a lost cause. The transcript is included in the video notes. Please take note of the steps that must follow the end of hostilities for true peace with Russia.
This article is an acknowledgement of grave disorder in the halls of our government. It is a kind of disorder that can’t be set right by judgement, scolding and condemnation. It can only be addressed with blessings and prayers. This is a desperate call for blessings and prayers for a disputed land. Nothing less will do. But first the problem must be described.
Most of the world is cringing and cowering and begging Benjamin Netanyahu to stop killing the Palestinians. He seems to have either closed his ears to us, or he enjoys tormenting us. Meanwhile, his Zionist allies are not at all embarrassed about ignoring our pleas. And we wait for someone to do something.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the Israel/Palestine conflict has become a familiar category. Although we feel distress, disgust and outrage at what is happening, it’s a very old problem and we are not sufficiently alarmed. In my opinion, we should be. World leaders know they are dealing with a problem that is impossible to solve. All of the madness stems from this impossibility. But, to be clear, it is only impossible to solve if they have to treat the Palestinians with dignity.
Question: Will Israel, with the approval of its allies, wipe out the Palestinians while we watch in horror? Frankly, that’s how it’s beginning to look. And that is the logic of modern Israel. Now, if we think Israel will wipe them out, what can we do? If we were to protest what would we demand? This is where the impossibility of Zionism raises its ugly head.
Theoretically, we could begin by assuring that the Palestinians can control their own food, water, electricity and travel. But then the problem of boundaries would come up. Palestine’s boundaries are too tight. Ideally, Israel would be required to withdraw from its illegal settlements. Of course, Israel would object and the Palestinians would still be unhappy. Why? Israel is just repeating what the United States and Australia have done to their indigenous people.
The reason the Palestinians have been so tightly controlled is they have been robbed, and everyone knows it. And Israel does not intend to undo the theft. The end of imprisonment for Palestine would be the end of Israel’s Shangri-La. So we have probably been begging Benjamin Netanyahu in vain.
I’m not saying the situation is acceptable. It is not. I’m saying this is Zionism. The only reason it still shocks us is the world has been lulled to sleep. Zionism wasn’t just theft. It was also layers and layers of lullabies and lies.
The world blames Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians. However, Israel’s inhabitants are pawns. This is the trap of Zionism. Zionism has ruined the Jewish people.
Zionism has ruined the Jewish people. Today, the world blames Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians. However, the inhabitants of Israel are pawns. Zionism is based on the belief that the Jews are part of a cohesive race of people who want nothing more than to live in Palestine. Ironically, this belief is basic anti-Semitism. A united Jewish ‘race’ was a phantom when Zionism was invented, yet this belief has resulted in the people of Israel proclaiming they own Palestine. What a terrible transformation.
In this context it makes sense that concerned citizens of the world demand a Palestinian state. But they make this demand in spite of the fact that a Palestinian state has been rejected for more than 70 years by everyone in a position to make it happen. This is the trap of Zionism.
A history of meaningless destruction
This history is long and tragic, and it’s been written many times. Unfortunately, we don’t have time to educate ourselves about the causes of the current conflict in Israel. But for those who are aware of the history, it is clear that military solutions are no solutions at all. Yet, in Israel, the horror of October 7 and everything that followed it seems normal. This military regime has no memory of civilization.
The last real civilization that was known in this region was the Ottoman empire. Unfortunately, the reforms of the Young Turks introduced a spirit of Turkish nationalism, and their handling of foreign affairs resulted in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
There were other factions working against the Empire besides the Young Turks. These included provincial governors, Palace officials and the Freemasons. According to Hanioglü, M. Şükrü, the activism of the Freemasons in the Ottoman Empire can be traced back to the 1870s.1 All things considered, it’s hard to imagine how the current regime in Israel could be an improvement over Ottoman ‘absolutism’.
But we still need to explain how the Jewish people became entangled in Palestine. The Young Turks, Turkish Jöntürkler, was a coalition of various reform groups that led a revolutionary movement against Sultan Abdulhamid II between 1889 and 1908. During the British Mandate in the Ottoman Empire, there were rumors that the Jews were involved with the Young Turks and Freemasons.2 The British overseers apparently believed the rumors about Jewish involvement, and later this belief rendered Britain defenseless against the idea of Zionism. Then, World War II and the Holocaust made Palestine seem like an attractive refuge from the world’s hatred. Today, modern Israel is evidence that the fear of being hated, was never dealt with.
Plans for a Palestinian State are based on the wrong premise
In the face of Israel’s brittle militarism, it is clear that any solution would have to heal the effects of ostracism and persecution on its victims. However, that kind of thoughtfulness is unheard of in this world. Victims are expected to figure everything out on their own. This blindspot has allow Zionism to ruin the Jewish people. All we can say is that if we had had our wish this would have been the first step to a solution. Instead, we have the present horror.
Considering that a Jewish state was not the solution to the real problem of anti-Semitism, it follows that even our best utopian plans for a Palestinian state are based on the wrong premise.
Since we insist on ignoring the step of healing, the only other solution would require the ability to go back in time and tell the Freemasons and Young Turks to appreciate what they have. This is obviously ridiculous, but what do you call the belief that Israel will some day give the Palestinians a state?
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are dying and all the grownups in the world have gone mad. And they’ve had plenty of assistance in their madness from contemporary Zionists. So, what can be done? It may seem like wishful thinking, but the first solution remains a possibility.
This might seem like the biggest fantasy of all. Hatred pretends to erase the possibility of healing. However, hatred is not all-powerful. Love is the most powerful force on this planet, and it is always a possibility. Furthermore, the hope for love never dies in the hearts and minds of the most despised among us.
Can God see the Palestinians through our eyes?
When there seems to be no earthly help for the helpless, it’s natural for believers to petition God. What can he do, you ask? After all, the existence of modern Israel is based on religious ‘history’ and defended by the United States and its allies. Who would petition God on the side of Israel’s enemy? The answer depends on your understanding of God.
I saw a video on YouTube. There were several Palestinians standing in line. They had no baggage of any kind– just the clothes on their backs. One man was looking at the camera as it recorded his defeat. His eyes were not asking for anything, or even hoping for anything. I saw this and understood it, and it took my breath away.
I don’t think God sees everything with his own eyes. Sometimes he sees through our eyes. It occurred to me that God saw those people like I did, and he had compassion for them.
I’m not suggesting God is choosing sides. I think he he saw those Palestinians and their need, and he is going to help them.
Hanioglü, M. “Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons, 1875-1908.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, 1989, pp. 186–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283298. Accessed 17 Oct. 2023. ↩︎
According to Harold Kaplan, Americans do not question the effects on the United States of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But was the Enlightenment a democratic movement? Kaplan wrote:
“We do not question that the twin roots of American national history were the religious revolution, which broke the Catholic hegemony, and the secular Enlightenment, which finally broke the traditional political structures, monarchical and hierarchical, of Europe…” (p. 14)
((Harold Kaplan, Democratic Humanism and American Literature, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1972, p. 14))
Political violence is a major concern the world over. Lately, the United States seems to be catching up with the rest of the world due to manipulation of electoral outcomes by certain actors. The chief cause is corruption and dysfunctional institutions. Fortunately, there is a new theory explaining the connection between corruption and the cycle of electoral violence.
Electoral Misconduct and Political Violence
Electoral violence is the focus of Sarah Birch’s book, Electoral Violence, Corruption, and Political Order. According to Birch 1 a combination of electoral malpractice and political violence fosters electoral violence.
Conceptually, electoral violence is located at the intersection of electoral misconduct and political violence. Electoral misconduct, also known as electoral malpractice, is ‘the manipulation of electoral processes and outcomes so as to substitute personal or partisan benefit for the public interest (quote by Birch p, 10)
State and Non-state Actors Commit Electoral Violence
Based on data collected for this study, the majority of electoral violence is committed by state actors. It addition, the study developed theoretical reasons to believe that the state shapes the settings in which this violence takes place.
Non-state actors might also use violence to counter the attempt by state actors to exclude them from power. This is part of Birch’s integrated theory about the context that determines electoral violence.
Violence is used by state actors (and their proxies) mainly as a tool to exclude other actors from political power in competitive elections , and violence is used by nonstate actors largely as a means of contesting such exclusion and seeking access to power (p 5).
How Has This Happened in the United States?
But how does this happen in a country like the United States, where voters have had confidence in elections for more than 200 years? Even though the current trend in the US is toward more violence, voters still think of elections as a peaceful, democratic way to provide power and legitimacy. However, due to changing conditions, incumbents and candidates are unwilling to depend on the electoral system to win or hold on to power.
Incumbents and Candidates Don’t Think the Electoral System Will Help them Hold on to Power
Birch’s study of other countries where electoral violence is more common indicates that this is due to the presence of widespread corruption and clientelism. Methods for winning elections in the US still include open competition on the basis of policy proposals, but they also include manipulation such as vote-buying and force. Both state and non-state actors believe that under present conditions, violence is the only way to attain or hold on to power.
The Main Factors Leading to Corruption and Electoral Violence
There are many factors that lead to corruption and electoral violence and every country is different. But generally the combination of weak democratic institutions and dysfunctional informal institutions provides the setting for electoral violence.
Elections are high-stakes affairs in states with weak democratic institutions and strong informal institutions of clientelism, patronage, and corruption. In such contexts, those in power control economic and legal, as well as political resources, such that incumbents have ample reason to fear loss of power. In addition, they have reason to fear that if they lose a critical election, they themselves will be permanently excluded from ruling, as the victors may be reluctant to allow genuinely competitive contests in future. Political orders characterized by high levels of corruption and ineffectual democratic institutions are therefore ones that are strongly conducive to electoral violence. (p 5)
Chaos is the End Result
If unchecked, the end result of corruption and dysfunction is a descent into chaos. Either voters don’t turn out, or they vote for things that will increase their chances of survival. This is not the basis of sound policy proposals.
Politicians are also influenced negatively. One result is that they might become reluctant to discuss certain issues for fear of retaliation.
Forceful manipulation of the democratic process can lead to widespread instability in the entire country or region, including civil war.
What Can Be Done?
In the absence of reform, the simple logic of dysfunctional democratic institutions and corruption will lead to a vicious cycle of violence and societal breakdown. However, the downward trend can be reversed by strengthening democratic institutions and punishing corruption. Knowledge of the factors Birch identifies in her book can help policy makers avoid it or recover from it.
Accusations of leftist magic leveled by right-wing members of Congress led me to research the question of whether magic is really a leftist thing. I have always understood the political right’s connection to magic to be more of a thing, and it wasn’t hard to find evidence of this association. This is the story of Rosicrucians and Fallen Angels.
If certain people have their way there will be war with Russia. Americans have no business contemplating such a thing. For that matter, there was no excuse for the Cold War. It was concocted from the recommendations of George Kennan. This is disturbing, considering that is not what he said. This concoction was done by a hysterical press and the ‘thinkers’ of RAND Corporation. Of course, neocons at RAND, and their purportedly enormous brains, are not working for Americans. They work their magic at the behest of the Air Force. Sadly, they were able to use the words of George Kennan to achieve their aims. The neocons erased George Kennan.
Kennan tried but never succeeded in living down his famous ‘X Article’ in which he said ominous things about the Soviet Union. When he talked about containment, he thought he was recommending the political containment of a political threat, not some ‘doctrine’ of perpetual military containment. More importantly, he thought containment should apply to the Americans as well.
Neocon Pretensions
The neocons’ idealistic and pretentious lack of genuine foreign policy
Kennan expressed concern about the ascendance in the United States of an ‘idealistic and pretentious lack of genuine foreign policy’ that focused on the American Dream. He thought the U.S. must put its own house in order first.
He argued that the Soviets were part of an historical tradition of the Third Rome, which although it is a rival religion, is still Byzantine. Strangely, he could already see similar totalitarian tendencies at work in the United States. The Americans had taken up a form of existence that does not recognize limits, a result of unconditional acceptance of the logic of the marketplace. This had led to the loss of a sense of what should not be done.
America’s monster: the indestructible myth
So instead of a political containment lasting for 10-15 years the doctrine was transformed into an ‘indestructible myth’:
“There emerged one of those great forbidding apparitions to the credence in which mass opinion is so easily swayed: a monster devoid of all humanity and of all rational motive, at once the embodiment and the caricature of evil, devoid of internal conflicts and problems of its own, intent only on bringing senseless destruction to the lives and hopes of others.”
The symptoms of our decay go beyond politics. They include ‘overpopulation, urbanization, hyper-intensity of communication, and destruction of the environment’. However, for Kennan the nuclear arms race was the clearest indication of spiritual decline. It was a ‘spiritual and philosophical derangement of the last order’, a madness, a death wish, a lack of faith, ‘wrong in the good old-fashioned meaning of the word’. Stefan Rossbach, GNOSTIC WARS: The Cold War in the Context of a History of Western Spirituality.
