The Master/Slave Dialectic in J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting For The Barbarians

Waiting for the Barbarians


Written for Dr. Fred Stockholder, Department of English, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.  April, 1984.

Waiting For The Barbarians by J.M. Coetzee is a novel of self-discovery and self-determination.  The protagonist, the Magistrate, is nameless for good reason, for allegory. He could be you, could be me, could be anyone who has had to face up to whatever it was that he had to face up to: fear, guilt, shame, disgust, frustration, hatred, greed, injustice, truth, life, death, master, slave, white, black.  For me, it has been a hard novel to read and even harder to come to terms with.  I knew that this novel would not be an easy read and that I would not be the same after I read it.  I knew that I would have to dig deep down into my inner being to find my soul before I could come to terms with this novel.  But having dug deep down into my inner being and found not only my soul but also the horrible truth about this world, I cannot go on anymore, knowing what I now know, had always known and not saying what I want to say.  And I should say what now must be said: that this world is incredibly fucked; that human beings should not fuck up other human beings but we do, even as I condemn mankind, of which I am a member of, though soon I shall slit my throat for my humanity because there can be no other way to absolve, or if it is not absolve, then to obliterate the guilt and shame but in death.

This is not the critical analysis you expected, my Master.  When life ceases to have meaning, the escape from this world will not be betrayed.  Dr. Stockholder, this slave cannot give you what you demand from him.  The literary analysis, if that is still what you insist from me in these final hours — my God, I cannot, I will not.  You will have to fail me but your “F” will hurt me no more than the hundredth bullet fired into a corpse.  Fire away, you bastard!  I have died a thousand times, my Master.  You have killed me a thousand times and yet I still call you ‘Master.’  It is perhaps not your sickness; but mine.  Perhaps I derive pleasure from pain as much as you derive pleasure from inflicting pain; and if this is not the case, then why is it that I have not killed myself yet?  Why do I address you, my tormentor, my Master, when instead I should be bleeding to death?  My Master, my tormentor, please punish me.  I deserve your punishment; it sustains me.  I devour it.  I will… yes, I will give you what you want, my Master.  I will give you my heart and soul because, finally, I am a coward.  I am afraid to die.  Or more precisely, I will give you a proper literary analysis because I do not want to fail your course.  You are the Professor and I am your pupil.  You have the power to pass or fail me, just like the Master has the power of life and death over his slave.  You win.  The Master always wins.

But what happens when the Master does not want to be the Master anymore?  This is the 64 thousand dollar question of the Magistrate.  Or more accurately, and in the language of philosophers and theologians, the Magistrate is having a crisis of conscience, a crisis of faith, and a crisis of being.  When everything that you have been taught and known all your life turns out to be false and wrong, how do you not rebel?  Or do you just continue living your life knowing it is nothing but a big lie?  These are the ontological as well as epistemological questions that he must resolve.  This novel traces the Magistrate’s spiritual journey to discover the truth about himself and about his society and the men of Empire.

Furthermore, how does one remain true to one’s own definition of self and be in harmony with society, when one has no autonomy in such matters but inherits the culture and myths of the society in which he or she is born?  To question the collective psyche of one’s society is, in effect, to question those modes of thought and experience that formed one’s own psyche.  The freedom of the self can never be achieved completely, though self-evaluation and self-definition are a beginning in the effort to free oneself from the oppression of the controlling forces of the collective.  In short, the point that I am trying to make is this: It is impossible for a white man to think of himself as anything other than a white man and consequently he thinks of himself superior to the black man.  Waiting For The Barbarians is the Magistrate’s honourable attempt at self-definition and self-determination, but the old prejudices of a psyche in which white superiority is deeply ingrained creep up from time to time and I’m afraid I’m going to have to take him to task for it.

However, we are not told that the setting is South Africa, nor are we told that the conflict is necessarily black versus white, perhaps partly for the reason that Coetzee wanted his novel to be published in South Africa and perhaps largely for the reason that the novel was written as an allegory of mythic and universal significance.  Hence the master/slave dialectic of Coetzee’s novel does not overtly address issues of race, nor politics, nor economics — though these issues, I take it, are at the heart of the South African turmoil.  But rather, the novel, as the title suggests, is concerned with more general and lofty notions of civilization, our civilization, of course, and how we must protect it from those who are not like us, those who are, well, barbarians.  Don’t expect to find any practical solutions to the actual black/white conflict in South Africa in this novel, for it is a novel; just that, and not a revolutionary’s handbook on how to overthrow the enemies of humanity and those who would enslave us.  Indeed, by the end of the novel, we discover just who exactly are the barbarians and just how ironic was Coetzee’s title for his novel.  In other words, our world as we know it, our understanding of what civilization is and is not, will be entirely turned upside-down and inside-out by the end of the novel.

The protagonist of this novel is the Magistrate, who, as I have already stated, is nameless.  He is the proverbial nobody and everybody. Everything is told from his point of view.  The Magistrate is a member of the ruling class and also one of the critical lynch pins of Empire, but his true sympathy, however, lies with the so-called ‘barbarians,’ the people who are oppressed by his very presence and livelihood.  Indeed, the Magistrate is a man who is sincere when he says, “All my life I have believed in civilized behavior.” (p. 24).  This is in sharp contrast to the other “guardians of Empire,” in particular Colonel Joll, who represents the new Empire, with its amoral and lethal power.  Despite the Magistrate’s claim that he did not want to resist the new men of Empire, he is indeed embroiled in the struggle against the “devotees of truth and doctors of interrogation,” as he sarcastically described Colonel Joll’s men who tortured and murdered the old barbarian who came into the fort seeking a doctor for his sick grandson.

Unlike the new men of Empire, the Magistrate’s attitude towards the barbarians is much more paternalistic: “I will struggle on with the old story, hoping that before it is finished it will reveal to me why I thought it worth the trouble.  Thus it is that, administration of law and order in these parts having today passed back to me, I order the prisoners be fed, that the doctor be called in to do what he can, that the barracks return to being a barracks, that arrangements be made to restore the prisoners to their former lives as soon as possible, as far as possible.” (p. 125).  The Magistrate’s paternalism and the motive for his paternalism are explicitly revealed in the following passage: “I gave the girl my protection, offering in equivocal way to be her father.  But I came too late, after she had ceased to believe in fathers.  I wanted to do what was right, I wanted to make reparation: I will not deny this decent impulse, however mixed with more questionable motives: there must always be a place for penance and reparation.”  (pp. 80-81).

The Magistrate is a relic of an old empire whose ideas about governance are much more complex and much more complicated than the simple brute force of Colonel Joll and the young lieutenant.  Unlike Colonel Joll who is seen only as a torturer, the Magistrate is both a torturer and lover of the barbarian girl, and I mean this literally, as in, he becomes her ‘lover’: “Where civilization entailed the corruption of barbarian virtues and the creation of a dependent people, I decided I was opposed to civilization; and upon this resolution I based the conduct of my administration. I say this who now keeps a barbarian girl for my bed.” (p. 38).  If the Magistrate cannot free the slaves at least he will try to be a more humane and loving master, no pun intended. (Miscegenation does not seem to be an issue in this allegorical novel.)

Moreover, the Magistrate is reluctant to let go of his civility, a civility that really belongs to an older moral order of the Empire that men like Colonel Joll know nothing about.  It is, incidentally, an older moral order not unlike the plantation gentility of the old American South before the Civil War.  Though the Magistrate’s antebellum paternalism is at times excruciatingly condescending, this is its least objectionable aspect.  When the Magistrate says he wants to be the girl’s surrogate father, the Magistrate is being disingenuous to both himself and to the girl.  Even if miscegenation is not an issue in this novel, he really has gone off the deep end and into uncharted territory by playing the role of her father.  He really shouldn’t be her father because he cannot be her father and lover at the same time.  The two roles are diametrically opposed to each other, if not mutually exclusive and tabooed — even in the far distant outposts of Empire, I would think.  In any event, the Magistrate is really asking for more crazy trouble than he knows.  By consorting with and becoming the lover of the enemy barbarian girl, he has broken just about all the moral and social conventions of his society and has made himself an enemy of Empire.

The Magistrate is a complex and complicated character indeed, but is he a good man?  Coetzee wants us to think so.  Whereas Colonel Joll has absolutely no shame or guilt about how brutally he treats the barbarians, the Magistrate is burdened with them, and will try to exorcise the shame and guilt as much as possible.  The Magistrate does try to help the barbarians whenever he can, and as best as he can, and in the case of the barbarian beggar-woman, he sincerely does try to help her by offering her an honest pay for a honest day’s work: “I offered that you should come work here.  You cannot beg in the street.  I cannot permit that.”  But will an honest day’s work and honest pay really help the beggar-woman and her lot?  Does the Magistrate really think that honest hard work and a few dollars will set the beggar-woman free and get her out to the ghetto, or move uptown, as they say?  Does Coetzee really think that the current crisis in South Africa will be solved if only the blacks embraced the Protestant work ethic of the white Afrikaners?
Contrary to what the Magistrate believes, the master/slave dialectic cannot be resolved by advocating the same notions of decency that settled the “old Empire.”

What is unwittingly revealed here is the Magistrate’s total failure to understand that the imposition of white values upon blacks does not bridge the gap between blacks and whites; but rather, it further widens the gap precisely because it assumes white ethnocentricity: it assumes that the black race will be better off if it just acted more like the white race.  Hence the Magistrate will never be able to penetrate the surface of the barbarian beggar-woman; he is unable to get beyond his self-righteousness: “I do not want to see a parasite settlement grow up on the fringes of the town populated with beggars and vagrants enslaved to strong drink.  It always pained me in the old days to see these people fall victim to the guile of shopkeepers, exchanging their goods for trinkets, lying drunk in the gutter, and confirming thereby the settlers’ litany of prejudice: that barbarians are lazy, immoral, filthy, stupid.” (p. 38).

On the one hand, the Magistrate wants the barbarian beggar-woman to have dignity and be spared the stereotypical white litany of blacks being stupid and lazy; not, however, realizing that he, himself, has already judged her in those terms.  On the other hand, he does make a conscious effort to reject the white paranoia of black savages on the rampage when he says, “[t]here is no woman living along the frontier who has not dreamed of a dark barbarian hand coming from under the bed to grip her ankle, no man who has not frightened himself with visions of barbarians in his home, breaking the plates, setting fire to the curtains, raping his daughters.  These dreams are the consequence of too much ease.  Show me a barbarian army and I will believe it.” (p. 8).  Thus he rationally dispels the irrational fears and myths of his race and sets himself apart from his collective in an attempt at self-definition and self-determination.  But this attempt at self-definition and self-determination, however courageous and honorable, is never fully achieved, and his morally ambivalent relationship with the barbarian girl reveals this.

Not only is the relationship dominated by the sexually exploitative if not incestuous paternalism mentioned earlier, but it is a relationship entered into rather sacrilegiously to boot: “First comes the ritual of washing, for which she is now naked. I wash her feet as before, her legs, her buttocks.” (p.30)  This is just too weird.  It is as if he is Christ, and she, like the apostle Paul, needs his cleansing, both physically and spiritually. What is implied by this is either megalomania or sacrilege of the highest order, and at times the redemption which he seeks for her (which he seeks for himself more likely) reveals the equivocal mindset of an old ruling class that has lost its ability to rule without guilt and self-recriminations: “I must believe she was unmarked as I must believe she was once a child, a little girl in pigtails running around after her pet lamb in a universe where somewhere far away I strode in the pride of my life.  Strain as I will, my first image remains of the kneeling beggar-girl.” (p. 33).

For the Magistrate, the barbarian girl is, in the end, just that, a barbarian girl.  He cannot accept her as an equal because he is, after all, her “Master” and at times he even identifies with Colonel Joll: “The girl lies in my bed, but there is no good reason why it should be a bed.  I behave in some ways like a lover — I undress her, I bathe her, I stroke her, I sleep beside her — but I might equally tie her to a chair and beat her, it would be no less intimate.” (p. 43).  But this is really not the Magistrate speaking; his true desire is “for a quiet life in quiet times.”  Rather it is the Magistrate’s white psyche speaking, telling him he is her ‘Master’ and, as such, sub-humans deserve to be brutalized by their superiors. “No! No! No!  I cry to myself.  It is I who am seducing myself, out of vanity, into these meanings and correspondences.  What depravity is it that is creeping upon me?  I search for secrets and answers, no matter how bizarre, like an old woman reading tea leaves.  There is nothing to link me with torturers, people who sit waiting like beetles in the dark cellars.  How can I believe that a bed is anything but a bed, a woman’s body anything but a sight of joy?  I must assert my distance from Colonel Joll.  I will not suffer for his crimes’.” (p.44).

The Magistrate really does not want to see himself as Colonel Joll nor suffer his crimes.  Instead, he truly wants to love the barbarian girl, but he cannot.  And although his relationship with the barbarian girl is an attempt to repudiate the roles and restrictions that his apartheid society imposes on individuals in personal relationships, the relationship was, in the final analysis, loveless, meaningless, and hopeless from the start.  He did not really love her, could not have ever loved her in a million years, and wonders in hindsight how he could have been with her in the first place: “Only days since I parted from that other one, and I find her face hardening over in my memory, becoming opaque, impermeable, as though secreting a shell over itself.  Plodding across the salt I catch myself in a moment of astonishment that I could have loved someone from so remote a kingdom.  All I want now is to live out my life in ease in a familiar world, to die in my own land and be followed to the grave by old friends.” (p. 75).

But the quiet life among old friends that the Magistrate yearns for will never materialize.  In fact, what awaits the Magistrate is just the opposite of a quiet life.  He will find himself a wanted man who will be hunted down and thrown in jail for freeing the barbarian girl.  Imprisoned and starved and beaten and treated no different than the barbarian prisoners, he will come the closest he will ever come to seeing things from the point of view of the barbarians.  In prison, he realizes that perhaps he is much closer to the barbarian girl than he once thought. Even if the Magistrate was being selfish and entered into the relationship with the barbarian girl to ease his own guilty conscience, he did in fact set her free to return to her people.  This was his moment of truth: he relinquished his role as her “Master” in the act of returning her to the barbarians hiding in the mountains: “I am surprised by her fluency, her quickness, her self-possession,” he says of her in their journey across the wasteland in which, as opposed to the whites, the natives find sustenance.  And as if he had sensed it all along and asked to be punished, he is imprisoned for his attempt at redemption, the one act that would have restored what little semblance of a human being is still in him.

Curiously, or perhaps appropriately, it is only when the Magistrate is imprisoned that he attains any degree of understanding into the real nature of his relationship with the barbarian girl.  Free from the guilt that he no longer suffers over the girl’s deformity (because he himself is now a victim, too) he comes closer to self-definition and self-determination in the exact prison cell where the barbarian girl had been tortured than he ever did when he was in the same room with her or even when she was in his bed: “I am aware of my source of elation: my alliance with the guardians of the Empire is over, I have set myself in opposition, the bond is broken, I am a free man.  Who would not smile?  But what a dangerous joy.  It should not be so easy to attain salvation.  And is there any principle behind my opposition?  Have I not simply been provoked into a reaction by the sight of one of the new barbarians usurping my desk and pawing my papers?” (p.78).

Labeled an enemy of the Empire, by choice and by misfortune, those values which up until now he had always cherished as being good are revealed for what they really are: “They came to my cell to show me the meaning of humanity, and in the space of an hour they showed me a great deal.” (p.115).  In other words, what the Magistrate is saying, what he has been saying all along in this novel, is this: ‘We, the whites, are the barbarians!’  This is the irony of the novel and of its title that both confuses and distresses us.  And now having a clearer vision and stronger sense of who he is and his real self through this suffering, the assertion of his individuality becomes his salvation and a defense for mankind and civilization.
Henceforth, he is unable to remain silent when he sees the new prisoners being lashed mercilessly.  He is unable to remain silent precisely because he does not wish to renege on his new contract with mankind and his renewed humanity and commitment to protect us from the barbarians, if not from ourselves: ‘No! No! You would not use a hammer on a beast, not on a beast,’ he cries out in defiance of the mob which now surrounds him and the twelve captives whom he tries to save and whom are made totally helpless already by the metal wire the thickness of a dart looped through their cheeks.  ‘Look,’ he says… ‘We are great miracles of creation.  But from such blows this miraculous body cannot repair itself.  How…’  But before he finds the words to finish his sentence, a blow catches him “full across the face” — the consequence of him speaking out in defiance against this insane mob.

There is something genuinely heroic about his defiance, even though it did not stop the brutality; but it was a start, a beginning of something great, like the building of that badly needed community in which blacks and whites can live in harmony: “The words they stopped me from uttering may have been very paltry indeed, hardly words to rouse the rabble.  What, after all, do I stand for besides an archaic code of gentlemanly behaviour towards captured foes, and what do I stand against except the new science of degradation that kills people on their knees, confused and disgraced in their own eyes?  Would I have dared to face the crowd to demand justice for these ridiculous barbarian prisoners with their backsides in the air?  Justice.  Once that word is uttered, where will it end?  Easier to shout No!  Easier to be beaten and made a martyr.  Easier to lay my head on a block than to defend the cause of justice for the barbarians, for where can that argument lead but to laying down arms and opening the gates of the town to the people whose land we have raped.” (p.108).  In other words, a voluntary mass exodus of the whites is not in the cards, nor will there be voluntary mass reparation to the blacks forthcoming any day soon.

It was René Descartes who famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” (Je pense, donc je suis.) which has become the fundamental element of Western philosophy and the Western Enlightenment.  Coetzee’s contribution to Western philosophy if not to Western literature might be thus: “I suffer, therefore I am”. (Je souffre, donc je suis.)  If I am not mistaken, the Magistrate (Coetzee) thinks collective guilt is a good thing, that collective guilt may even be the closest thing we have to salvation when our tribe does bad things to other tribes: “When some men suffer unjustly, it is the fate of those who witness their suffering to suffer the shame of it.” (p.137).  This is the philosophical bent of the novel, if I can call it that, and this collective guilt is once again espoused and underlined at the end of the novel, when Colonel Joll is retreating back to the capital, the Magistrate asserts: “The crime that is latent in us we must inflict on ourselves.  Not on others.” (p. 146).  Really?

Not only does the Magistrate want us to embrace collective guilt, but he also wants us to embrace masochism, it seems.  Why?  Will collective guilt and or masochism (aren’t the two things the same?) solve any of the problems facing South Africa or anywhere else with a similar situation where an alien minority rules over a vast native majority by brute force and murder?  Though the Magistrate is presented in the novel as the “one man who in his heart [is] not a barbarian,” he is not without “his own twinges of doubt,” and later he confesses, “[f]or I was not, as I like to think, the indulgent pleasure-loving opposite of the cold rigid Colonel.  I was the lie that Empire tells itself when times are easy, he the truth that Empire tells when harsh winds blow.” (pp. 135-137).

Such ambivalent statements made by the Magistrate if not his ambiguous endorsement of Colonel Joll perhaps reveals Coetzee’s own ambivalence and discomfort with collective guilt and or masochism of the kind that got Christ nailed to the Cross.  Indeed, collective guilt is not the answer.  How lame of Coetzee to have even suggested it as a possible solution; he may have done so by default because of his Roman Catholicism, which places a high premium on penance and reparation, atonement and redemption.  But how, exactly, could anyone possibly achieve atonement and redemption for the abominations and sins of men like Colonel Joll?  Perhaps speaking out against injustice is more preferable than just suffering it in silence, as was first believed by the Magistrate.

The Magistrate’s finest hour may very well have been the time when he spoke out against the brutality being meted out to the new “barbarian prisoners” or rather, and more accurately, to his fellow human beings.  Perhaps an isolated act of goodness by an individual can make all the difference in the world.  Wasn’t it Mahatma Gandhi who advised us to ‘be the change you wish to see in the world?’  Indeed, towards the end of the novel, the Magistrate is no longer content to suffer injustice in silence.  Instead, he acts in defiance of it, even if by doing so he did not measurably change the world for the better.  Perhaps the gesture is more important than the results.  Perhaps the journey is more important than the destination.  The Magistrate will change his society by first changing himself.  Thus his opposition to the mob and his later attempts to take the lead role in the reconstruction of what little remains of his community after the exodus of Colonel Joll and his men, the real barbarians, should be seen as the triumph of the individual and the importance of individual acts of decency in a world gone totally mad.

Notwithstanding civil disobedience, I regret to tell you that neither collective guilt nor French existentialism, if that was what Coetzee was pushing in this novel, will help South Africa.  Moreover, where is the black voice?  Where is the black perspective?  Was the practically death, dumb, and mute barbarian girl in the novel the black voice and black perspective?  There was no black voice and no black perspective in Coetzee’s novel!  Other than as a well-written tale of a certain genre called the dystopian novel, this story has absolutely no relevance to South Africa.  It sheds absolutely no light on the situation in South Africa.  No black man can take this novel seriously.  Let’s be honest, this novel wasn’t even written for black men to read.  It was strictly intended for a white audience.  Can we at least be honest about that?

Well, Mr. Coetzee, here’s what I have to say to you: Take your collective guilt and French existentialism and shove them both up your lily-white ass.  Don’t give me no garbage about “a man who lost his way long ago but presses on along a road that may lead nowhere.” (p. 156).  That kind of thinking and talking is for old men who don’t have no balls to do what is necessary to make things right.  Doing nothing is not the answer.  When people in your own country are being tortured and killed just because they want equal rights and better lives and futures for their children, you must do something to make things right.

Besides, Mr. Coetzee, existentialism never liberated France: it was the Allies with their big destroyers and big planes and big tanks and lots and lots of soldiers with lots and lots of guns who liberated France and Europe.  What South Africa needs are men of action, not passive old intellectuals of the sort like the Magistrate who will grin and bear it, who will muddle through it, who knows he is lost but doesn’t want to be found and so he goes “along a road that will lead to nowhere.”  What utter rubbish!  Mr. Coetzee, if you really want to help black people to help themselves, you should maybe first write the way like I’m writing now.  The revolution will not be mobilized by the language of Samuel Beckett or Jean-Paul Sartre or whoever the fuck it was that you were imitating.

And then secondly you should take some of the royalties and money from those awards that those other guilty white men gave you for making yourself and them feel less like shit and buy South Africa a revolution.  Just shoot the fuckers on sight!  What?  What’s this, you ask?  What’s happening to this essay?  Oh, pardon me.  Is my rant causing you distress?  Is my language too compact?  Do I need to further develop my ideas?  Did my cynicism throw you off previously and doesn’t my vulgarity throw you off even more now?  You say you don’t understand this?  Well, what about this?  Can you understand this?: YOU’RE A MOTHERFUCKER AND THIS NIGGER AIN’T PLAYING YOUR GAME NO MORE!


Joe Canuck Regrets and Renounces his Revolutionary Maoist past and the Massacre of Whites in South Africa

White Genocide of Afrikaners

June 26, 2014, Surrey, B.C.

The essay below was originally written in 1984 for Dr. Fred Stockholder at the University of British Columbia (UBC).  Dr. Stockholder taught a literature course on the dystopian novel and this essay on J.M. Coetzee‘s Waiting For The Barbarians was my final term paper for him.  My first essay, incidentally, was on George Orwell’s 1984, probably the most famous dystopian novel in the English-speaking world.  Looking back and rereading my essay, I am amazed at just how far to the left I was in my politics, how Maoist, almost, I was, and dare I say, how Jewish I was, really, in wanting to start revolutions all around the world, but particularly in South Africa. [1]

About a year after I wrote my essay on Coetzee’s novel, I sent a copy of it to Desmond Tutu, the first black Archbishop of Cape Town in South Africa.  I don’t remember what I wrote in my introductory letter to him, nor do I remember why I felt compelled to send a copy of my essay to him.  But judging from the arrogant tone and revolutionary spirit of my essay, I probably sent him a copy out of hubris and to make a case for taking up arms to overthrow the repressive and brutal government of South Africa.  I mailed my essay to Mr. Tutu in the spring of 1985, and two to three months later, in that infamous summer of 1985, there was so much civil unrest and violence in South Africa that a State of Emergency was declared by P.W. Botha’s white apartheid government. [2]

I have a distinct memory of seeing a news report on television about the insurrections in Cape Town and seeing a white woman on the street being punched by a black man.  It was a random and senseless act of violence, but to me, at the time, it was also a symbolic act, and I remember thinking that what I was seeing was a good thing because it meant that the revolution had started.  I make this candid confession now only to illustrate just how sick and brainwashed I was by the Jewish propaganda that had demonized the whites of South Africa, that still demonizes the whites today, and not only in South Africa.  Though it is rather fanciful to think that my essay and its call to arms had anything to do with the riots of Cape Town and Johannesburg during that bloody summer of 1985, I am extremely and terribly sorry if it did.  I absolutely abhor the thought that I had anything to do with the black slaughter of whites in South Africa, which some have properly called and given the name of White Genocide. [3]

If you haven’t heard about the black genocide of whites in South Africa that’s probably because the Jewish owned and controlled International Media doesn’t want you to know anything about it. [4]  Out of sight, out of mind, as they say.  It’s that simple.  But why doesn’t the Jew Media want us to know about this horrible genocide and massacre of white Christians in South Africa?  Could it be because Jew banksters financed and facilitated the destruction of South Africa and the ongoing  genocide of whites in that country?  Could it be that Nelson Mandela was nothing more than a frontman and proxy for the Jews? [5]  In 1994, Nelson Mandela became the first black chief executive of South Africa.  Twenty years after the end of apartheid, South Africa has become the murder and rape and AIDs capital of the world, not to mention being the most dangerous place on earth for whites to live. How could that be considered progress?  If that’s democracy, or rather, if that’s Jewmocracy, who needs it?  Some call it Democracy, but I call it Jewmocracy. [6]

In 2008, 6 seminal and long-dead years ago, Barack Hussein Obama became the first “black” President of the United States of America. [7]  We now live in the “post-racial” world, which means that racism no longer exists.  This is what the mainstream media talking heads would like us to believe.  But is it true?  Can we really believe the mainstream media except for the sports scores? [8]  Do we really live in a world where a man is judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so eloquently expressed and hoped for 50 years ago?  Are American blacks really better off now than they were before the end of segregation?  Apparently not, not if you ask anyone who has paid any attention and who lives in the real world instead of the Orwellian world that the Jews have so skillfully and so imperceptibly foisted upon all of us.

On the whole, black American intellectuals do not think that blacks are better off than they were before the end of segregation.  Rather, they argue that blacks are worse off now and they cite the high rate of black children born out of wedlock and the unprecedented cases of black-on-black violence and murder as proof.  Prior to Integration, black-on-white crime was virtually unheard of, but it is now routine, if not out of control.  Moreover, a convincing case could be argued that black-on-white assaults and murders are deliberately stoked by the ZioMedia, as evidenced by the recent George Zimmerman case.

Contrary to popular belief, the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-1960s under Lyndon B. Johnson‘s administration had nothing to do with civil rights and equality.  Instead, Affirmative Action and other similar government handouts to the blacks were tactical maneuvers in the Jews’ larger strategic game plan to completely Sovietize America, as they had done in Russia.  It is extremely significant and revealing to point out that before the Red [Jew] Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917 and renamed it the U.S.S.R., the country had previously been known and called Holy Russia. Christian Russia!  If it hasn’t dawned on you by now, let me make it crystal clear to you that Communism is Jewish!  “Some call it Communism, I call it Judaism” — Rabbi Stephen Wise.

Thanks to the Jews, America is no longer a Christian country.  In fact, Christians are now considered terrorist threats.  America today is, for all intents and purposes, a communist country with all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto in effect.  Moreover, Affirmative Action and Integration have been an unmitigated disaster for the blacks as a race. The Civil Rights Acts, with Talmudic forethought and malice, have social-engineered a government-dependent underclass of violent and degenerate blacks living on welfare that is by now in its 5th and 6th generation in only 50 years because blacks get impregnated and reproduce in their early teens.  Dr. James David Manning, a black pastor, gives some pertinent statistics in this video.  Seventy million people would be starving in the streets without Government Welfare Programs in the U.S.A. (U.S.S.A.?)

Evidently, the so-called American Black Civil Rights Movement wasn’t even really black or black-led, but was masterminded and financed by Jews.  Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t even his real name, but a Jew invention managed and promoted not unlike the movie stars that came out of their Jew Hollywood.  In short, Martin Luther King Jr. was a frontman for the Jews, nothing more and nothing less. [9]   The blacks were used as Jew proxies in America and in South Africa, just as the homosexuals and transsexuals and immigrants are now being used as their proxies to create division and diversion and a perpetual state of destabilization and disorientation in the host nations. [10]

This divide and conquer strategy has worked well for the Jews and it has become their classic modus operandi, if it is not their default stratagem for group survival as an alien and subversive minority living amongst a sea of Goyim or Christians — their arch enemies as proscribed by their “holy book” called the Talmud.  Genocide of non-Jews advocated by Talmud Minor Tractates: Soferim 15, Rule 10: This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: “Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed.” (“Tob shebe goyyim harog.”) [11]

Folks, this is 100% unadulterated pure evil that most normal people will have trouble wrapping their minds around.  It has taken me about 6 months to process this information, myself, and I’m as cynical as they come.  But in the final analysis, this is the only explanation that makes sense.  As the Jews print our money, they have all the money in the world that they want.  So it can’t be just about money and greed.  So what is it really about, then, if it’s not about the money?  Why are the Jew Masters of our Money Universe creating endless wars and death and destruction? Because that’s their religion, stupid!  “Genocides ‘R’ Us!”

Parenthetically, if Adolf Hitler was truly the devil incarnate, as the Jews would like us to believe, how come we have never had any lasting peace or prosperity since we killed the devil and won World War II in 1945? Have you ever asked yourself this simple but crucial question?  Instead, the Jews give us a world of perpetual fear and a perpetual parade of new Hitlers each time they want to start another war for “Democracy” or what I call Jewmocracy, and they won’t stop until they finally get a world of their own a.k.a. The New World Order:  “In everything, we are destroyers — even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief. . . .  We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever.  Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands.  We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.” — Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, published in 1924, page 155.

If you don’t give any credence to an obscure Jewish author like Maurice Samuel, would you give credence to the “founder” and first Prime Minister of Israel when he says the same thing, albeit in more diplomatic terms and language?  “In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the [Jewish] prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah….” — David Ben Gurion, “Look Magazine,” page 20, January 16,1962.

That’s right, folks, the New World Order (NWO) that you’ve heard so much about is really the Jew World Order (JWO).  But of all the ‘smoking-gun’ confessions that one can find on the Internet (hurry up and do your own research on the Internet before the Jews shut it down), this one is the most succinct and astonishing quotation/confession that I have found thus far about the Jew World Order and with topical reference and pertinence to the now nearly bankrupt and thoroughly degenerate European Union (EU): “We [Jews] intend to turn Europe into a mixed race of Asians and Negroes ruled over by the Jews.” — Jewish EU “founding father” Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, in Praktischer Idealismus 1925.

My dear reader, I bet you had no idea of just how evil the Jews were, did you?  Neither did I, until about 1 year ago when my Green Deal was snubbed by the self-proclaimed ‘Green Mayor’ of Vancouver.  That was when I started digging around and discovered that our Green Mayor, Gregor Robertson, is nothing more than a Jew puppet of Joel Solomon and that Vancouver’s (Solomon’s) Green Agenda is ostensibly nothing more than the UN’s [Jew-N’s] cleverly disguised Malthusian de-population scheme called Agenda 21 . . . that was when my eyes were wide open and I set out on my intrepid journey to unlearn or relearn everything that I had been taught and learned in school and in the Media about the Jews and became, well, Jew-wise, and, really, world-wise.

Now everything makes sense, whereas before nothing did, when I knew next to nothing about Jews.  One year ago, I never would have guessed even if I had lived for a hundred years that Jews were at war with us, that they were waging a covert war with the 99% of humanity who are not Jews — not in a million years would I have imagined or believed in such a cockamamie conspiracy.  But the facts are before us, under our noses, hiding in plain sight, as it were.  Open your eyes and look around you very carefully and try to see what is really going on in your local community and in your country and in the world and you will ultimately find Jews, somewhere, somehow, pulling the strings and levers behind the scenes.  Know thy enemy!  Scientia est potentia: Knowledge is power.

Of course, I do not condemn all Jews, only the guilty ones, only the ones who are responsible for the present mess we find ourselves in.  For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, let me be the first to tell you that we are on the verge of a catastrophic economic collapse with the imminent implosion of the U.S. Petrodollar and the start of race wars in America and in Europe, notwithstanding the fact that a black massacre of whites has been taking place in South Africa for the better part of the last two decades. [12]   For the record, I am not an anti-Semite and please do not firebomb my apartment or hurt my 9-year-old daughter. [13]  I do not have an irrational hatred of Jews, but I do have a rational hatred of all the genocidal wars they start. [14]   To paraphrase the late, great Henry Ford, if you want to stop a war, any war, just corral the top 50 Jews.  Or if you prefer a more kosher quotation, it was another Henry, Henry Kissinger, a high priest of the tribe, in a manner of speaking, who facetiously admitted that if the Jews have been persecuted for 2000 years or more, then surely they must be doing something wrong, no? [15]

Indeed, there are many Jews who are good.  Dr. Stockholder, for example, was a good Jew.  He was a major influence on me, for better or worse: I say this equivocally because I had no idea of just how Jewish I was until quite recently.  I had no idea until quite recently of just how insidiously Jewish was my university education and subsequent worldview.  Most of my English Professors at UBC were Jews.  I would guess that 60% of them were Jews, even though Jews compromise only about 1% of the overall population in Canada.  And that was 30 years ago!  I wonder how many of the professors in our universities are Jews these days?  Insofar as Cultural Marxism a.k.a. Political Correctness reigns supreme over the land and can make us self-censor our own thoughts and speech it’s really too little and too late in the war to go counting and adding up the number of Jew professors in our elite universities. [16]

Whether you know it or not, you live in a Jew world.  All Western Governments are under Zionist Occupation.  This is why it is OK to criticize your Presidents and Prime Ministers, but not the Jews who actually control them, and ultimately us.  In the Zionist West it is illegal to question the Holocaust.  No ‘ifs’ or ‘ands’ or ‘buts’ — 6 million Jews were gassed to death by the evil Nazis — period!  End of discussion or face legal prosecution in your home country followed by extradition to Israel for further prosecution and an additional lengthy prison term.  If these bogus “anti-Hate Speech” laws don’t wake up the sheeple what will?  What will make the sheeple understand that we live under a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG) that does not permit any criticism of it?  Zero criticism.  Period!  Gore Vidal once jokingly remarked that when the American public walks, their knuckles touch the ground.  Quite frankly, it wasn’t a joke and the same thing could also be said for what passes for the average Canadian these days.  If these transparently anti-free speech a.k.a. anti-Hate Speech Laws don’t wake up the sheeple, I’m not at all hopeful that they will ever wake up.

Canadian activists and writers brave enough like Dr. Henry Makow and Arthur Topham who dare criticize Jews and Israel are persecuted and dragged through their Jew-infested and by now thoroughly corrupted and contemptible legal system and Talmudic Courts.  As I write, Mr. Topham is presently in mortal danger of being thrown in jail for a period of 2 years if found guilty under their Orwellian “anti-Hate Speech” Laws.  According to these laws, truth is not a permissible legal defense.  Truth is not a defense, nor are the facts.  You will be found guilty even if you are telling the truth under these Jew-conceived ass-backwards anti-Hate Speech Laws.  “In order to find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize.” — Voltaire.  Need I say more?

Need more proof?  Here is a 2003 video of our current Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and then Australian Prime Minister John Howard reading from the same Zionist script/speech for invading Iraq. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were ever found in Iraq.  ZERO!  That’s because there never was any, or doesn’t anybody care that we were massively lied to and that thousands of our Allied soldiers died or were maimed for nothing? — not to forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were murdered and or displaced and scattered all over the globe as refugees by that Zionist war, just one of many endless wars for Israel.

News Flash: The U.S. Federal Reserve is not federal and it doesn’t have any reserves.  Your money isn’t real money but Jew fiat currency printed out of thin air which the Jew banksters then charge the host nations compound interest. [17]   This is the function of the Central Banks, all owned and governed by Jews (i.e., Rothschild, Warburg, Schiff, etc.) who create perpetual and unpayable national debts.  This is called “money-as-debt” and the name of the game, as they say.  This is why we destroy other people’s nations to give them Democracy, which is really nothing more than a Jew Central Banking System.  This is why I call it a Jewmocracy.  It is “guesstimated” that at the present moment the Jew banksters and their co-conspirators who make up less than 1% of the world’s entire population of 7 billion people posses 1000 years’ worth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of all the nations on earth . . . but I digress. [18]

Dr. Stockholder is still alive. I found him on Facebook, and I think he is in his early or mid-80s today.  Thirty years ago, he gave me an “A+” for my excellent essay, if I do say so myself.  Waiting For The Barbarians was probably the most psychologically complex novel that I read at UBC and hence this is one of the most psychologically insightful essays I ever wrote at university, or since, for that matter.  My earlier essay for him on George Orwell’s 1984 was less successful and I was inexplicably vengeful and confrontational in this essay.  Perhaps I was acting out the master/slave dialectic or dramatizing the Socratic method based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking?  Either way, it achieved an unexpected response and top marks from Dr. Stockholder.  I have the dubious distinction of calling my Professor a “MOTHERFUCKER” in capital letters and in a term paper and still got an “A+” mark.  What miraculous days those were at UBC!  How politically-incorrect and glorious were the early 1980s!

For the digital record, here are Dr. Stockholder’s comments on my essay:

“This is a strong and clear — somewhat self-exposed, vulnerable, . . . also bullying. Much better this way than obscure, hyper-intellectual, . . . etc. prose.

“Ressentiment is a vice which Nietzsche railed against.  It is that whining promotional, self-indulgent protest that radicals, nationalists, and the religious fall victim.  Rather than complaint and self-pity decent people in the world are expected by Big N [Nietzsche] to take hold and over-come, ergo his hero is the Übermensch — the Overman.  To choose to be the underman, the complainer, the moralizing self-absorption of the sufferer is to choose victimization.  To choose to be the Magistrate is to enter the dialectic, this is to enter real struggle over the decent use of power.  That entry, the entry into the struggle for control, is where Hegel thought enlightenment began.  Do read Charles Taylor’s Hegel.

“Your essay is a complaint rather than an understanding of the situation.  A complaint is a higher level than your earlier essay this term.  This one is on the road to enlightenment.  Before you graduate, go to the library and work on this problem.  The point of the master/slave dialectic is that slaves have to understand masters before their chains drop.  Then they must become better masters.  That is why Chekhov told us to squeeze the slave out of ourselves.  If we are to rule democratically, we must act like rulers.  Rulers built the libraries — we must build them and use them as well.”


[1]  E. Michael Jones has written an excellent book on the subject of the Jews and their revolutionary spirit.  His book is aptly entitled, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History.  Here is a link to a  video of E. Michael Jones discussing his book and here is a link to some reviews of his book.  Another notable academic is Dr. Kevin MacDonald who wrote The Culture of Critique.

[2]  I had totally forgotten that I had sent a copy of my essay to Desmond Tutu.  I recently found an Press Release for an art exhibition of mine in 1986 which makes mention of my essay arriving in South Africa just a few months before a State of Emergency was declared by P.W. Botha.

[3]  Dr. David Duke has courageously spoken out against this White Genocide and he has paid a high price for it.  The Jews have demonized him and made him Jewish enemy number 1.  It is estimated that more than 70,000 whites have been murdered in South Africa since the blacks took over in 1994.  Here is an eye-opening and shocking video about the White Genocide in South Africa.

[4]  Who owns the Media? ‘The Jews do!’ says Brother Nathanael Kapner. Here is a video that names the names of the Jews.  Brother Kapner’s videos are often censored and deleted by YouTube [JewTube].  If the link is broken, here is the article in question.  Not only do Jews own the Media, but Jews own America.  Brother Kapner names the Jews who control America in this video.

[5]  Here is an excellent article by Dr. Henry Makow exposing the Jewish puppeteers of Nelson Mandela.

[6]  Why do Jews love Democracy?  Dr. William Pierce explains why in this video.

[7]  According to Christian Identity Pastor Bob Jones, Obama is ‘First, a Jew; second, a communist; and third, a faggot.’  In other words, Obama is not the first black American President.  If anything, Obama is the first Falasha Jew or black Jew President of these here United States of Jewmerica.  It has been alleged that Obama’s mother was a Jewess, which makes Obama a Jew, as Jews are matrilineal.  It has also been alleged that Obama’s real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist agitator.  Obama was a ‘red diaper baby’  goes the joke.  (Red is the color of communists.)

As for Obama’s homosexuality: Larry Sinclair claims he gave then Senator Obama fellatio (blow jobs) on more than one occasion in 1999.  Sinclair also alleges he did crack cocaine with Senator Obama in 1999.  Do an engine search for ‘Obama Gay Sex’ and you will find dozens of videos on YouTube [JewTube].  YouTube is owned by Jews and so-called ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘hate’ videos that become too popular are vigilantly censored and deleted for fear that they might go viral.  Here is just one video of many.  Mia Pope gives a persuasive historical account of Barack Obama’s (real name: Barry Soetoro’s) drugged-up queer life in Hawaii during the late 1970s.  Here is a very funny video spoof of Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My [Real] Father.”

If the President is a homo, does this make his marriage to Michelle a sham?  At the risk of being dismissed as a conspiracy nut, I am of the belief that Michelle [Michael] Obama is a transvestite.  I always thought she was rather mannish.  There was a video on YouTube that gives compelling evidence that Michelle is indeed a man! . . . but that was deleted for fear of it going viral.  When I viewed the video in question, it had already had close to a million hits after only 1 week.  I recently found the video again.  Click here to view it, if it’s still up at JewTube.

[8]  Ninety-nine-point-nine percent (99.9%) of all the world’s Media are owned by Jews and should be considered as psychological operations (PSYOPS)  or counter-intelligence operations (COINTELPRO) also known as psychological warfare or manufacturing consent or social engineering or simply propaganda.

There are about half a dozen free newspapers in the lower-mainland of Vancouver such as “24hrs” and “Metro,” which have almost next to nothing in advertising revenues.  The ads that they do have are always the same and I wonder if these ads are real in the first place.  How do these free newspapers survive?  Who is subsidizing these newspapers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars each year?  Jews?  This would certainly explain why these “newspapers” never tell us what is really going on in the world and instead spew out their anti-Christian, anti-family and pro-homo and pro-war-for-Israel propaganda.

Both “24hrs” and “Metro” are distributed nationwide and can be found in all the major urban centers across Canada.  Why?  For a people famous for being cheap and stingy, this massive expenditure on propaganda is certainly out of character.  So why do Jews spend so much money on propaganda then?  Why do Jews spend billions of dollars worldwide each year to keep the masses dumbed-down and or distracted with celebrity gossip and or transient sports news?

Could it be because Jews don’t want us to know what they are really up to and how they rule over us without any of us really knowing it, just as a fish does not really know that it is swimming in water?  Due to their complete control over our Media and information the vast majority of us, say, 99% of the people, have no understanding whatsoever that we live in a Jew world.  If you are reading this, then, my dear reader, consider yourself in the elite top 1% of the truly engaged and informed citizens of the world . . . and don’t even get me started on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) — the most insidious, and therefore, the most dangerous Zionist PSYOP in Canada, in my learned opinion.

Honestly, how long would the CBC last (1 or 2 minutes; if that?) without the perpetual and massive government subventions, which are really our money, as in taxpayers’ money?  The perpetual and massive government subventions to CBC are really nothing more than a tax on all Canadians (99% of whom are non-Jews) to pay for Jew propaganda . . . similar to the bogus kosher food tax and scam.  The CBC should really be renamed and more accurately called the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.

[9]  “The Beast As Saint” is the title of a video that claims Martin Luther King Jr. was a 3rd-rate mind and plagiarist who cheated in order to obtain his Ph.D., but that this gigantic character flaw and academic fraud was overlooked by the Jews who promoted him and financed the blacks as a proxy army against the white Christians whom the Jews feared and hated the most.  “The strongest supporters of Judaism cannot deny that Judaism is anti-Christian” — “Jewish World” March 15, 1924.

[10]  The best explanation of the Jewish problem I’ve heard or read so far is one of parasitism, as in the Jews are a parasitic race.  Eustace Mullins brilliantly explained this in his essay, “The Biological Jew.”

[11]  In order to understand the Jews you need to understand their so-called “holy book” or Talmud and this is what it has to say about us non-Jews or Goyim (human cattle):

Only Jews are human, all non-Jews are non-human. Baba Mezia 114a-114b.

Murdering Christians is the same as killing a wild animal.  SANH. 78B and 79A.

Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.  Zohar (II, 64b)

It is permitted to deceive Christians.  Babha Kama (113b)

Jews may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.  Babha Kama (113a)

The Blessed Mary is a whore.  Sanhedrin 106a.

Jesus Christ is a sorcerer and condemned to boil in excrement and semen for all of eternity.  Gittin57a.

Thanks to the Jews, homosexuality is now the new normal.  What’s next, Pedophilia?  This would certainly make all the Rabbis happy, for it is stated in their Talmud that:

“If a woman sported lewdly with her young son, a minor, and he committed cohabitation with her; he renders her unfit for the priesthood, unless he is under eight years of age.”  SANH. 470.

“When a baby girl has attained the age of three years and a day, she is fit for cohabitation.”  YEB. 60B.

“A baby girl under three years and one day is always reckoned as a virgin because if she had intercourse previously, the hymen would grow back.” KETHO BOTH 10B and 11A.

“Baby girls of three invoke sadistic punishments on those who have intercourse with them when they are menstruating.”  SAN. 55B and 69A.

The Christian mind boggles at the Jews’ depravity, but having sex with the dead body of one of your relatives is absolutely freaking unbelievable: Intercourse is permitted with a dead relative regardless of whether she was single or married.  YEB. 55B

[12]  Expect a major false flag on American soil to smokescreen the implosion of the U.S. Petrodollar if World War 3 does not start in Ukraine. This is why the Jew Media has demonized Russian President Putin and why the Jew banksters backed a bloody coup in Kiev and are sending mercenaries, as I write, to south-east Ukraine.  Here is a video of the indiscriminate shelling of civilians in Slavyansk that you will never see in the mainstream Jew Media.

[13]  An anti-Semite used to mean someone who didn’t like Jews, but now it means someone the Jews don’t like.  Folks, don’t be fooled by this anti-Semite stuff.  The Jews’ greatest fear is not persecution but assimilation. This is why in Israel it is unlawful for a Jew to marry a non-Jew.  Don’t believe me?  Here’s a link.  Jews think they are better than us.  In fact, they regard the rest of us non-Jews as cattle.  Our females are ‘Shiksas.’ (Whores or unclean meat.)  See how Jews treat women who are not Jewish.  Nowadays in order to immigrate to Israel you need to prove you are a real Jew with a DNA Test.  But you will never hear or read any of this Jewish racist and supremacist bullshit in our mainstream Media because Jews totally own and control our mainstream Media.

[14]  Jews are masters of deception and genocide.  We have all been brainwashed into thinking that they are the persecuted ones, when in fact Jews are ostensibly behind all of the revolutions and wars and genocides of the past 250 years.  “The Secret Holocaust” by Eustace Mullins is a must-read.  What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians today is proof positive of their genocidal nature, if not proof positive of their sick religious beliefs, if one can call their bloodthirsty genocidal racism a religion.  Here is just one of many of the real “Jewish” Holocausts that you will never hear or read about in the mainstream Jew Media.  Stalin, the man responsible for the Holomodor and the deaths of 7-11 million Ukrainians, was a Jew!

[15]  For those who think Jews are “God’s chosen,” [self-chosen] please do your own research on the Internet before it is too late.  If the Jews get their way, there will be no more Internet very soon.  But be careful of the so-called “alternative media,” for the Jews have also infiltrated it, if they did not invent the “alternative media” in the first place.  My advice to you is quite simple.  Go to the source.  Read what the Jews say.  In particular, read and study their Talmud.  This will explain why Jews act the way they do and why we have had so many wars, and why we, the Goyim, (cattle) are being slowly but surely genocided by their GMOs and Chemtrails.

[16]  Political Correctness is Jewish! Most people think Political Correctness dates back to the late 1980s, but it actually has a long history that dates back to the Jew Bolsheviks just after the First World War I  (1914-1918).  Here are some informative videos on Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness.

[17]  Among the Jews themselves, it is an open secret that the Federal Reserve is a Zionist Cabal headed by the Rothschilds.  Eustace Mullins was the first to expose this banking conspiracy and fraud in his seminal book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, published in 1952.  Since then, there have been numerous imitators, the most notable being G. Edward Griffin.

[18]  Tim Rifat has consistently made this claim.  He believes that the Rothschild Jew banksters already posses 1000 years’ worth of the present GDP of all the nations on earth.  In other words, the Rothschilds and their minions are rich beyond even the wildest dreams of old man Mayer Amschel Rothschild.  When the old man died in 1812, his 5 sons spread across Europe and set up banks in all the major capital cities.  Nathan Mayer Rothschild is probably the best-known Rothschild of the five sons because he settled in London and infamously boasted that, “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

The Master/Slave Dialectic in J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting For The Barbarians by Joe Canuck

Eros versus Agape, Subjective versus Objective, Tension and Synthesis, and even Einsteinian Time in John Donne’s poetry.



This essay was written in 1983 (when I was 23) for a 17th-century English literature course that I took at the University of British Columbia (UBC) — a mandatory course for my Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature, which I obtained in 1985. I started typing this 3,033-word essay about a year ago and only finished today because I find this essay too academic or too literary, really, too esoteric for the general public, and that was the reason why I procrastinated for a year in publishing it online, knowing that hardly anyone except the Zionist agents and paid trolls who read everything I write these days would bother reading it. At least I know I do have a dedicated, albeit small Jewish audience for my essays on literature.

My professor was Dr. Harriet Kirkley. She would be in her late-70s or early-80s if she is still alive and may remember me. How could she forget? I told her or rather I wrote “Fuck off” on my final examination, which I self-destructively wrote for her before storming out of the classroom; that, I still remember vividly and so should she if she’s not senile. I don’t remember why I was so angry but this first essay I wrote for her in which I expressed my contempt for Orthodoxy and The Establishment probably had something to do with it. (I was your typical brainwashed Marxist Useful Idiot and Bully who now populates the ultra Jewish politically-correct universities today, but in the early 80s I was the exception not the convention. Rereading my essay, I now see that I had mistakenly projected my Marxist/Jewish rebelliousness unto John Donne.)

It’s truly amazing in hindsight that she didn’t give me a “F” for “Fail” but gave me a “P” for “Pass” for the course, which considerably dragged down my grade point average, though I don’t really think I cared at that stage in my not-to-be “academic career”. Guess what? I’m still bucking the system at 55-years-of-age; this time I’m in the biggest fight and perhaps the most meaningful fight of my life against the Jew World Order. (If you are new to this site and to my writings, skip over the next sentence if you don’t wish to be shocked.) I became Jew-aware about 2 summers ago and I am the founder of “Justice For Chinese” which, at the moment, is a loosely organized group of individuals attempting to seek an apology and compensation from the Rothschild and Sassoon Jews who destroyed China with opium 200 years ago and whose descendants, believe it or not, are still in control of the worldwide drug trafficking today via their Intelligence Agencies such as the CIA, MI6 and MOSSAD.

My memory is fuzzy after over 32 years but I think we forgave each other in the end; and if I remember correctly, she even purchased a copy of my self-published poems, which I shamelessly peddled door-to-door at the UBC English Department after my graduation circa late-1985 or early-1986. In any event, for this particular essay, she gave me an “A” mark and this is what she wrote on my essay: “An intelligently perceptive discussion that makes some sense of that poem, well written on the whole and stimulating. You might enjoy Donne’s “Love’s Progress” and some of the more sexually explicit elegiacs which, in some sense, support your analysis of public/private, spontaneous/collective dichotomies, but which also gave the lie to modern notions of “repression” as a major force in the 19th century sensibility. It may well have been there, but they didn’t worry so much about it as a rule.”

Clearly, Dr. Kirkley did not think that sexual repression played any part in Donne’s poetry and was quite annoyed by my suggestion halfway in my essay that it did. She responded by writing, “Donne’s society was not Victorian and sexual repression is more modern than the 17th century when it didn’t exist in the same way.” I agree. I had been greatly influenced, or rather brainwashed by reading the demented Jew, Sigmund Freud, in Dr. Fred Stockholder’s course on Literary Criticism, which probably and properly screwed me up good, as they say, no pun intended.

Surrey, British Columbia, September 25, 2015.

Paolo and Francesca, William Dyce, 1845
“Francesca da Rimini” (1837) by Scottish painter William Dyce (1806-1884). Oil on canvas, 183 x 219 cm.

There is so much to say about John Donne, yet I have so little space in which to say it all. That is, I am not unaware of the rules involved in writing an undergraduate paper: that you begin with a beginning, a middle, and then, the end, which is a recap of what was said in the beginning and the middle: all really structured if not contrived and redundant by the end. Hopefully, and if it is not outside the powers of your intellect, you do so logically, analytically, and coherently like: A + B = C because A = 1, B = 2, C = 3; therefore A < B, B < C, and C > B or A.

But if “one plus two make three” is logical, it is also ARTIFICIAL, as is its essay equivalent because both become invalid when men, who created them in the first place, no longer deem such constructs valid. In other words, “one plus two make three” exists not in nature, but in man. It is a man-made phenomenon. “One plus two make three” does not represent the natural order of things any more than the “coherent, logical, and analytical” essay represents the natural processes of the mind, which, almost without exception, is anything but coherent, logical, and analytical.

Is it not obvious that all the rules have, as a rule, the inherited biases of men who invented them and or who choose to live by them? You must use the big spoon for the soup! Why? Because those are the correct rules, that’s why! But what if I don’t want to use the big spoon or no spoon at all? What if I don’t want to play by your rules? Does that make me a “pig” in your eyes or a “dangerous dissident”? Why do you insist that I play by your rules, to be a slave to your orthodoxy? In short, what if I want to buck the system and to destroy the established hierarchy?

Of course, rebellion and the destruction of the hierarchy cannot occur without the consciousness of being oppressed: it is only when you are able to see the chains that you may begin to smash them to pieces. With respect to the literary essay, the objective is to break the convention or break away from the convention. But insofar as one cannot really ever totally break away from society and its conventions, no one can truly and totally be original. Rather, the best we can do is to arrive at a synthesis. This synthesis, this compromise, however, is not without tremendous tension, is not without colossal conflict in John Donne’s “The Extasie”.

Though the giant step from “I” to John Donne is, of course, an abrupt transition, perhaps too abrupt; nevertheless it illustrates and parallels the jarring synthesis of ideas seeming to be unrelated that one is confronted with in the opening lines of Donne’s “The Extasie”: “Where, like a pillow on a bed,/A Pregnant banke swel’d up, to rest/The violets reclining head.” Indeed, similes are a kind of synthesis; they bring together two opposites, and in Donne’s opening lines, much more than two. For example, the comparison between a “pillow” with a “banke” that is like a woman who is “Pregnant” hence “Pregnant banke,” which further implies that Nature is feminine and in the process of regeneration, is evidence of a compact condensation, of a tight synthesis of diverse elements combined together not so much out of kinship as out of opposites i.e., positive end of one magnet attaching itself to the negative end of another magnet.

But if the synthesis of diverse elements is not merely superficial and simplistic, as in “My love is like a red rose”, surely it is a deep and complex one, involving a synthesis of not only diverse elements per se, but of the socially unacceptable thoughts evoked precisely by such a synthesis of diverse elements, for the implicit sexual overtones of “bed” followed by “pregnant banke” certainly undermine the Platonic matter-of-factness of “Sat we two, one another’s best”. Essentially Donne’s opening lines are private expressions which are not unlike the private symbols of one’s own dreams, and they, these private symbols, are, I would argue, and perhaps in too Freudian a way, the consequence of repression. How does one celebrate sexuality in a society that suppresses sexuality? For Donne, highly compact language is one way, just as the private symbolism of our dreams is another.

As sexual repression induces frigidity, or in Donne’s case, rigidity (“Wee like sepulchrall statues lay”) procreation finds an outlet in another form: “So to ‘entergraft our hands, as yet/Was all the means to make us one,/And pictures in our eyes to get/Was all our propagation”. And although the two lovers are in a spiritual sense “one”, this oneness, this synthesis is unsatisfactory, is full of tension and harshness, as if what is happening is not love, but war: “As ‘twixt two equall Armies, Fate/Suspends uncertaine victorie”. Was this the 17th-century version of our Post-Freudian modern day Battle of the Sexes?

In the next lines, the battle, if I may continue to use that word or metaphor, to transcend the body is won, or so it seems, when a higher state of being is metaphysically achieved in: “Our soules, (which to advance their state,/Were gone out,) hung ‘twixt her and/mee”. Hence, the movement is towards the gravity-free elevation where, “suspend[ed]”, the “soules negotiate”, away from the body, away, really, from the world and all its rules, regulations, disease, destruction, and death. I would argue that Donne’s desire to transcend the body is the same as the desire to transcend time — or what I would call “collective time.”

Francesca da Rimini and Paolo Malatesta are depicted in the 1835 painting by Ary Scheffer, which is entitled “Dante and Virgil Encountering the Shades of Francesca da Rimini and Paolo in the Underworld” or simply “Francesca da Rimini.”

As a matter of fact, and whether Donne was conscious of this or not, the shift from the personal point of view (We) to the more distant or third person point of view (He): (“he though he/Knowes not which soul spake/Because both meant, both spake the same/Might thence a new concoction take”) underlies the soul’s departure from the body, underlies the soul’s departure from the world. Thus, a new “time frame” for the bodies knows no decay or death: “Are soules, whom no change can invade”: Time Suspended! Or to use a modern term, Suspended Animation: “We see, we saw not what did move/But as all severall soules containe”. Here, the idea of time dilation is conveyed in the ambiguity of tense, “wee see” immediately followed by “we saw”. That the tense is inconsistent, not either present or past, but both present and past implies a synthesis of time or timelessness: past and present are one! This is what I mean by Einsteinian Time. Please see end notes for a detailed explanation of time dilation and Einsteinian Time.

And although it is true that Donne is quite firm in qualifying the synthesis of the souls, “Wee see by this, it was not sexe”, what takes place in the succeeding lines clearly contradicts this qualification: “Love, these mixt soules, doth mixe againe,/And makes both one, each this and that/A single violet transplant,/The strength, the colour, and the size,/(All which before was poore, and scant,) Redoubles still, and multiples.”

In the above lines there is the intimation that the problem may exist not so much with the individual but with the environment in which the individual lives: for what is infertile is not the violet, but the soil; because once transplanted, the once poor violet redoubles and multiples. Perhaps Donne is alluding to societal conventions and constraints that do not permit the lovers to consummate their love, which may, after all, be a sordid love affair between people from different classes in a very class-conscious 17th-century England. Perhaps the lady was ‘playing hard to get’ and the sexual tension was par for the course, if not part and parcel of the eternal mating game and natural order of things. Nevertheless, by the end of the poem, and reading between the lines, as the saying goes, we know that the two lovers did consummate their love.

Whereas earlier in “The Extasie” the conflict between Physical love and Spiritual love was solved by the soul’s departure from the body, though not really or not literally, the synthesis of the body and soul in the last line of the poem, “Small change, when we’re to bodies gone” presents no real problem insofar as the conflict between the sexual desires of the poet i.e., Eros, and the ideal and abstract love demanded of the larger community i.e., Agape are now interchangeable. Consequently, through the interchangeability of the union of the souls and the union of the bodies, physical love has been elevated, while at the same time, the abstraction of this physical love has been, well, brought back down to earth, as the pragmatists are wont to say.

However, in order for us to believe that the “animation” of the “mixt soules” is now interchangeable with the lifelessness of the “sepulchurall statues”, we must force ourselves to believe that talk is better than action, when we know very well that talking about sex is no substitute for the sex act itself, nor as pleasurable, for that matter. Moreover, one strongly feels that the person being addressed by the poem is not the poet’s lover, but the poet’s audience. At best, if “The Extasie” is not foreplay, it is a dramatic monologue addressed to the outer world at large; and as such, the poet is highly conscious of both the rules involved in the love game and also the rules involved in poetic expression.

For example, the first ten lines of “The Extasie” is an interlocking rhyme scheme of ABABAACACB, affecting the effect somewhat like the image of “Our eye-beames twisted, and did thread our eyes upon one double string”. And although no consistent rhyme scheme occurs between lines 10 to 40, affecting, appropriately, the randomness and spontaneity of the dramatic monologue, the rhyme scheme of the synthesis of the souls in lines 41-48 is uniformly based on the vowel “O”, emphasizing the unity or singularity of the souls: “When love, with one another so/Interanimates two soules,/That abler soule, which thence doth flow,/Defects of lonelinesse controules,/Wee then, who are this new soule, know”.

Notice too, that the internal rhyme of these lines is also based on the soft “O”, affecting both the unity and coalescence of the souls. From line 50 onward, the rhyme scheme is again an interlocking one, one which picks up consistency as the poet gains linguistic if not sexual confidence by the very end of the poem, when Donne demonstrates with sound — prudes, brace yourselves — the forbidden images of intercourse: “And if some lover, such as wee,/Have heard this dialogue of one,/Let him marke us, he shall see/Small change, when we’are to bodies gones”.

With the exception of “gone”, which is an eye-rhyme of “one”, all the rest of the end rhymes of the last fifteen lines intertwine, one with another, so that the development of the ending proceeds in a set sequence; so that the displaced image of insemination and womb development, if I may make a creative and penetrating assertion — puns intended — appear in the structure of the poem itself!

But whereas in “The Extasie” the tension caused by the desire of the poet for sexual love (Eros) and the desire of his community for spiritual love (Agape) gave us the ideal synthesis of body and soul, if only conceptually, the synthesis of similar tensions in the “The Anniversarie” is less convincing and more paradoxical. For although the poet begins by defying collective time in “The Anniversarie”: “Only our love hath no decay;/This, no tomorrow hath, nor yesterday”, he will, by the end of the poem, succumb to it: “Let us love nobly, and live, and adde againe/Years and yeares unto yeares, till we attaine/To write three-score, this is the second of our raigne”. Unlike in “The Extasie”, Donne seems to understand that the synthesis of body and soul and their spiritual ascension may be nothing more than a dramatic monologue (directed at his audience rather than to his lady, as I earlier suggested) and that finally all things in this material world decay and die, and so for the short time that we are on this earth, let us love each other passionately and “nobly”, to use his word. Hence, he implores, “Let us love nobly, and live”! Carpe Diem!

Furthermore, what is also paradoxical in “The Anniversarie” is the fact that it is precisely the lovers’ consciousness of each other which brings the heightened consciousness not of subjective time, but of collective time: “The Sun it selfe, which makes times, as they passe,/Is elder by a yeare, now, then it was/When thou and I first one another saw”. Or in “The Good-Morrow”: “I wonder by my troth, what thou, and I/Did, till we lov’d, were we not wean’d till then?” To wit, in the following lines of “The Good Morrow” Donne gives an explicit explanation: “For love, all love of other sights controules,/And makes one little roome, an every where./let sea-discoverers to new worlds have gone/Let Maps to other, worlds on worlds have showne,/Let us possess one world, each hath one, and is one”. Or to put it simply, the lovers complete each other. Separated and apart, they might as well be dead.

For this paper, suffice it to say that Donne’s exploration of subjective reality in “The Good-Morrow”, like his exploration of subjective time in “The Extasie”, begins with and returns to the consciousness of the real world of matter and time. To put it plainly, Donne’s metaphysics is brought back down to earth and grounded by Donne’s commonsense understanding of critical conceptions of time, space, and matter. In “The Good-Morrow” for example, his reference to the hemispheres North and West (“Where can we finde two better hemispheres/without sharpe North, without declining West?”) brings the palpability of reality into the unreality of his metaphysics (“My face in thine eye, thine in mine appears,/And true plaine hearts doe in the faces rest”). In these lines “West” and “North” do not differentiate two spatial points, though essentially that is their function; but rather, Donne employs them to evoke an emotion of living immutability.

Donne’s uncanny ability to translate abstract ideas into concrete images or vice versa; to translate scholastic doctrines into abstract emotions, as, “What ever dyes was not mixt equally;/If our two loves be one, or thou and I/Love so alike, that none doe slacken, none can die”, where he has borrowed, and I am now quoting from the footnotes of the poem, “the Scholastic doctrine that change and death result from inequality or disharmony of the elements of a thing”, demonstrates remarkably Donne’s originality and the constructs of his society in fusion. By constructs, I mean the poem was written in iambic pentameter, the poetic convention of Donne’s times, of course.

Although reality is our own making, as Donne suggests in “The Good-Morrow”, oftentimes we make it correspond with everyone else’s, or at least we try to, especially if the collective’s Agape is in conflict with the individual’s Eros, as was the case in “The Extasie”, in which instance the conflict over the poet for personal sexual love and his community for public spiritual love provided the tension and dichotomy which Donne inevitably synthesized in all his poems, with their strained conceits and rhythmic irregularities. This was distinctly Donne’s genius and is the explanation for his highly personal and private, yet highly formal and structured poetry. He was an English Eccentric and Original!


Time Dilation or Einsteinian Time in John Donne’s “The Extasie”

We first consider two bodies (B1 and B2) at rest in “World A”. Both bodies are at a distance from a large mirror (Distance = “D”). Acting as one, both bodies fire a flashgun and measure the interval between the original flash and the return flash from the mirror. See diagram below:

World A: Proper Time in John Donne's

We now consider these same two events, the original flash of light and the returning flash, as observed in “World B”, where the souls are departing away from the bodies. See the following diagram:

Time Dilation in John Donne's

If it is true, as Donne believes, the souls are interchangeable with the bodies, the experiment applies to the souls as well as to the bodies. Therefore the events happen at two different places: at X1 and at X2 in “World B” because the bodies “B1” and “B2” have moved a vertical distance. Their souls have left their bodies in other words. Hence, in “World B” we see that the path travelled by the reflection of the flash is longer than in “World A”.

However, Einstein postulates that light travels with the same speed “c” in both World A and World B. Since light travels farther in World B at the same speed, it takes longer in World B to reach the mirror and return. The time interval in World B is thus longer than it is in World A. Observers in World B would say that the clock held by souls (S1 and S2) runs slow since they claim a longer time interval for these events.

Bodies B1 and B2 measure the time of the light flash and return at the same point in World A, while in World B these events happen at two different places. A single clock can be used in World A to measure the time interval, but in World B, two synchronized clocks are needed, one at X1 and one at X2. The time between events that happen at the same place in a reference frame is called “proper time.” The time interval measured in any other reference frame, such as in World B, is always longer than the proper time. This expansion is called “time dilation.”

Though this is, of course, an oversimplification of Einstein’s time dilation, nevertheless, it is, for this paper, sufficient. For more information about “proper time” and “time dilation”, see Paul A. Tipler’s Physics (Worth Publishers, Inc., 444 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016) p. 670-671.