I have read about anti-Jewish sentiments that have existed in many countries in the world for hundreds of years. I am interested in where this attitude came from and why it has persisted up to the present day. I don't want this thread to discuss the current military policies of the Israeli government. There have been many threads about that. I am rather interested to discuss long-standing anti-Semitism and to understand where it came from and why it has continued for so long.

God called the Jew's "His People" so naturally everyone else ( the Gentiles) got jealous.
Then God said 'Those I have called "Not my People", I will call "My People"'
So then the Gentiles turned on the Jews and poked their tongues out at them not realising that God was standing against those of the True Vine i.e. the Jews in order to graft the Gentiles to The True Vine. But those jew haters were grafted on to the True Vine, they became rich from the very wine that they despised. It was the Jew's faith in God that led them to see what their Father was doing and subsequently they blessed the Gentiles that despised them. But he who blesses is greater than that being blessed.

it was to do with a jew ratting out jesus to the romans, even though jesus was jewish, but it dates back to jesus' times anyway

Dr Seuss to the rescue!!!

Sneetches

Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches

Had bellies with stars.

The Plain -Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.

Those stars weren't big ,

They were really quite small,

You might think such a thing wouldn't matter at all.

But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches

Would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches".

With snoots in the air, they would sniff and they'd snort

"We'll have nothing to do with the plain belly sort!"

And whenever they met some, when they were out walking,

They'd hike right on past them without even talking.

etc etc etc.... humanity what're ya gonna do? :(

That story has a happy ending at least

I agree with c20H25N3o

Well the jews also have social habits like not getting married from non jews , that might intimedate other people , i mean it gives the imperssion like " Hey , we are better than you "

??!!

that comment by sky is anti-semetic.
i'll asume you didn't mean it.

thing is, every nationality and religion wants to marry with their own. putting Jews on the spot for this is anti-Semetic because it singles them out and 'criticizes' only them for something everybody does.

Anti-Semitism yes the term that means absolutely nothing, as sad and ignorant as the Zionist ideology unto itself. It is amazing to me how many millions of people have been so easy brought into accordance with this fallacious term and idea. “Anti-Semitism” is nothing because it doesn’t represent anything, now of course back in the 1800’s when the stupid term was made up it was not intended to be used against Jews observe:

Modern Anti-Semitism is not to be confounded with the religious persecution of the Jews of former times. (Theodre Herzl)

Anti-Semitism does not even pertain to the persecution of Jews, it’s a word devised to state that Jews are a race, and discrimination against them is against their race, not their religion. Using that logic I could also be a Jew, and anything said to me can be conjured up as being Anti-Semitic. The innate idiocy of it all.

Anti-Semitism derives from Christianity and it was the Jews who created Christianity , it was the Jews who murdered the Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ and it was the Jewish Apostle Matthew who wrote "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." Matthew 27:25 which began modern Anti-Semitism and it is the Jewish St Peter who today’s Jews recognize as the greatest of all Anti-Semites . So in effect it is safe to say that Judaism is in itself self soiling.

He cannot be a "Anti-Semite" if the term does not refer to those who aren't Zionist.

He cannot be a "Anti-Semite" if the term does not refer to those who aren't Zionist.
Tell that too the Judica encylopedia their staff will give you an argument . ;)

How did the Jews and Roma/gypsies survive as distinct peoples rather than become assimilated?

There is a certain elitist snobbery in the Jews and Roma, but then all groups and nations to some degree show elitist snobbery. Racism is the norm everywhere in the world. Most people prefer their own genetic offspring to other peoples children. Most people prefer their own culture and beliefs to other peoples beliefs.

We people resent the presence of other people who believe that they are superior to us.

Saint Paul's Christianity (Jesus did not teach Christians to feel superior. I blame Paul.) divides the world into those who believe in Jesus and are therefore good and those who don't believe in Jesus and are therefore bad or doomed. Islam's attitude towards non believers is similar to Christianity's attitude.

Christianity accepts that Jews were once God's chosen (favorite?) people. When Jews reject Jesus it (unconsciously) shakes the faith of Christians and makes them angry in a way that they don't feel so strongly when other religious groups reject Jesus.

My guess is that Ashkenazi Jews are about 75% European genetically and 25% middle eastern. It is not a big jump from believing that Jews were the chosen people to believing that Jews are the chosen people. Christians have married into and converted to Judaism despite some Jewish disdain for diluting their racial purity.

Today, in America Jews are inter-marrying with Goyim in large number and are often not attending temple. Apparently the survival of Jews as a minority is benefited by a certain degree of hostility towards Jews. I suspect that Judaism in Europe would have been assimilated and would have disappeared had anti-Semitism not existed.

The Germans who were obsessed with racial purity decided to exterminate Jews and Roma who were obsessed with racial purity. This is not a coincidence.

Bottom line is that the hatred of Jews is all about pride and wounded pride.

There is no Jewish race...if so then how can one explain Malay, and Chinese Jews? Are they not Jews?

Jewish race= improvable

Ah Fuck the Jew's they are no different from any other religion Im tired of this supposed place they play . I really dont think this topic is relavent actually I would think a more current theme topic would be the Jew's curious and current display of Anti-Semitism to Palestinians .

Now I’m not talking about all Jews but what you have to understand is that throughout history Jews have shown extreme hypocrisy. it all starts off from their beginning, after seeing the most powerful man on earth and his army perish and a sea split, they go and worship a cow!!

Not all Jews of course but there has always been a band of them who are very greedy, manipulative, hypocritical and very evil.

Look at now as a SMALL example of Jewish hypocrisy. After suffering in the holocaust (the reason for the holocaust was Jews backstabbed Germany), they went around doing the same to the Palestinians.

There is a very good book that was written by a Jew himself entitled the "holocaust Industry", read it when you get time.

EVEN today Jews in Israel are trying to suck Germany dry in compensation and even forcing other countries to pay aswell for not doing enough to prevent the holocaust.

Even worse Jews want Germany to still continue paying compensation for the ghettos, despite the fact that Israel is now doing the same in the W. Bank and Gaza.

It wants Germany to CONTINUE paying for displacing Jews from houses, well what about Israel displacing millions of Arabs!!!!

It wants Germany to pay for house evictions well what about the repeated, internationally condemned and illegal destruction of Palestinian house by Israel!! For no reason and also with no compensation and NO TIME TO GATHER BELONGINGS (LITERALLY get out in 30 secs!!!!)

It wants Germany to pay for the wall but what about Israels wall in Palestinian land!!!

The LIST GOES ON AND ON!! the hypocrisy of the Jews, oh the hypocrisy!! Did you even know that Israel was planning to extract compensation from Iraq for forcing Jews out decades ago well what the fuck about Israel!!!!

We people resent the presence of other people who believe that they are superior to us.
What makes you think that Jews believe they are superior to everyone else?

John_angry
You've mentioned some modern examples but how does any of what you said explain persecution of Jews 100 years ago and 200 years ago and for hundreds of years before that?

What makes you think that Jews believe they are superior to everyone else?

This is a good summation:


“The Gush Emunim and other Jewish fundamentalist sects described by Shahak and Mezvinsky are thus part of a long mainstream Jewish tradition which considers Jews and non-Jews completely different species, with Jews absolutely superior to non-Jews and subject to a radically different moral code…Many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad, continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like to ignore or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. [This is a reference to the boundaries of Israel as stated in the Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4]…our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” It is usually yeshiva students who chant “Death to the Arabs” on CNN.
…
Jews are not, and cannot be a normal people. The eternal uniqueness of the Jews is the result of the Covenant made between God and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai…. The implication is that the transcendent imperatives for Jews effectively nullify moral laws that bind the behavior of normal nations…argues that the divine commandments to the Jewish people “transcend the human notions of national rights.” He explains that while God requires other nations to abide by abstract codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews.20”

There enjoy....

You've mentioned some modern examples but how does any of what you said explain persecution of Jews 100 years ago and 200 years ago and for hundreds of years before that?

That by defintion of the term "Anti-Semitism" was not Anti-Semitic attacks...don't confuse the religious persectuion of Jews with A-S.

Brian

Jew's curious and current display of Anti-Semitism to Palestinians .

Arabs aren't semitic, they only speak a semitic tongue. Please stop using this innately stupid word everyone.

don't confuse the religious persectuion of Jews with A-S.
What's the difference?

Read Herzl...I even quoted the relevant quote at the beginning of the thread.

Brian

Jew's curious and current display of Anti-Semitism to Palestinians .

Arabs aren't semitic, they only speak a semitic tongue. Please stop using this innately stupid word everyone.
How do you mean ?

Arabs are a Semitic people who trace their ancestry from Ismael (Isma3il), a son of the ancient patriarch Abraham and Hagar.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs

Semitic is not a racial qualification it is a linguistic one...wikipedia is incorrect.

We people resent the presence of other people who believe that they are superior to us.
What makes you think that Jews believe they are superior to everyone else?

By "We people resent the presence of other people who believe that they are superior to us" I meant that: as a Red Sox fan I resented Yankee fans, as an employee I resented bosses who acted like they were superior to me, If I was a black child I would resent a white school teacher who did not expect me to be able to perform as well as white classmates, and so on and so on. As a general principle I suggest that humans resent people who act or believe that they are superior.

Still, I do think that many Jews believe they are superior. Any Jew who believes that Jews are the chosen people most likely believes that Jews are superior in the eyes of God, which are the only eyes that really matter (aside from your wife's eyes) .

Sometimes I think God may be a comedian. Perhaps the Jews are the chosen people; but chosen for what? God may have chosen the Jews while knowing that the Jews would be whoever chooses to believe they are a Jew. If anybody is descended from Isaac then almost everybody on earth is descended from Isaac because that's the way the mathematics of genealogy and human behavior works out.

The people who are in all probability most descended from Isaac are the Palestinians; but they would rather talk about Ishmael's rights to Israel than claim their descent from Isaac. What a joker God is. (Abraham moved from Iraq to Israel; studying my ancestors I learn that moves like Abraham's are normal. 2 to the (3000 years divided by 25 (years in a generation) ) power divided by six billion (people on earth) = the number of ways ( cousins make children together, we are all cousins) the average person on earth is descended from the average person who lived on earth three thousand years ago. The number that results from the above equation exceeds one trillion multiplied by a trillion. So I am descended from Isaac and Israel is mine.

But I digress, back to the point:


Any time somebody wants to keep marriages within the group, I tend to think the group thinks they are superior. Perhaps they just want to protect the children from the hardship of mixed culture marriages. Why should anybody resist assimilation if they do not believe that the sub-group is superior?

You can find more quotes like Undecided's quotes that make it clear that some Jews really do think they are superior.



So many Jews have been so creative and achieved so much that I can make a case that Jews really are superior. When raising children teaching them that they are superior may result in higher achievement, but the world needs loving sweetness as much as it needs high intellectual and creative achievement.

They are the chosen people because they were supposed to spread teh Gospel now they have abandoned god and adopted the golden calf that is Zionism, they will pay for that it says so in the Bible.

Any time somebody wants to keep marriages within the group, I tend to think the group thinks they are superior. Perhaps they just want to protect the children from the hardship of mixed culture marriages. Why should anybody resist assimilation if they do not believe that the sub-group is superior?
That sounds like a reasonable way of thinking. However it may interest you to know that the Christian New Testament also teaches that a Christian should only marry other Christians. Consider this scripture:

"A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 7:39

i see it like this.......groups of people who create stories about themselves which cuts them off from others
Yes, the Jews HAVe done this with their 'chosen people' story, and some other groups go "oh, look at THEM what THEy do", whilst conveniently ignoring what they have done, or what their fathers have done in the past to make out they are the 'chosen ones. for example the Christian faith is really a 'Jesus' character claiming ony through him can one reach redemption, etc. same old same old. Islam same, Buddhism same. just groups that crea te boundaries round themselves

Jews create resentment sometimes when they refuse to assimilate into the dominant culture, creating their own economy of special foods and religious accessories. Path is right, it's a kind of illogical xenophobia. If a Jew or anyone else didn't think that their way of life was better or preferable, they wouldn't persue it. Jews have also had a long history of creating their own niche in the various societies they inhabited that necessarily benefited the larger population, which shows a high degree of diplomatic skill. Unfortunately, when the economy goes south, they become the scapegoat.

The Jews of Germany were among the most assimilated in the world. That didn't help much when the Nazi came to power with the support of the majority of Germans.

Yes, assimilated, but not completely, they still spoke Yiddish, for instance.

No the French Jews were probably the most assimilated, and the Jews of the Prussian,Polish areas were completely seperated.

Jews create resentment sometimes when they refuse to assimilate into the dominant culture, creating their own economy of special foods and religious accessories. Path is right, it's a kind of illogical xenophobia. If a Jew or anyone else didn't think that their way of life was better or preferable, they wouldn't persue it. Jews have also had a long history of creating their own niche in the various societies they inhabited that necessarily benefited the larger population, which shows a high degree of diplomatic skill. Unfortunately, when the economy goes south, they become the scapegoat.


my gf is jewish and she articulate the same response as spidergoat did. She was telling me a few months back that prior to Hitler's rise to power that the Jews had their own little sections of town and spoke a dilect diffenent than the other local germans. Even in my town (austin tx) a lot of them keep to themselves or with their own kind. I have 6 jewish friends and out of them 2 are loners and four have more jewish friends than non jewish friends. Their knowledge of religious history as a group is facisinating. Every single one of them have a deep understanding of many religions.....being bookworms might help isolate them more......

To spidergoat. The Jews of Germany did not use Yiddish. They looked down upon it. Yiddish was the primary language of the Jews of eastern Europe, particularly Poland and Soviet Union.

Depends when you're talking about, since it is based on German. It was more a symptom of isolation than a cause.

I am refereing to 19th and 20th century Germany. It was a different (?) story in the time of the crusades, when the Jews of Germany were subject to progrom like slaughter resulting from the religious zeal of the time. Modern German anti-Jewishness was more of a "racial" thing.

Modern German anti-Jewishness was more of a "racial" thing.

Yes Hitler believed that Jews were a race (which they are not) and that they were infesting the Aryan population with their "blood".

I would add to the History of the Jews that at the time of the spread of Christianity, a need evolved. Around the 10th century there was much growth in the European cities. For Growth to happen meant that there must be a source of capital.

Christians at that time were not allowed to charge interest (usury) on money loaned to others. European leaders invited wealthy Jewish businessmen to come to Europe to provide a capital investment source so that there could be new buildings built. new stores ,new farms ect.

Since those days every time a crisis (famine) ect occurred, the Jews were blamed, mostly because the european nobles wanted to save their own arses from angry mobs.

So it has continued to the present day.

The German hatred of Jews began with the writings of Martin Luther but this is a topic unto itself.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html

I suspect that the Jews were a readily available distraction or scapegoat. They were a recognizable sub-culture in many countries. Religious and political leaders often need to direct attention away from their own activities and failings.

The Jews were readily available as a distraction. They had little or no power, making them safe targets. They were easily identifiable. They were local. It is always better to have a local [powerless scapegoat or distraction. If you get people too worked up over another country, there might be uncomfortable consequences.

I often wondered if Hitler really hated the Jews or dispassionately viewed the fomenting of hatred toward them as a way to unify and motivate the German population.

Off the subject: The German culture of WW2 & prior eras was fascinating. There was a movie about WW2 with an awesome scene. A group of young German soldiers sang and stamped their feet in time with the rhythm, as a way of expressing their devotion to Germany. The mood of the music and the sound of the words made me want to root for them to win the battles yet to come, even though I viewed Germany as the evil enemy. The words were German which I do not understand, but there was an inspiring flavor to the sounds, which I think might be unique to the German language.

I have seen newsreels showing Adolf Hitler making speeches. There is something recognizably charismatic and inspiring about the sound of his speeches. If I did not know who he was and what he was advocating, his speeches would inspire some type of admiration for him and his causes. The feeling was there in the total absence of semantic content for me, who cannot speak or understand German.

I suspect that the Jews were a readily available distraction or scapegoat. They were a recognizable sub-culture in many countries. Religious and political leaders often need to direct attention away from their own activities and failings.

The Jews were readily available as a distraction. They had little or no power, making them safe targets. They were easily identifiable. They were local. It is always better to have a local [powerless scapegoat or distraction. If you get people too worked up over another country, there might be uncomfortable consequences.

I often wondered if Hitler really hated the Jews or dispassionately viewed the fomenting of hatred toward them as a way to unify and motivate the German population.

Off the subject: The German culture of WW2 & prior eras was fascinating. There was a movie about WW2 with an awesome scene. A group of young German soldiers sang and stamped their feet in time with the rhythm, as a way of expressing their devotion to Germany. The mood of the music and the sound of the words made me want to root for them to win the battles yet to come, even though I viewed Germany as the evil enemy. The words were German which I do not understand, but there was an inspiring flavor to the sounds, which I think might be unique to the German language.

I have seen newsreels showing Adolf Hitler making speeches. There is something recognizably charismatic and inspiring about the sound of his speeches. If I did not know who he was and what he was advocating, his speeches would inspire some type of admiration for him and his causes. The feeling was there in the total absence of semantic content for me, who cannot speak or understand German.

Sieg Heil, Dinosaur, you'd have been one of them. even now you say you would be inspired. What is wrong with taking up arms aganist a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? Hitler played to an audience that was crippled by war, economics and just plain shitty life. Jews were handy, available. Yes, Virginia there are some very evil people lurking about.

Let me give a hypothetical situation that may throw some light on the subject in general. Let us assume that the blacks, anglos and hispanics in Texas were existing in a general state of perpetual violence and that in order to separate the violence in that state the United Nations decided to partition Texas into three geograohucally equivalent regions. To make it interesting the blacks got San Antonio, which as everyone knows is where the Alamo is located ,and don't you forget it. Further , lets assume the blacks and huspanics agreed to the partition, but whitey didn't, (or vice versus). From the get go there was a marked state of war between the parties with blacks and hispanics more or less in agreement, and whitey had the general support of the US Government who continually propagandized all black and hispanic activithy as "terroristic agressive warfare" and that whitey, poor whitey, was the innocent victim. With the help uf the US Governemnt whitey basically prevailed in the ensuing war and "liberated " San Antonio.

When did the Palestinians become our enemy? And when did Isreal become our preferred friends?

With the rest of the world watching, blacks and hispanics mostly, what do you think the feeling towards whitey would be, at least Texas whitey? I say hatred, anger and violence that exceeded by many orders of magnitude the violence in pre-partition in Palestine.

We in this country had better pull our head out of our ass and take a look at a billion and a half of the Muslim world wanting to skewer us all. 911 was a wake up call ,but everybody just pushed the snooze button and went back to sleep.They attacked NY and Washington D.C. because we were too perfect. Check the Bush speech to Congress in October after 911. Its all ion the Internet.

For some simple trivia, why did David Bowie, write, sing and publish the song :"I'm afraid of Americans". After Waco ,A German friend of mine responded to a question from me what Europeans thought of Waco. His reply was, "America? we couldn't believe it, this is happening in America?"

This being a History forum, maybe there is some experts that can ask a simple question regarding some missing persons. After WWII where did the the bulk of the buraucracy of the Geheime Stadts Polezei (AKA Gestapo) go?

"Sie haben das gelleschaft nach Alexandria, Virginia verlecht. Nicht var?"

for some fractured German. Let us count, yes, 60 years to develop and perfect a tried and proven organization, of some note, with the aid and assistance of experts.

The families accompanying the cadre were more than likely educated appropriately:

"Muttis, lassen ihre kinder aufwachen um cowboys zu werden".

Geiskiesel

Geiskiesel: Right now, I am not in the mood to argue about the the issues you are raising. Perhaps another time or perhaps in another thread.

I would like to go on record as stating that Nazi Germany was one of the most evil societies in history. While I sympathize with the situation created by the WW1 treaty imposed on them, I never felt it justified the actions they took. My reaction to speeches by Hitler and German patriotic songs was at odds with my opinion of the Nazi society.

I wonder if you read my post carefully or merely scanned it.

You seem to be pro-Islamic and anti-American. I wonder why

apart from the killing of the jews and the evil side to Hitler he was in my opinion one of the greatest leaders ever.

Dear God,

Please save us from your crazy religions. But don't save all of us - only the best. There are too many fucking people as it is, and most of them are useless. A little wave of death might be a good thing. And then you can put up another rainbow.

Geiskiesel: Right now, I am not in the mood to argue about the the issues you are raising. Perhaps another time or perhaps in another thread.

I would like to go on record as stating that Nazi Germany was one of the most evil societies in history. While I sympathize with the situation created by the WW1 treaty imposed on them, I never felt it justified the actions they took. My reaction to speeches by Hitler and German patriotic songs was at odds with my opinion of the Nazi society.

I wonder if you read my post carefully or merely scanned it.

You seem to be pro-Islamic and anti-American. I wonder why
No you are wring I simply see what I see , I see our govt as being involved i nthe deepest corruptions are you too patriotic to see defectss?

Geistkiesel: Perhaps my hands are not clean here, but this thread asked about the reasons for anti-Semitism. I think there is an implication that the question relates to the reasons for prejudice and mistreatment of Jews prior to the 20th century.

Even if my interpretation of the question asked is incorrect, the thread has drifted far from its original intent.

You seem to want to argue that the US is very corrupt. I also suspect that you wish to discuss the current Palestinian/Israeli problem, and are pro-Palestinian. Perhaps these are topics for another thread. If I notice another thread addressing these issues, I am likely to comment. I have expressed my view of the reasons for anti-Jewish attitudes and persecution of Jews from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 20th century, and for the time being, feel I have nothing further to contribute to this thread.

My take on Anti-Semitism:

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/anti-semitism/

:m:

PROUT: A Socio-Economic Theory for the New Millennium

One of the necessary factors in the development of a healthy society is a proper socio-economic theory. In any age people have to come to grips with the question as to how the resources of the world are to be utilized and allocated. In addition, society needs to arrange a system of government which can meet the needs of all its members. The answers which the society gives to these concerns reflects the socio*economic values which that society follows.

Today there are two theories which shape the world's approach to economics and politics. Only a few nations still follow economic and political systems and policies which are based on Marxism, while most others have fashioned systems based on capitalism. What is becoming increasingly clear is that neither Marxism nor capitalism are satisfying the all-around needs of society, and the time is right for the introduction of new socio-economic ideas which can fulfill the demands of humanity. In 1959 in a series of lectures later published as Idea and Ideology, P.R. Sarkar first described a socio-economic theory which he called Progressive Utilization Theory, known by the acronym PROUT).

Although it is possible to show that PROUT has similarities with the existing socio-economic philosophies, a deep understanding of Sarkar's ideas shows that PROUT stands alone in the world today, in that it is based on a spiritual rather than materialistic conception of the universe and of humanity. The idea that all animate and inanimate objects are part of one Supreme Consciousness and are to be treated as part of an integrated whole is the base of PROUT. Just as capitalism and Marxism emerged in an era when physicists and philosophers held a materialistic and mechanistic outlook, PROUT is emerging at a time when humanity is beginning to accept a holistic and spiritual view of the universe.

This holistic and spiritual base helps to define a new view of economics, history and political leadership and offers the hope that humanity can find a way out of the present socio-economic crisis.

One way to understand PROUT is to consider Sarkar's definitions of the words progress, utilization and theory by which he defines this new theory. According to Sarkar, progress, in its true sense, takes place on the spiritual plane because only there can one move towards a goal without provoking a counter movement. In the physical sphere, on the other hand, there is "development" such as the invention of the automobile, but it is always accompanied by counter*acting trends, such as the pollution of the automobiles and the increased risk of injury and death in accidents.

In the mental or psychic sphere there is also develop*ment such as the increase of knowledge amongst the masses in the contemporary era, but once again there are negative results of the development such as the increase of stress, psychic complexes and mental illness which accompanies mental development. The idea of progress defined by Sarkar is for humans to adjust themselves to changing develop*ments in the physical and psychic world while moving towards the spiritual goal.

Utilization means that the resources of the universe should be used to promote the good and happiness of all, not just of a few. And utilization of resources also applies to supra*mundane, spiritual and psychic potentials which are commonly neglected in many economic approaches.

Some theories are good in the theoretical realm but cannot be materialized in the practical world due to changing circum*stances. A theory which has been developed after observing the economic situation of the 19th century may no longer apply in the 21st century. Some theories have been advanced by hypocrites who never had any intention to materialize their theory, while others were put forward by logicians who are content to live only in an abstract world and thus these theories have no practical utility for society.

Sarkar contends that the best kind of theory is one which is based on a careful assessment of events in the world and which also has built within it the capacity to adjust to changing environmental circumstances. The Progressive Utilization Theory is such a theory which is based on an observation of society and also has within it the means to maintain adjustment with changes in the world

PROUT incorporates these concepts of progress and of utilization in a theory which is defined in five fundamental principles:

1. "No individual should be allowed to accumulate any physical wealth without the clear permission or approval of the collective body.

This principle strikes at the fundamental weakness of capitalism which allows a few individuals to accumulate wealth even if it results in the starvation of millions. It clearly establishes the basis of a collective approach to economic questions. While the principle calls for limitations on the individual possession of physical wealth which is something finite, it does not call for limitations on wealth in the mental and spiritual sphere, because that is an infinite treasure of humanity which should not be restricted. Under the Marxism, this distinction between physical and psychic wealth was not understood, and the severe restrictions placed on freedom of thought and religion led to the downfall of most systems based on this theory.



2. "There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of all mundane, supramundane and spiritual potentialities of the universe.


This principle encourages society to utilize all resources of the universe to satisfy human needs. "Rational distribution", means that the minimum necessities of all should be guaranteed but that individuals who have contributed special services to society should be given special rewards to encourage their work and to encourage others also to contribute more to society. Rational distribution does not mean equal distribution.


3. "There should be maximum utilization and rational distribution of all physical, metaphysical and spiritual potentialities of the unit and collective body of human society.

This principle refers to the utilization of human resources, and states that a healthy society must develop the po*tentialities of all people. By denying large segments humanity chances for educational and economic development, the present day society is not correctly utilizing precious human resources. This principle also calls attention to the need to balance collective good with individual good.

4. "There should be a proper adjustment amongst these physical, metaphysical, mundane, supra mundane, and spiritual utilizations."

Here Sarkar is saying that society should inspire people to work for the individual and collective good, and thus he urges that provisions will be made so that all can earn their minimum necessities through appropriate work. This principle also calls for society to make proper use of comparatively rare faculties such as spirituality

5. "The method of utilization should vary in accordance with changes in time, space and person, and the utilization should be of a progressive nature."

This principle provides society with a means of adapting to changing circumstances and also calls on humans to utilize scientific research guided by Neo-Humanism in order to bring about the welfare of all.


Economy of PROUT

How the principles of PROUT could be applied in society is for the moment a theoretical question as no country as yet has introduced PROUT. Also the means of implemen*ting PROUT will vary from age to age. However, in Sarkar's writings and in the writings of other PROUTist commentators we can see how the principles of PROUT could be used to bring about an economic system that can best be described as Progressive Socialism: a non-Marxist socialism based on Neo-Humanism.

In his writings on industrial and economic policies, Sarkar has stressed the need to prevent economic exploita*tion. Thus he says that the important economic enterprises which supply people with their basic necessities of life should not be placed in the hands of private enterprise. Sarkar was also aware of the failings of central governments to directly control such enterprises.

To organise an economy on Proutist lines requires a three-tiered economy. Small enterprises employing few peo*ple and which do not deal with essential goods and services can be managed and owned as private businesses (e.g. a small restaurant).

The second tier, which consists of the majority of enterprises, would be set up as cooperatives, owned and managed by the people who work in the industries. The workers would be the stockholders of these businesses and would choose the management just as stockholders do today. The third category consists of the largest enterprises which employ large amounts of people and which have important effects on various parts of the economy - the key industries (such as steel production, energy, transport, etc). These should be managed by either autonomous public boards or by local governments, but not by central governments. This category would run on a no-profit, no-loss system.

Such a system would also follow the principle of economic decentralization and this could be accomplished by re-organizing the economy on the basis of self-sufficient economic zones in which there would be balanced agricultural, industrial, and service sectors of the economy.

The idea of the Proutist economy is to provide a good standard of living to all people and to see that economic power is not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Theorv of history and Government

To bring such a system into being requires new governmental arrangements. Various socialistic experiments of the 19th and 20th Century ended up in failure, disappointment and much worse. How this can be avoided in the future is best understood by examining P.R Sarkar's new interpretation of history which he delineates in the book Human Society.

Sarkar says that history can be understood as the cyclical dominance of the different classes of society. His con*cept of class is however far different from previous, materialistic ideas of class. Sarkar defines class by mental characteristics rather than physical or materialistic concerns. He says that at the dawn of humanity the dominant mentality or class was that of the Shudras - people in whom matter is dominant over mind. These people were primarily concerned with the struggle to survive. Throughout history the toiling people concerned with physical survival belong to this class of Shudras or workers.

Sarkar notes that leadership of society then passed into the hands of people with another mentality. The class of Ksattriyas (warriors) developed the mentality that "with my physical force I will overcome the world (matter)". From the times of the Neolithic period and throughout the period known as "ancient history," this class ruled society. The chronicles of wars fought by the great civilizations of the Middle East are an example of this age of warriors.

With the further evolution of society another class rose to predominance. The Vipras or intellectuals had a different approach to the conquest of the world. They thought, "With my mental force I will overcome the world." Thus in the Middle Ages, ministers, advisors or priests (popes, Imams, etc.) held the real power of society even though warrior-kings were often the nominal rulers. This intellectual class brought about psychic and sometimes new spiritual ideas, but they also exploited society and are responsible for the religious wars of that time.

The cycle of society is always moving. The intellectuals ceded their authority to a class of Vaeshyas or capitalists who created the industrial and commercial revolutions that ushered in the modern age. The mentality of this class is to use mental strength to accumulate wealth. Just as the warrior age had a particular type of government, monarchy, and the intellectual age had its variation of monarchy which Sarkar calls Ministocracy, the age of capitalism saw the rise of democracy. Currently most countries of the world are in the capitalist era.

According to Sarkar this Vaeshyan era is near its end and it will finish with social revolution of economically, politically and psychologically oppressed masses. Following revolution, the age of warriors will come again.

But is the future of civilization so dim that we can only expect revolution and military dictatorship in the future? Sarkar's theory holds forth another possibility. He says that the best arrangement is for the evolution of a declassed human whom he calls the Sadvipra. The Sadvipra is a spiritually and morally based revolutionary who works against the exploitation of any particular class. The problem with most social changes in the past is that inevitably the class which initiated the change eventually ended up exploiting the other segments of society. The only way to avoid this is to create Sadvipras who will work for the rights of all.

The political concept of PROUT is based on establishing an electorate composed of spiritually developed people. Democracy of the present day will have to be reformed. Today democracy, although better than any other system yet introduced, has a number of weaknesses. First of all there is no provision for the economic rights of the people and democracy has even been the preferred government of powerful economic interests who can easily buy their way into influence and power. In addition there are three basic qualities often lacking in the electorate which insures that a very poor standard of leaders are elected year after year.

The three qualities are as follows: Education: where many illiterate or uneducated people vote then unscrupulous politicians take advantage and get votes easily through dishonest practices. This is particularly prevalent in the less developed countries. Morality is another quality that is missing. If more than 51 per cent of people are dishonest, then dishonest people can be elected. Another missing ingredient is Socio*economic-political consciousness. Mere education is not enough. Those voting must know what they are voting for or else they will easily be misled by opportunistic politicians. Thus, Sarkar says that the standard of education, morality and socio-economic consciousness must be raised and from amongst such a public, real leaders with the spirit of social service (the Sadvipra) can then emerge and serve society. With such universalistic leadership, humanity can reverse the weaknesses of the present period and will be able to set up a social and economic system which is rational, just and truly progressive.




For more information about the Progressive Utilization Theory, visit the following websites:

http://www.prout.org
http://www.proutworld.org
http://www.ru.org

If you read the book of 'Esther' from the Bible there was a man trying to wipe out the Jews and that was in the 'Old Testament'!! So anti jewish movements have been around for a very,very long time.

so all these people throughout the centuries, milenia even.. maybe they've been on to something..
could it be that jews really should be dealt with once and for all
just imagine.. no more jews to whine of holocaust, no more jews to ask compensations, etc, etc! :m:!

What's the difference?
Antisemitism is hating people who are or were jewish because they are or were jewish, or because they were decended from jews. The Spanish Inquisition against the Jews, Moriscos, and everything else that wasn't catholic was like that.

Religious Persecution is persecuting because they believe in it, but not simply because they are decended from other jews. What the Romans did was this.

Naciketa: How does your theory relate to anti-semitism?

Your theory is a variation of communist socialist concepts described as something else. It is a bankrupt theory which requires a huge bureaucracy and a totalitarian police state for its implementation.

Why not start a new thread to sell your concepts?

Religion Incarnation #1: Polytheism

Polytheistic religions such as Greek, Roman, and Egyptian served their populaces fairly well, and reflected the nature of their respective societal values (or lack thereof) at the time.

The Good: Polytheistic religions allowed followers to pick their favorite or most useful deity for the purpose at hand.

The Bad: Polytheistic religions were not very good at unifying populations as localities often centered their efforts around a select few deities, which were often different from those of neighboring localities.

The Ugly: Polytheistic religions did not typically reflect ideals for human civilization to aspire to. The "Gods" were more like exaggerated humans, flaws and all.

Religious Incarnation #2: Monotheism part 1

The first monotheistic religion was that of Akhnaton (formerly called Amenhotep IV).

The Good: In an effort to unify the people of Egypt, he tried to distill Egyptian polytheism down to one god, Aton.

The Bad: Unfortunately, he tried to do so by force and without first inspiring the people of Egypt to his cause.

The Ugly: Since he upset the installed power base of the Egyptian Priesthood, his son Tutankhaten (later, Tutankhamun, or King "Tut"), was likely killed at age 17 in an effort to restore the old ways.

Religious Incarnation #3: Monotheism part 2

The Jewish people were the first truly successful monotheists.

The Good: The Jews changed the nature of religious belief to inspire a code of conduct that would foster the development of civilized and productive society.

The Bad: However, in doing so, they chose to isolate themselves from their polytheistic forebearers and thus engendered much disdain. Today, Judaism survives more as a heritage than a religion, but due to its introverted nature and stubborn resistence to assimilation, will always be looked upon with suspicion by outsiders.

The Ugly: The Jewish people have historically been made an easy scapegoat. The lack of an altruistic "help thy non-jew neighbor" doctrine makes it easy to see them as selfish and/or greedy. In addition, thousands of years of persecution have led to a darwinian effect. Only the most successful and bright have been able to survive (which makes them appear to have undue influence relative to their % of the population). Unfortunately, most people don't realize that the majority of jewish people today are secular and don't really care about religion for religion's sake.

Religious Incarnation #4: Monotheism part 3

Christianity was born out of the Jewish faith and popularized by Roman Emporer Constantine, who leveraged its monotheistic nature to unify the disparate groups that encompassed his vast empire. The evangelical nature of Christianity was an important development as it created a marketing campaign to ensure its spread.

The Good: Christianity followed the jewish example of promoting virtuous values to promote the growth of advanced civilization, but took the extrapolation out much further. The original premise of non-violence and love they neighbor offered the world a collective approach that would yeild more optimal result for humanity in the long-run.

The Bad: Unfortunately, the success of Christianity and its ingratiation into the Roman order quickly turned it into a empirical, bureaucratic organization. Devout believers of Christianity began worshiping the canonized dogma of religion itself rather than the original principles it promoted.

The Ugly: The mental gymastics required to fully believe (as real-world historical and logical fact) in "the trinity," satan, the crucifixion and resurrection, or the general fundamental accuracy of the bible leaves the human mind succeptible to many other breaches of reason. It is interesting to ponder the true historical aspect of the life of Jesus, and how Roman politics shaped the nature of modern Christianity (and in-effect, perpetuated anti-semitism). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas explicates one possibility.

Good summary, sleeper! Although you seem to have omitted Islam from your list, which is a rather large monotheistic religion.

True... I left out Islam, as well as the myriad of eastern religions, which progressed along a different path. My knowledge of these topics is somewhat less, however, I will take a shot a delineating Islam in the same manner:

Religious Incarnation #5: Monotheism part 4

Islam emerged in the second half of the first millenia A.D. in an effort to reconcile jewish and christian beliefs under one roof, reverse the socio-empirical effects that influenced christianity, and to unwind the twisted leaps of logic brought about by the council of nicea.

The Good: By maintaining the validity of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Prophets, but segregating them from divinity, Islam attempted to combine the best of both worlds and appeal to followers of other faiths.

The Bad: The birth of Islam was too near that of Christianity, chronologically speaking, and the progess of civilization and historical record keeping made it difficult to justify. In addition, after the tumultuous religous variegation in the past few centuries, the desire to maintain its idealogical base precipitated the concepts of Apostacy and the dire consequences imposed on anyone who defected from Islam.

The Ugly: Due to the timing of its introduction, and the lack of an emprical mandate, Islam had to fight for its existence, and hence has a significantly more militant structure. This, combined with a even more dogmatic approach and devout following, has resulted in zealotry on an unprecendented scale. In addition, the fact that it did not permeate through a well developed political structure meant that Islam was able to subsume governmental functions.

So much of history is contained within the myopia of the story tellers. For example, the whole world existed, even at the time of "Alexander", yet he was known as the conquerer of the world, despite that attribution having been limited to the perimeters of the claimants' perspective of the world. Similarly for Ghenghis Kahn, and on it goes. Similarly, there is much of history that is ignored by people, often because they have been underinformed by predecessors. Monotheism has thrived in many different parts of the world and done so "successfully", truly.



The Jewish people were the first truly successful monotheists.

God called the Jew's "His People" so naturally everyone else ( the Gentiles) got jealous.

Some truth here. It appears this factor, or its unevitable percievement, was a recipe for disaster. The Jews were given, or came to believe they were given such a command, which guaranteed them to be hated, and they had no options: laws commanding Jews not to eat or drink or dress as others is a sure fire recipe of causing others to be insulted. If there is a method in this seeming madness is a question which is not related to Jews.

Sorry to burst anyone's bubbles, but A/S predates Islam, Christianity, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Egypt and Canaan. This was told to Abraham before the nation of Israel existed or can be accused of any sins or crimes:

"KNOW FOR A SURETY THY SEED SHALL BE IN BONDAGE" [Genesis].

This factor of a prophesy before any crimes are commited casts a whole new slant. Israel was born after Isaac, whereby Jabob's name was changed to Israel. There was no Jewish nation before this time.

So much of history is contained within the myopia of the story tellers. For example, the whole world existed, even at the time of "Alexander", yet he was known as the conquerer of the world, despite that attribution having been limited to the perimeters of the claimants' perspective of the world. Similarly for Ghenghis Kahn, and on it goes. Similarly, there is much of history that is ignored by people, often because they have been underinformed by predecessors. Monotheism has thrived in many different parts of the world and done so "successfully", truly.

I agree that monotheism, like human speech, is inherent in all humanity. Yet we also have ways which distance us from this truth and it is denied in various forms, even via science and politics.

Jews create resentment sometimes when they refuse to assimilate into the dominant culture, creating their own economy of special foods and religious accessories. Path is right, it's a kind of illogical xenophobia. If a Jew or anyone else didn't think that their way of life was better or preferable, they wouldn't persue it. Jews have also had a long history of creating their own niche in the various societies they inhabited that necessarily benefited the larger population, which shows a high degree of diplomatic skill. Unfortunately, when the economy goes south, they become the scapegoat.

the jews typically were "the other" and "the other" typically doesn't do very well. bad time just intensify this.

Yes, assimilated, but not completely, they still spoke Yiddish, for instance.

actually most of the german jewry spoke german it was in poland that they mainly spoke yiddish and hebrew.

the jews typically were "the other" and "the other" typically doesn't do very well. bad time just intensify this.

You forgot to retract your Ahmedinajab genocidically inclined but false statement Jews are not a nation - I gave you factual, written proof you are wrong.

actually most of the german jewry spoke german it was in poland that they mainly spoke yiddish and hebrew.

And the Hebrew portion says where the German Jews came from. Muslims dumped a mosque on the German Jews' homeland and now deny it in their sermons and Madarassas. It does not anything good about anything which comes from liers posing as a religion, does it?

You forgot to retract your Ahmedinajab genocidically inclined but false statement Jews are not a nation- well I agree their not they a religion.
I gave you factual, written proof you are wrong.

No you posted religious propaganda and I ignored.

And the Hebrew portion says where the German Jews came from. no it doesn't.

Congratulations, post 53 is resonable.


Sorry to burst anyone's bubbles, but A/S predates Islam, Christianity, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Egypt and Canaan. This was told to Abraham before the nation of Israel existed or can be accused of any sins or crimes:

"KNOW FOR A SURETY THY SEED SHALL BE IN BONDAGE" [Genesis].

This factor of a prophesy before any crimes are commited casts a whole new slant. Israel was born after Isaac, whereby Jabob's name was changed to Israel. There was no Jewish nation before this time.

But in this post you ignore that modern scholarly historical consensus is that Abraham and Isaac are fictitious characters.

Congratulations, post 53 is resonable.



But in this post you ignore that modern scholarly historical consensus is that Abraham and Isaac are fictitious characters.

Oh yes, I forgot. Just like you forgot they said the same thing about King David. And Muslims think Moses was a Muslim and dumping a mosque in another peoples land and calling themselves Palestineans makes it sacred Islamic soil. Mostly you forgot to say why Abraham is a ficticious character and where he copied Monotheism from. :D

no it doesn't.

Unlike any evidence of Arabs before 500 BCE and that the Quran is not a lift off of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, there is solid proof [not just evidence] how Jews landed in Europe. The Arabs were in the front rows destroying a mythical temple the Gospels says one Jesus visited. Maybe all the other Roman archives are also fakes - made by Jews! How come you are never monitored of all the jargon you post - is your favourite word TROLLING? :D

Unlike any evidence of Arabs before 500 BCE and that the Quran is not a lift off of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, there is solid proof [not just evidence] how Jews landed in Europe. The Arabs were in the front rows destroying a mythical temple the Gospels says one Jesus visited. Maybe all the other Roman archives are also fakes - made by Jews! How come you are never monitored of all the jargon you post - is your favourite word TROLLING? :D

probably because I deal with historical fact and arabs never destroyed a jewish temple in Jersulam