Why does it feel as though powerful governments of the world are pushing historical enemies into direct confrontation with one another? Why? Why now? There are several flash points around the world, a major one being Israel.
The Six-Day War that took place between June 5th and June 10th, 1967 was viewed by the Israelis as a preventative measure to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The war took place against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel won and gained additional territory, the West Bank of the River Jordan, which is bounded by Israel to the north, west and south. To its east lies Jordan.
Following the war, Israel and Palestine have been in a conflict that could impact the entire world if it escalates.
Since the Six Day War Israel’s occupation of the West Bank has been a partial cause of ongoing battles across borders between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews, with much of the western world siding with the Palestinians.
There was a time when Israel drew some sympathy from the west when Israel was under constant attack; but the sympathy has waned. Today, Israel is demonized. This is largely due to the contempt Israel has demonstrated for its lack of administering basic Human Rights to Palestinians, which are afforded under International Law. The Israeli government has become a law unto itself. Not wishing to concede Palestine’s demands is one thing, but practicing unnecessary brutality against Palestinian citizens has brought Israel into disrepute.
Israel has a dire need to protect its people, but the Israeli government has without a doubt set neighbour against neighbour. Israel has the military advantage so Israel will always carry the blame for being unfair, while both sides are to blame for the ongoing hostilities. The conflict is bitter and neither side will concede. As time moves on the problems appear intractable, but now Israel wants to exacerbate the situation?
Israel wants to annex parts of the West Bank, which would give Israel sovereignty over the territory. Under International Law such a move is illegal. The last place to be annexed was Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in 2014.
Israel is surrounded by enemies and the West Bank would certainly give Israel a strategic military advantage. The Palestinians have said many times publically, that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
Israel’s nuclear capability is said to act as a deterrent, but such whims have always ended badly.
Israel won the West Bank during the Six Day War and they have taken possession with gusto. The government has subsequently built settlements on the land. Israel naturally wants to protect its citizens, especially those on the borders where people are particularly vulnerable to ongoing attacks, but it also makes historical claims to the land, which call into question, how far a nation can stretch its religious and ancestral prowess and at what cost. The Jewish people have survived by keeping faith with their ancestry and religious practices. There are many fears associated with letting go and moving forward into a more homogeneous society. The birth rate among the Palestinians is much higher than that of the Israeli’s, this poses a serious threat to Jewish survival.
While much of the world opposes the annexation, including the United Nations, the US President Donald Trump is giving his support to it.
After Donald Trump’s election to office, he decided to get up close to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and show himself to be a President who is a friend of Israel, but what sort of friend rides roughshod over neighbouring states to the extent that it would destabilize the whole region? I believe there is more to Donald Trumps’ offer of friendship than meets the eye. Trump deals in finances, not care for peoples’ lives.
Donald Trump took it upon himself to draft a peace plan, since many had failed before. There was nothing remarkably new about Trump’s plan, which included the annexation. (The plan was rejected by the Palestinians). Without doubt, Trump’s plan has pushed the annexation forward.
Between 2.1 million and 3 million (sources vary) Palestinian Arabs live in the West Bank under both limited self-rule and Israeli military rule.
The West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) is also home to some 430,000 Israeli Jews who live in 132 settlements (and 124 smaller outposts) built during Israel’s occupation.
The vast majority of the western world consider the settlements to be illegal under International Law, but Israel and the Trump administration have their own interpretation of the Law.
The parts of the West Bank which contain Jewish settlements are planned for annexation as well as most of the land along the West Bank’s boundary with Jordan, known as the Jordan Valley. The move is highly provocative and could end in disaster for Jews and Palestinians alike.
Israel will undoubtedly be looking to build more settlements and the annexation will make the process easier, since Israel will have sole control of the area, but where will it leave the people who have to live there? Already, Jews are under constant fire from the other side of the borders. Annexation is bound to make it worse. Added to this, it will undermine any future peace talks or hope of a more stabilized and cooperative future, for Palestinians and Jews in the region.
If this annexation takes place it will concretize and legitimize the rule of despotic leaders, east and west. These are never one-off situations, they shed their bravado far and wide.
There is a current debate on Marx and Marxism that is happening across academia, which has drawn my attention.
In the 1960s and beyond, Marx was very popular with socialists (and still is), and a number of Jews became followers of Marx based on the notion that Communism was about community and Jews have always been very community minded. However, recently Marxism has been called into question, not just for its unworkable politics, but also as being anti-Semitism.
In the 1960s Europe was still mourning the losses from Fascism, but Fascism and Communism were not the same thing. Added to this, there was significant evidence to affirm Adolf Hitler’s hatred of Communism, this has been well documented. Nonetheless, Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto, is being accused of anti-Semitism.
In the 1960s it was trendy for rebellious youths to call themselves Communists, while many did not understand the tenants of the Communist ideology, many were led by intellectuals who did. It was an attractive proposition for the oppressed, keeping in mind there was little knowledge of the deaths and torture brought about by Eastern Europe’s Communist revolutions or the pogroms. The focus was on what used to be the Soviet Union (USSR), which has since been dismantled.
Importantly, Communism was a real threat to Capitalism across the world, both Australia and America banned Communism and invoked penalties for members of Communist groups that included imprisonment. Needless to say, for those who followed Communism, Karl Marx was the ultimate hero, but his works were voluminous and only read by the dedicated few, the rest just followed the leaders into Communist activism and groups.
Marx was a brilliant economist, philosopher and sociologist, but many of his readers were more interested in his philosophies than Communism as a direct system of government. It was the mass working class who were drawn to Communism and Socialism, which had real and tangible roots in past revolutions.
When populations woke up to the horrors of the Holocaust all forms of Socialism went out of favour. At the same time, the world embarked on a Cold War, so Communism was also off the agenda.
More recently, various leaders of the Socialist left have been closely scrutinized, especially in regard to their possible anti-Semitism. Hence, in today’s political climate all forms of Socialism are regarded as anti-Jewish and today, Marx is being viewed in a very different light, not just as a Communist, but also as an anti-Semite. Added to this, it is being argued that Hitler was very influenced by Karl Marx.
Marx was Jew from a distinguished rabbinical lineage and although he rebelled against Judaism and its traditions, it is hard to imagine Hitler following the ideas of any Jew since he was known for his intense hatred of anything connected to the Jews and Judaism and his campaigns against the Jews were deeply personal. Nonetheless, the connection between Hitler and Marx is being avidly promulgated across the western world.
It is true to say that Marx was a believer in uniformity and he wanted to change the Jewish culture to make it both secular and inclusive, he was not the only Jew pursuing this cause. Jews, by nature were very insular, they had to be after centuries of persecution. Today the context has changed, but Marxist writings on the Jews as anti-social are being reiterated.
In the 1960s the multicultural views held by Marx were not thought to be anti-Semitic. However, today, the Marxist discourse is viewed as a direct attack on Jews and in particular an attack on Israel, despite the fact that Israel did not exist at the time of Marx’s writing.
Importantly, in the 1960s and beyond many Jews were Marxists and Communists. The major imperative in Judaism has always been to heal the world (Tikkun Olam) and it was not unreasonable to suggest that a new form of government was needed at the helm of such a huge task.
Also, it needs to be considered that Marx was responding to the times, and while there were a number of affluent Jews, most Jews were desperately poor and living in shocking conditions with little work or food. Hence, the coming together of Jews and Marxism should not be cause for surprise. With this in mind, it begs the question, what is it that sees Marx categorized as anti-Semitic? Why are we reading Marx so differently today than we did in the 1960s?
There used to be a clear distinction between Communism and Socialism. Today, we hardly hear about Communism, even though there are still Communist governments. In addition, what we understood to be Communism was not truly what Marx envisaged instead Communism was (and is) just another form of state controlled government.
While Communism largely failed, Socialism has managed to hang on to the threads that were always already historically racist. Socialism also bled into Anarchism, particularly in the revival of works by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. 1809-1865.
Proudhon was a French politician and the founder of the mutualist philosophy and he is considered to be one of the Anarchist’s most influential theorists. He became a member of the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848.
Proudhon was fiercely anti-Semitic, calling not for the end of what Jews represent, but of the Jews as a people. This is the call that is being reiterated today by the Socialists. The royalist group Action Française, and the Jew-hater Charles Maurras, drew inspiration from Proudhon and this is the bitter legacy that has endured,
Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, but he was not the first communist. This title goes to the French Revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf 1796.
Marx is author of a work titled On the Jewish Question, which is the tract that has drawn him into the arena of accused anti-Semites. There is no doubt that Marx ‘s works were anti-religious, he questioned religion, but he was certainly not considered an anti-Semite until recently. There has been a distinct shift, whereby anti-religion (Judaism) is also viewed as being anti-Semitic. This has come about since the establishment of the Jewish State, Israel and crucially most of Israel’s most fervent enemies are either politically Socialist or influenced by Islamic socialist beliefs.
The critique of Marx as an anti-Semite focuses on his book titled On the Jewish Question. It was a response to a short book called The Jewish Question which was written by his revolutionary contemporary Bruno Bauer. Marx held significant influence on politics and culture at a time when the struggle was largely against aristocratic privilege. Jews did not form a part of the aristocratic cohort, but a few had affluent businesses that serviced them.
The dynamics shifted focus after the Second World War following the collapse of socialist idealism and the rise of Liberalism. Much of the debate focused on the Holocaust, then it shifted with post-colonialism to various forms of racism. Marx was known for his writings on Capitalism, but attention was aroused by his little known book On the Jewish Question, which was relegated to the genre of anti-Semitism along with Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alleged to be a forgery instigated by the Freemasons.
The accusations against Marx have also coincided with Revisionism (an attempt to rewrite history, especially in regard to the Jews and the Holocaust). Claims have arisen to suggest that Marx had a great influence on Adolf Hitler. Socialists around the world have used this claim to shift attention away from the Holocaust and to invoke an anti-Semitism that finds its expression in a homogenized worldview and the ongoing war against the State of Israel. This in turn, has been linked to a war against American and western values. It has galvanized the left and the right into condemnation of the Jews.
The Jews are used to being caught in the middle of left and right politics, but this has served to deepen the racial divide.
It is claimed that Marx’s attitude toward the Jews is discernible in the tendency of his modern followers to accept the various characteristics that Marx ascribed to the Jews in On the Jewish Question as negative and then to overlay those same characteristics onto condemnation of a global free market.
Marx described Jews as possessing an anti-social element, but what Marx meant by this should not be directed only towards the Jews. Generally, Marx viewed the human character as a positive attribute believing that everyone should reach their full potential and he attempted to adopt a free and open society that would have included Jews (but not religion).
The characteristics that Marx attributes to the Jews are basic in the human condition. In order to accomplish his goal of world transformation toward Communism, Marx advised, and rightfully from his point of view, that the human elements he ascribed to the Jews would have to be expunged from all people, not just Jews. He advocated that in order to affect his view of progress, there had to be unity.
This can be read in different ways. Marx did not invent anti-Semitism, the occurrence goes back as far as the events described in the biblical Book of Esther, events which are believed to have occurred around 400 B.C. The Book of Esther is read during the Jewish holiday of Purim. As the story goes, Haman, the chief advisor to Achashverosh, the Emperor of the Persians and the Medes, sought to annihilate the Jewish people because of the action of one Jew, Mordecai, who refused to bow down in his presence. What followed was a plot to annihilate the Jews.
While Marx was not religious or a racist, but his book has been interpreted as a voice for political anti-Semitism in times when racism should be been eradicated simply through intellectual and economic advancement. The most classic statement found in On the Jewish Question, reads as follows:
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
This is seemingly Jew attacking Jew which is not uncommon. The fact that Marx was a Jew makes the statement self-effacing and we know Marx struggled with his own Judaism. Even when seen as political criticism of the Jews, if anyone has a right to such criticism it is another Jew. Does this make the statement anti-Semitic? The term aniti-Semitic is in itself problematic and offensive because not all Semites are Jews.
On the Jewish Question has been criticized from both the left and the right and Marx has been accused of establishing a distinctly Jewish stereotype, which has left its mark on Jewish society as different, alien and out to corrupt the world. Was this Marx’s intention to single out Jews as the only form of corruption? No.
Marx viewed certain characteristics as obstacles that were standing in the way of progress and clearly, Marx drew heavily on his own background. What Marx gave to empiricism was the ability to draw on personal experience.
Marx called Judaism false consciousness. Freud, also a Jew did roughly the same, but Freud was not labelled an anti-Semite, albeit he was largely against religion.
It has also been argued that Marx’s reference to consciousness resonates with the social version of the Nazi theory, which was that the Jews posed as a biological corrupting element in Germany and the world. Thus, Marx contended, this false consciousness would disintegrate if Judaism were to disappear. In my view, this is a gross misreading of Marx and his intentions.
For me as a past reader of Marx, the Jews had much more in common with Marxism than we are led to believe, which is why so many Jews became followers of the cause. Marx turned reality in a utopian dream and we all had to wake up from the dream. It is true that Marx would have imposed his ideas on the entire world had it been possible, but is this not what the United States are doing today under the guise of democracy?
One might suggest that the desire to conquer any nation is an act of racism. Conquest is inherent with racism, I don’t think singling out Marx as a racist is going to change this. What it does do is undermine the knowledge and insight Marx did give to the world in analysis and learning.
Are you interested in the neurosciences? Then let us explore a little quantum mechanics.
There are many parallels. I am not a physicist and quantum mechanics can be very complex or very simple. I will take the simple route.
First, forget everything you have read or been taught about God because God is allegory. Everything you have learned from religion is allegory. We are allegory!!! Second, there is nothing new in quantum mechanics, it was knowledge common to the ancient Hebrews and the Egyptians and it has been passed down through metaphor and symbolism, originally depicted in the workings of the Sun, stars and universe; astronomy and astrology.
Quantum mechanics describes the universe.
The universe is made up of matter and energy. In quantum mechanics this is known as particles and waves. There are some particles we know of and others still to be discovered. The two main particles are the Boson and the Fermions. Light, is the creator of the universe, an electromagnetic phenomenon, it is the most familiar form of Boson.
Fermions are present in the most common substances of our world. Fermions are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons, or the key substances we call atoms.
Fermions can in turn be subdivided into two groups, leptons, invisible particles, which include nutrinos, particles that play a key role in the universe and are likely left over from the Big Bang. The other group of Fermions are the hedrons. The hedrons are made up of smaller units of particles, which we call quarks.
Hedrons are assembled from three quarks and we call these baryons. The baryons are key to Creation. All atomic nuclei are composed of baryons. These are better referred to as nuclear matter as many of the baryons disappear as soon as they are created.
The most important thing to remember is this, in our universe most of the substances are made up of Fermions, electrons, protons and neutrons, with the exception of a subclass called dark matter, this is made up of the “missing” mass of the universe, (galaxies should have more mass than they do in order to retain their shape).
In order to understand the relevance of quantum mechanics we need to probe the processes of Creation and the earliest forms of particle behaviour, which will include one other property known as antimatter.
In the theory of relativity, the total mass of a particle is not constant, it includes the mass associated with its energy and motion, Einstein’s equation E = mc2. (This has also been the topic of an acclaimed disambiguation and the uncertainty principle).
Leaving the challenges aside, the scientist Paul Dirac in 1933 discovered the antiparticle, one that moves in reverse direction. While it appeared impossible to have particles moving in opposite directions at the same time, it was discovered that all Fermions have a corresponding antiparticle. For example, the antiparticle of an electron is called a positron and an antiparticle of each type of quark is called an antiquark.
Matter and antimatter are identical except that they have opposite charges. When particles of the opposite type come into contact with each other they annihilate each other turning into a burst of light – two photons – whose combined energy is related to the total mass of the two particles. Einstein’s equation E = mc2 .
The knowledge of our world is that it contains fewer than one hundred kinds of atoms, that is normal matter, which in turn constitutes twenty-nine fundamental particles and their variants. However, the vast majority of matter in the universe remains invisible. We can only glimpse its existence in the motions of the universe. Much like consciousness, we know we are conscious human beings, but we cannot see consciousness or know for sure where it originates from.
The scientific evidence suggests that most of the matter in the universe is dark matter, something we know little about. We know of its existence when it becomes slightly visible in the halos of galaxies, stars and nebulae heated directly or indirectly by other stars.
To be clear, the world we experience is one of light and atoms, composed of Bosons and Fermions. These are characterized by their tendency to aggregate and being either indistinguishable or having the need to segregate and thus, becoming individually identifiable.
It has taken thousands of years to get this small amount of information. Imagine what is missing from the equations.
What have we missed?
In Jewish mysticism the universal forms and their relationships derive from a common source God’s spoken Word as it was recorded in Genesis. The scientific picture when deconstructed is not very different. In both versions there are particles and forces.
We know that the nature of particles sees them interacting with one another without coming into actual contact. In science this does not appear to be a strange phenomenon, but when we relate it to religions or the existence of a God or mystical energy, doubts are raised. What is this invisible force? How can we know it when it is invisible?
The historical context of this knowledge is important. In ancient times, the world’s rulers gathered much of their strength and kudos through their approval of pagan gods and goddesses (their alter-ego). In some cases rulers were the perceived to be gods. The allocation of the supreme gods made sense to the agrarian populations because they resonated with nature.
However, the vision of nature stopped at the borders of our planet. What was in the heavens was a mystery, but it was not a mystery to all. It was in fact, a carefully guarded secret.
Knowledge is power said the modern philosopher Michel Foucault and in many cases those with knowledge of the universe threatened the powerful and established elites.
The real scientific meanings hidden in the religious texts were highly protected. Indeed, Creation, Revelation and Redemption, were threatening concepts to those who ruled. They were deemed the prerogative of rulers, not some heavenly force.
Before the Dark Ages the ancients did not see the Earth as flat. Rather, they understood how gravity deforms space into a grid, from this the Earth would have appeared flat. Astrologers drew their patterns from the stars and attributed mathematical equations to their unique shapes and curves.
In modern times we have devised the notion of fields to explain matter and energy. These fields can be visualized as lines of force that emanate from particles. School children learn this by putting a magnet under a table containing iron filings. The magnet moves the filings in any direction as long as someone is guiding the magnet. So what guides the magnetism of the universe? Why are particles appearing and disappearing?
Given the relation between forces and particles, especially during the time of Creation, one might suggest that there is a grand and unified theory for us to relate to. This has its own natural appeal. Hence, we have created religions and put aside the laws of physics (the separation of science and religion) and we have carried this into our modern age.
The laws of physics describe how particles behave and the need for a supreme force to govern them. This should be philosophically reassuring to atheists, while raising the miraculous value of God (a unified force) to spiritual believers. God was only one name attributed to this force, there were many. To the Hebrews the name was an unspoken word meaning breath.
There is much we still do not know, for example, String Theory starts with the presumption that particles may not be zero dimensional. Rather, particles are more like waves or vibrating particles dancing along a string.
Further, there may be more than one dimension and perhaps even a microwave background that ensures a harmonious cosmic interrelationship. We might even be bold enough to describe this as a cosmic consciousness.
The deep symmetry of science was recognized by all the mystics. In particular, it was advanced by the Kabbalists in the notion that the world was created by one supreme force. The idea was expanded to include a spirit or soul, which today underscores mystical spiritual beliefs.
The idea is not so far fetched as today we are grappling with the same questions over human consciousness. Where is consciousness located in the human brain.? We do not have the answer to this question. We may never have it because we are looking in the wrong place.
It is very likely, if we are to believe the ancient texts, that there is only one consciousness and we all experience a small part of it.
When Abel took his brother’s life
He took away God’s gift
The breath that dwells
in you and me.
When Abel died,
His mother cried,
my son, he cannot breathe.
And people held their breath
and put flowers on his grave.
Flowers do not bring back a life.
So, people rallied on the streets.
A black man cried, I cannot breathe
And others shouted.
No more deaths
The Black Lives Matter rallies around the world are just the latest in mass protests against a cruel and unequal capitalist system. Over the years I have been involved in many rallies and protests so my friends have asked me, why am I not out on the streets now protesting? Here is why!
I began protesting in the 1960s in England against nuclear weapons. We won a Treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Now every war is fought with nuclear warheads. We are back to where we started.
The historical reality is this; battles are won and lost in a continuum of political struggles, which are not unlike the struggles before them. Nothing really changes! There have always been wars, conflicts and disagreements. The confrontations are based on a duality that pitches the strongest against the weak and as much as we protest, nothing is going to change these dynamics because, in reality; all we are doing is participating in the dynamics of for and against battles.
So, what must change before we can stop the violence?
A few years ago I wrote a biography called Mythology and Meaning in the Chinese Brush and Ink Drawings of Geraldine Wogan-Brown. Geraldine was the wife of Australia’s Naval Attache to the Philippines during the Vietnam War. She passed away in 2012. Her husband was responsible for sending ships into ports and soldiers into battle and for Geraldine this was her spiritual battle, because she was a pacifist. In order to deal with the contradictions of war and peace Geraldine learned Chinese brush and ink drawing from a highly renowned Chinese Master. The art of brush and ink drawing forms part of the meditational philosophy associated with Taoism.
Two philosophies dominated China, Confucianism and Taoism. The symbol of the Tao is the ying-yang circle, where the black side of the circle has a white dot and the white side has a black dot. Each side represents the meaning of the other, in other words, the symbol is one of unity. The symbol represents the passive and receptive aspects of human behaviour, this too is a metaphor for unity.
Taoism encompasses the belief that there is no separation between the material and the spirit world. In the west this is seen akin to a pessimistic philosophy like that of Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Albert Camus and Michel Foucault, and more recently John Grey and Peter Singer.
In philosophy pessimism sees the aspirations towards history and progress as being a major cause of human suffering. Pessimists argue that the fore-knowledge of our eventual fate causes us to live with terror that is present in every day and events. Taoism (and Buddhism) both accept the fate of death and both seek to detach from the terror though discipline and mediation.
Taoists believe that when a system is turbulent and disruptive, it is lacking in balanced Yin energy. This in turn causes unbalanced and unsustainable activities upon nature and its inhabitants. The solution is not to participate in the negative energy, but to step back. There are many ways of stepping back and Chinese brush and ink drawing is just one way of releasing the negative energy. In terms of protests, stepping back means not attending.
At the core of Taoism is the ethical philosophy of non-doing. We need to get out of, or transcend, the binary system of conflict, as in, the establishment versus the protesters. By protesting we are merely giving more energy to the system we hope to change. By non-doing we leave the disruptive system to disintegrate organically. However, it takes everyone, or at least a large percentage of people to step back for anything to change.
Nonetheless, Taoism teaches that we are all responsible for our own actions and non-doing and in order to maintain our own good Chi energy we need to consider non-doing for our own sake. It takes healthy people to create societal change and bad Chi energy is not considered healthy.
As a matter of interest, in the 1960s and beyond, Social Movement Theory has supported the view that almost all protesters have personal issues associated with their desire to protest and these issues are not always directly related to the protester’s cause. These issues may be conscious or unconscious, but the ultimate aim is one of a shared experience. Through protest personal issues can be expressed or repressed while the mind is turned towards the event at hand. Protest can have a transcendent effect.
Taoism is not a simple philosophy and it is a form of transcendence. It is nature based and contains elements of animism. It also delves into the intricacies of control versus sympathy and other forms of human behaviour that support non-action.
As I worked my way through Geraldine’s history and her drawings, I could see the benefits of transferring difficult situations (and their energies) into forms of occupational therapy and mediation. Creativity is the most effective form of healing.
Many nations are on the brink of a major revolution. Such a scene has not arisen since the end of the First World War when the Treaty of Versailles was used to punish the German population for the devastation by dividing the people and creating new borders. The result was a despotic leader named Adolf Hitler who promised to reunite Germany and give the suffering Germans the power to govern the world. The rise to power has its origins in the plight of the oppressed and a pain that all too often leads to a mass psychosis.
We look to science to resolve the social problems, but I always caution people to be consciously aware of science as a discipline because science is never neutral. Science involves personalities, particular perspectives on the world and complex methodologies, which are often misplaced or inappropriate. Indeed, science has been a crucial part of the divisiveness across the globe.
We live in a racist and unequal world, but the issues are not clear cut and unequivocal. The sordid history of racism is not about colour, it is about power. Colour is merely the arbitrary classification of a group marked as powerless. When the dynamics change, as in some African states, we have seen the minority white populations similarly oppressed.
When there is a differentiation of power in a society the strong will always elect to eradicate the weak and conversely, the weak will always fight back in an attempt to gain absolute power. This can be an ongoing chain of events. Consider the 100 year’s war and ask, do we really want to live in this perpetual state of violence?
Revolutions are not about equality. Rather, revolutions are the quest to have what the Other has. Power is absolute and totalising. Power is not something that is equally shared, it can be mediated, but there will always be one side that must concede to be the lesser power. Power is a value that is always already embedded in a rate of exchange, generally played out in the distribution of labour. The value of power lies not in its abundance, but in its scarcity.
The anxiety created by this power politics is immense and it sits at the core of what has become a major pandemic of mental illness across the globe. In a book called The Sane Society (1955) Eric Fromm related mental illness to forms of hardship and injustice. He wrote:
An unhealthy society is one which creates mutual hostility [and] distrust, which transforms man into an instrument of use and exploitation for others, which deprives him of a sense of self, except inasmuch as he submits to others or becomes an automaton… Yet many psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of ‘unadjusted’ individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself. 
In the 1950s and 1960s there was an obvious rise in mental illness, that resulted from two World Wars. Added to this, poverty and inequality were rife. The Anti-Psychiatry Movement of the 1960s and in particular the work of R.D. Liang attempted to link all mental illness to various inequalities within society, noting that these inequalities were the main cause of anxiety and trauma, this in turn manifests in crime and social misbehaviour.
Clearly, those who rate highly on the scale of traumatic experience are the powerless and the oppressed and the etiology of these problems runs deep into the historical landscape. There are two primary issues. First, as a society we have failed to comprehend the effects of intergenerational trauma. Second, there has been little scrutiny of what has historically caused the trauma.
Mental illness does not arrive in the same way as the common cold. It happens in conjunction with certain traumatic events. (unless it is a consequence of developmental dysfunction or other bodily illness, such as heart disease, neurological compromise or other).
For Liang, mental illness was viewed distinctly as a social problem, which was a huge step away from brain dysfunction and idiocy. However, there has been almost no recognition of intergenerational social problems as a cause of trauma. Intergenerational trauma as a basis for mental dysfunction received little efficacy in the realms of medical diagnostics. The word ‘trauma’ was used to describe a condition of immediate pain and urgency. The notion of intergenerational trauma was never considered until much later, around the 1970s and even then, it was never taken seriously.
In Britain and elsewhere, the neurological elements of mental illness became the core focus of treatment for mental disorder, generally with the use of anti-depressant or anti-psychotic drugs. Trauma studies did not rise in popularity because they challenged the very nature of power relations across the world and how that power was unequally distributed. Hence, as a society, we have not fully addressed the impacts of colonialism, slavery, genocides and a whole host of other long-term disparities. Indeed, we are still perpetrating the same system and wondering, why would anyone object?
For example, we have not dealt with the science of eugenics, which still has a strong, but discursive influence on various groups and their decisions as to who will be helped and who will not; otherwise put, who lives and who dies in the context of modern and late capitalism. By default, we are blinded to the consequences of our actions (or non-action) because we refuse to acknowledge our scientific, social and political histories of oppression and genocides. We simply repeat them.
The eugenicists did not see their ideas as racist, they believed they were purely scientific. The eugenics movement first arose in Britain during the Edwardian period around 1907. The Eugenics Education Society began to campaign for sterilisation and marriage restrictions aimed at stopping people with perceived inferior genes from breeding. This included people with disabilities, mental illness, impoverishment, social dysfunction and aberrance. Eugenics was supposed to prevent the degeneration of Britain’s population, it then moved towards maintaining a superior race that was white, middle-class and dominated by an elite of upper-class males. Britain was not the only supporter of this regime. American also applied a rigid policy of eugenics as did the colonies.
Eugenics was never truly condemned until the Nazis carried out horrendous forms of experimentation on Jews for the purposes of perfecting racial purity. We still conduct practices of eugenics on animals and think this should be permissible. We are all animals. Disunity in one act does not create unity in another.
In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work on the Origin of Species, which detailed his theory of evolution by natural selection. It prompted scientists and political theorists to apply Darwin’s theory to human beings. Later Darwin wrote his 1871 treatise, The Descent of Man, which clearly gave credence to eugenics as a guard against creating weakness in the human race. It was Francis Galton, (1822-1911) a cousin of Charles Darwin, who was instrumental in inaugurating the eugenics movement. Galton was greatly influenced by the Origin of Species, especially its ideas on breeding domestic animals. He thought that humans might also be bred for their better qualities and not their weaknesses.
Galton was aware that British society was changing. The upper-class families were having fewer children, while the working-classes were breeding constantly and growing in their numbers. With worker’s revolutions happening elsewhere in the world, the upper-classes worried about the potential for social unrest. Breeding restrictions appeared to be a way out of the ensuing threat of worker conflicts. By the end of the Second World War many people were blaming the lack of a eugenics programme for the ensuing insurgence of neo-fascists groups, while the neo-fascists were advocating eugenics for the purpose of exterminating Jews and other perceived undesirables.
The fact is, there are still subtle forms of eugenics taking place around the world because one group is fearful of being relegated to extinction by another more powerful group. Take for example the distribution of food or medical supplies to poorer countries, or the cost of a life-saving procedure. In particular, this affects those nations who are unable to contribute much to global capitalism. Those who hold the power must ask, are these people worth saving? This is a bizarre abstraction of humanity and a major cause of anxiety and mental illness happening on many levels. Ultimately, who will determine which of us are to be saved? As pandemics spread across the world, as they will; these are serious questions.
When Galton wrote his 1869 book on Hereditary Genius to promulgate the view that procreation should be predicated on the multiplication of the best, the fittest and the most civilised, the definition of what was civilised appeared acceptable. History has perceived it tainted and flawed, we cannot rewrite history, but we must be aware of it.
Many of the societal problems we are experiencing today can be traced back to intergenerational trauma. Research into intergenerational trauma has yet to be a feature of serious study in medicine although it has been embedded into traditional philosophies for thousands of years. The biblical warnings about bad times being passed on from generation to generation were not just fanciful prophecies. Today, experts have the proof that trauma can be passed on in our genetics and epigenetics.
Genetics as a scientific discipline stemmed from the work of Gregor Mendel in the middle of the 19th century. Mendel believed that certain traits were inherited, although he knew nothing of the physical or chemical nature of genes at the time, his units became the basis for the development of the present understanding of heredity.
The word genetics was introduced in 1905 by English biologist William Bateson. He discovered Mendel’s work and followed Mendel’s principles of inheritance. It would be well into the future before we could fully understand the importance of genetics and how it would impact on peoples’ lives. We are now building a bigger picture.
In 2016 the links between trauma and epigenetics became popularized when the UK’s Sue Armstrong reported on a study of generational trauma in her radio program (Radio 4) All in the Womb (produced by Ruth Evans). The Spectator magazine picked up the story and further detailed how recent developments in the understanding of severe trauma affects both the mind and the body by creating physical changes. Armstrong noted that people who lived through the Holocaust and who were in prison camps were found to have low levels of cortisol. This is the hormone that the body releases into the bloodstream as we experience panic and fear. It is often referred to as the survival hormone. Scientists have found that the descendants of those who have suffered war, violence and incessant fear also have lower levels of cortisol than average.
A study by Dr. Rachel Yehuda, director of Mount Sinai’s Traumatic Stress Studies Division examined the DNA of Holocaust survivors and their children and found similar variations from the norm in both generations for the gene associated with depression and anxiety disorders. Although the study involved just 32 Holocaust survivors and their offspring, the findings imply that children of individuals who experience profound stress in life may be more likely to develop stress or anxiety disorders themselves. The pattern is known as an epigenetic change because it affects the chemical marker for the gene rather than the gene itself. Findings suggest that profound stress in the older generation translated into an adaptation that passed on to their offspring. Scientists have long-known that parents pass genetic traits down to their children, but Yehuda’s research suggests that life experiences can also produce chemical effects in the DNA. Similar research has been done into the effects of famine on later generations, as well as stress levels in the children of women who survived the New York September 11 attacks. The findings were thought to provide an explanation for why some people struggle with anxiety and stress disorders despite having never experienced trauma themselves.
Since the 1970s, researchers have known that the tightly wound spools of DNA inside each cell’s nucleus require something extra to tell them exactly which genes to transcribe, whether for a heart cell, a liver cell or a brain cell and more. One such extra element is the methyl group, a common structural component of organic molecules. Because methyl groups are attached to the genes, residing beside, but separate from the double-helix DNA code, the field was dubbed epigenetics, from the prefix epi (Greek for over, outer, above). Originally these epigenetic changes were believed to occur only during foetal development, but new studies showed that molecular structures could be added to DNA in adulthood, setting off a cascade of cellular changes resulting in illness, namely cancer. Sometimes methyl groups attached to DNA were due to changes in diet; other times, exposure to certain chemicals appeared to be the cause.
A study from Randy Jirtle of Duke University showed that when female mice are fed a diet rich in methyl groups, the fur pigment of subsequent offspring is permanently altered. Without any change to DNA at all, methyl groups could be added or subtracted, and the changes were inherited much like a mutation in a gene
According to the new insights of behavioural epigenetics, traumatic experiences in our past, or in our recent ancestors’ past, leave molecular scars adhering to our DNA. Jewish people whose great-grandparents were chased from their Russian shtetls; Chinese people whose grandparents lived through the ravages of the Cultural Revolution; young immigrants from Africa whose parents survived massacres; adults of every ethnicity who grew up with alcoholic or abusive parents all carry with them more than just memories. Our experiences, and those of our forebears, are never gone, even if they have been forgotten. They become a part of us, a molecular residue holding fast to our genetic scaffolding. The DNA remains the same, but psychological and behavioural tendencies are inherited.
It has been the case that most childhood trauma studies have been linked to childhood abuse, with many depending on retrospective self-reporting of child abuse cases, which is not always reliable or fully disclosed. In addition, we understand human relations in terms of the cultural setting in which they take place. In the 1950s and 1960s abuse of children in schools was simply regarded as discipline. The damage done has never been accounted for. Nonetheless, abuse or recollections of past abuse can function to provide meaning for current issues of trauma and intergenerational distress. Many parents, carers, teachers and perpetrators of abuse may not be aware that their behaviour was abusive and the cause of long-term effects. Abuses would include, corporal punishment within the education system, emotional and physical abuse in the military, school and workplace bullying. Today, this kind of behaviour is being addressed, but for many people born at the end of the previous century the scars of canning, shoving, pushing and shouting insults are still very real, both at a conscious and unconscious level and this imprint is likely to be passed on. Today, with the advances in neuroscience and the use of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), not only can scientists see the impacts of abuse on the brain, they can measure the way different forms of abuse impact on memory and reduce the size of developing brains.
Childhood abuse can alter important parts of the brain such as the hippocampus and this is believed to cause childhood problems often leading to more serious psychiatric illness later in life. The hippocampus has a lot of receptors for the stress hormone cortisol, which interacts with receptors in these neurons to affect the development and the branching of neurons and a failure to generate the necessary new neurons (neurogenesis). We now know that conditions such as depression, drug addiction and other mental health problems often have their roots in difficult childhood experiences. We have to include poverty and powerlessness into this assessment.
Martin Teicher, of Harvard University studied the brains of 193 individuals between 18 and 25 years old, who had already undergone several rounds of testing to be qualified. They then analysed the size of areas in the hippocampus and compared the results with the patient’s history. They saw that those who had been abused, neglected or maltreated (based on well-established questionnaires) as children had reduced volume in certain areas of the hippocampus by about 6 percent, compared with those who had not experienced childhood abuse. They also had size reductions in a related brain area called the subiculum, which relays the signals from the hippocampus to other areas of the brain, including the dopamine system, also known as the brain’s reward centre. Volume reduction in the subiculum has been associated with drug abuse, depression and schizophrenia. In animal experiments (including non-human primates), the hippocampus can shrink because of high exposure to the stress hormone cortisol during two developmental periods: between ages 3 and 5 and between ages 11 and 13, the researchers said. These stress hormone levels stop the growth of neurons in the hippocampus, leading to smaller volume in the adult human brain.
When we look at the situation of abuse, rebellion, revolution and violence on our streets today, we need to take into consideration the longer-term impacts. Similarly, we need to be aware of the historical background of those who have current stresses. We can only break the cycle of violence if we fully understand the past and the present consequences of violence and deprivation. If we ignore this now it will only get worse.
The term Palestine was said to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain in the twelfth century BCE. This is the land that became known as Israel and the Gaza Strip. It was the Romans who first used the name Palaestina as reference to Judea (the southern West Bank) in the second century CE following the Jewish Revolt.  The Hebrews settled in Israel around 1300 BCE. At this time, the Israelis were believed to be tribal communities governed by a King named Saul. In about 1000 BCE King David established Jerusalem as the capital and David’s son Solomon built the Temple, which helped to bring the population together as one people. The land was divided under Solomon’s son who took the northern kingdom (Israel). The Assyrians attacked and destroyed it in 722 BCE. The southern kingdom of Judah survived until 568 BCE when the Babylonians sacked it. By 135 CE the Jews were driven en-mass out of their homeland.  They would not return until after the Second World War in 1948.
When the Romans governed Palestine, it was also part of Syria and by the time of the Crusades the area stretched from Beirut to the Sinai Desert on both sides of the River Jordan, this area was known as the Holy Land. The Roman Empires stretched across Europe and the Middle East, it was massive, but much of it was eventually conquered by the Muslims. After the Christian Crusades to win back Jerusalem the Muslims divided the area into districts. Palestine did not become an official district until the early Middle Ages. Palestine was the subject of a British Mandate and the official name of a territory called Palestine did not exist until the early Middle Ages. 
After World War I, France and Britain drove the Turks back and carved up the Ottoman Empire, this set the boundaries for Palestine. At this time Palestine initially included both sides of the Jordan River until Churchill arbitrarily severed more than three-fourths of the area to create Transjordan. In addition, part of the Golan Heights was transferred from Palestine to Syria. The spoken language was Arabic, but Palestine was never an Arab country, rather one of mixed race. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine.
Palestinian Arab nationalism was largely a post–World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the Six-Day War. For the duration, Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. Palestinian nationalists made no claims for an independent state. When the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was created by the Arab League to advance the interests of Arab governments it was interested in driving the Jews out of the area, not to create a Palestinian state.
The Arabic word Filastin is derived from this Latin name (Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918–1929, London: Frank Cass, 1974, p. 4).
 Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, NY: Signet, 1962, pp. 49–53).
 Bernard Lewis, “On the History and Geography of a Name,” The International History Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1980, pp. 1-12) and www.myjewishlibrary.com Retrieved 28th January 2020.
Governments across the world seem to be gaining more control over their populations and only a few seem to be bothered by the very obvious constraints on personal freedoms.
Why is it that people accept control so readily? Why are we so compliant?
The answer might be that political and social changes are discursive. We don’t see them coming. But, how does one explain the blatant curtailment of assumed and inalienable rights?
Maybe those rights were never there in the first place? Perhaps, we as the people, have just been duped. What we see, is only what we want to believe.
Nothing in politics ever happens by chance. There is always a science behind every decision and history has shown just how easy it is for science to control the masses. There are techniques and text books galore on how to convince people that something bad might actually be good for them. Reverse psychology works well, propaganda is even better. If we want answers we must look to the science. Science changes human perspectives.
There are three ways to seduce the masses; people are much easier to control when they feel cared for. That is, when the burden of individual responsibility is lifted. In this sense slavery may not be seen as an adverse state of affairs. People can be happy slaves. Populations are also easily controlled when they are living in fear. In addition, people are easily shaped when they are in communities of like-mindedness. Individuality is the enemy of the state.
None of these techniques are new Aldous Huxley’s classic dystopian novel, Brave New World, detailed the criteria for oppression by the state almost 90 years ago, prior to World War II; little has changed.
We are living in a technocratic world and for the most part people are loving it. The truth is we don’t see the wood for the trees. Our minds are cluttered with everyday events and material rewards for good behaviour.
The scientific tale of mental obliteration is a global phenomenon.
But, wait, we are human beings, we have minds of our own don’t we? What happened to evolution?
Let’s go back to those crucial states of emotion, fear, like-mindedness and the need for care (community). All very normal conditions, but they are also easy targets for manipulation.
Rich or poor, life has always been a struggle to survive. It has got harder because the problems are not so simple. We are a people suffering mass anxieties and they are escalating, which gives science, and in particular the pharmaceutical companies, a great opportunity to seize power over the individual.
Let’s start with fear. The world is a dangerous place, made more visible by the media. There is terrorism across the Earth, Climate Chane is upon us and although we may not feel the impacts of these events directly, they resonate with past memories. In fear we need protection (care). We give up our liberties to be protected. Yet, are we really protected? The authority that protects is also that which causes us fear.
In extreme cases governments and dictators have no qualm’s about shooting their own people, so we must comply. The masses then become, not just compliant, they believe they are on the right side, regardless of any lapses in morality or justice.
Huxley had a vision of this hell and wrote about it. Brave New World was a novel that predicted that one day we would all wake-up to a fascist dictator running our lives. Huxley knew this would happen because he witnessed the collaboration between the world’s governments and the wealthy. Fear, care and like-mindedness is how the rich made their money and controlled the masses, so governments did the same. Power escalates by controlling the masses.
The passion for power is built into the human psyche and it equates with the struggle for survival. But, the powerful have another discursive trick up their sleeve, they know that they can change the name of power discursively and/or replace it with a seemingly different system, such as democracy, which is not equality for all, as many people assume. Rather, democracy is majority rule (like-mindedness).
Democracy sets the benchmark against which power can be measured without actually having to reveal the source of the power. Documents, are a tool of democracy, they also serve to hide the source of power.
Huxley tells us that, the British and American Constitution excepted devices for limiting power, and all these devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses. Legal documents turn the tables on the idea that there is power in numbers.
When all of the above fails, there are always the mind-altering pharmaceuticals. Legal or otherwise, drugs are the new potent form of slavery. Drugs can make people feel in control of situations. They offer a false sense of power.
Drugs can make people feel happy… for a while. Then the doses have to be increased for the drugs to be effective and eventually the recipient dies of organ failure or the fact that the drugs have magnified the original problem to such a high degree that life can no long be confronted… it is simply not worth living.
In the 1960s there was a sexual revolution that changed human behaviour. The contraceptive pill made men and women feel they had sexual freedom with no consequences. The freedom added a level of happiness. The pharmaceutical companies learned from this experiment and began making happy pills. The recipient could be happy without being responsible.
Now these mind-altering drugs have accelerated in production and effectiveness and they are changing brains and causing a disruption in the general fabric of societies everywhere in the world.
How did we get to this stage of play?
In order to get to where we are today science has had to learn about the human thought processes and how to change them. Access to the subconscious by scientists and professional practitioners is now routine.
If you go to a psychologist thinking you will come our with a mind of your own, think again! You might come away less confused, but you will be cast in the mould of what is socially or politically acceptable.
This might not seem like a bad thing. Being different is no easy way to live. Those who are different are subject to peer group pressure or worse. Being different can be an emotional roller-coaster. At the extreme end, it can also land a person in prison or a mental institution.
The emotions are stronger than reason and if any government wants to influence the masses, then it will do it through the channels of emotion aided by drugs and propaganda. This then becomes embedded into a culture and viewed as a natural and inevitable outcome of progress, or an individual life moving forward.
Huxley focused on forms of propaganda where the minds of the masses were hijacked and used for political means. Propaganda is very powerful. The brain operates on repetition, this is how we learn and how we remember. Emotional propaganda by-passes the rational elements of the human brain and excites the survival instincts. When this happens on mass it becomes a shared experience. Soon people begin to love their struggle because it doesn’t occur alone. No one is ever alone in their misery.