Institutionalized people, 1984 & ISIS

Institutionalized people, 1984 & ISIS

War is usually simulated, a war game in a “theatre” of war… It’s acting, pretty much, sometimes people will be killed off but one could just say that it is an organized sacrifice.

Even WWI was just a game, often they just let one side win when they get bored of the game.

That’s why Hitler did not want a “war” in conventional terms because it would be just a replay of the same old war game – selling guns and ammunition for as long as possible.

Basically Hitler’s wars were real, the only real wars.

See how quickly he beat the French and British, who had superoir forces at the time in Blitzkrieg, that’s because he was not playing by the standard “rule book” of war which would not be war but a game.

~Karl Young

Go to any Modern war; either in contracted official terms, or as a voluntary mercenary. Or just read about them. You will find out that everything is pretty much staged, regulated, politically restricted and ‘not total’ (war).

The men fighting them may be sincere. But the men financing, planning and ordering them, just play a game. Too many rules and intentional ”blunders”.

The only real wars of the last centuries, which were not restricted as in board games, were fought and led by Napoleon first, and Hitler after.

The part in Orwell’s book, 1984, where he described the wars and shifting alliances between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia; is nothing different from what is actually happening today.

Only small militias trying to fight for their own sovereignty, and even individuals, are in today’s world, real anti-establishment conflicts. But then they have to interact within the Modern system of international relationships, if they succeed in power. And thus every ”revolution” and ”independence declaration”, is the continuance of Institutionalized Law, with different faces. Just like in democrazy, the system and Ideal do not change, but only the faces. Heads or tails, 2 sides (left and right), same coin.

Even ISIS is controlled opposition. Founded, financed and restricted by certain Western intelligent services.
Every Middle-Eastern country, destroyed by the USA and NATO, had their own economic system and banks, uncontrolled by the Global Currency. And ”without notice”, it are exactly those countries being invaded and left in orchestrated chaos. There never were weapons of mass destruction or overly tyrant dictators; and even though they are dictators, that is simply how those people live their best standards.
ISIS is easily dealt with through a full-scale attack, but they are tolerated, until the Russians finally interfered to a degree. But of course, to have their part in world affairs. 

All the criminals and gangsters and ”freedom fighters” and city-anarchists; are merely rats living in the sewers of the system. Even in prison – everything is an economy, or a part of the State’s ordering of society.
Small people ”fighting against the law”, not by actually fighting the law, but by committing degenerate crimes and thinking that they are ”out-laws”, but actually, they are in-laws as they never are an actual threat by overthrowing the State-system. 

‘The System’ isn’t just the Institution as an abstract and bureaucratic building and its law enforcement, but it is organic, too: Institutionalized people. People who think by abstract laws and rules and morals. The Law is their thinking. As with traffick rules.
The people are the system, they are stupid. Genetically degenerating through medical, GMO and hormonal warfare and by propagating a system for the dumbest to easily procreate while making it for the most free-spirited, hard to live. 

The system territorilizes the minds of its people through political law, academic learning and media propaganda. So, if a Western tourist goes to another country, far away with a different system, she will still, in most of the times, represent her government through the manner of her behaviour and thinking and living. As tourism is itself a part of systematic living (free-time and work-time).
The people as an extension of their Law and State. 

You can’t have democrazy, or whatever system, without propaganda and restrictions in free-thinking.
Not a single system works without its propaganda. All the greatness you think democracy and humanism are, is only because you believe the propaganda. These idea(l)s sell themselves as such and become institutionalized / nationalized. Just like Islam, Communism, Christianity etc. Every person adhering these religions and oppositional systems, think greatly about them. Because each system propagates itself as such, and so the person will parrot.

Walking institutions / corporations… That is what most people are.
You can’t defeat the whole system, without taking down all of the people with it.


Institutional thinking

Lady of the Instant

Lady of the Instant

‘Lady of the Instant’, by Michael Cheval
A very expressive painting, indeed..

How I might explain it, as how it speaks to me:

Beautiful ‘misery’ weighs, or dances her act upon the miserable. Of course she isn’t misery personified, but only for those who hate her spontaneous message.

Lady of the Instant.. In a instant, like the shot of a bow, things will change, like an arrow piercing its way.
From one theatre act to another. The heavens and the circles of hell, all change over time their roles. Life is a circus, but dressed like a gracious ballet dancer. Disguised like a clown.

I wonder what the lost and wretched souls in the heavens, grieve and screech about. Maybe they try to capture the shot arrow carrying the message of the White Dove: Love and Peace.
Or simply a white pigeon, carrying the message as another undeclared war.

”Whiteness” and Nation-alism.

When the Europeans, specifically those of mainland Europa, start to realize that it is not about the survival of ‘the White Man’. But it is about understanding that the British people, by blood wherever they may be, are the enemies detriment to destroy us.

Even extending beyond European (blood) borders, the British are the cancer of the world and all of humanity, how worthless they (the rest of humanity) may be to our standards; they (London) poison us with each other, against each other.

The Jews are of course mentioned in my regards, but without the British, you won’t have much Jewish Institutionalized hegemony.

To finally get rid of all Modern sickness, it is the duty of any sane man, to undermine London.
To recognize them. That’s all it takes.
It is not about the abstract and fake ”White Man”, it is about excluding the British as a part of ‘our survival’, as different (European) ethnicities.

For every sick, degenerate Modern walking around, making it in the news, on YouTube, whatever. They are of British descent. Even like Jewish tactics but without the intent, pretending German names, through marriage, but their British side Always shows up.

Easy to look up the names of people, to look into family histories, grandfathers and mothers – a British side is detected.

What is this ”Whiteness” anyway..
‘White’ is British-American abstract thinking and a monolopy upon the defintion of ‘which shade of ”White” ‘ (as the British Always have been so good at, looking down upon mainland Europe, even to this day).
Whoever wants to protect ”Whiteness”, will be flushed down into the sewers of city life; as they do not understand ancestral ‘values’ and synchronicity with history and ethnic sovereignty.

Not to speak of, many enough mongoloids who will be included in this ‘White’ concept.

”Whiteness” and nation-alism are 2 cancers bound together. Same shit sold over and over again with different names, as now the weak and apologist ”right” wing (defined by enlightenment values and abstract dualism), sells itself as ”alternative”. Even embracing public homosexual acts, to ‘defile Islam’..
”Let’s show how much we fight Islam by having 2 men kiss each other on a public square….” Not understanding how many enough ”Islamic” values are pre-Islamic and Indo-European shared values.

Nothing new here, just political views changing names.
While they might point out the name-change contests of Nigger – Negroe – Black – African-American – Chocolate Bunnies etc., they can’t seem to apply it to themselves, in regards with political names. The (genetic) concept remains the same.

The ‘(Extreme / Alt) ‘Right” is merely a Moderate Left.

Whiteness is an abstract concept.

What I have written years ago already, I still apply:

Civic I-pride 

To the pathetic border-line nationalists who cannot think outside their current geographical location in the time they reside in; your pathetic flags and symbols do not symbolize a bloodline united in instinctive principles, but that of emotional bonding united in an artificial bubble of socially constructed ideals and a common desire to the ‘near future’, your idealistic Utopia.

Your nationalism is merely another form of consumerism; buying those symbols worn by past warriors who would laugh at your hollow representation and would feel insulted by the use of their once meaningful symbols. Buy your factory produced swastikas, hammers and sickles and nation-representing flags which any retard can become a representative of by earning the privileges and blessings by the masses and economic elite adhering to such citizenships of ideals and nations. Consume and produce more of your lousy ‘’pride’’ and ideals, you are as common as any other Modern, just in a different shell marked with ‘’opposing’’ symbols disconnected from the past and its phenomenal meaning – symbols and words is what remains, a hollow shell without corresponding inter-actions, without the connection beyond your current Moral normative values.

Even the past ideals beyond any relative ‘good and evil’ concepts, you border-line State representatives adhere to, are to you Morally an opposition to that which you seemingly oppose, and thus stay caged in the current definition on what is ‘’Morally justifiable’’ – Either this Or else that, a polarized concept on Moral political-policies defined by those you claim to oppose, you retarded hypocrites, the so called ‘’opposition’’ giving the very meaning to your ideology and values, defining what you are and acting in accordance to their Morality.

Sloterdijk described nationalism as ‘civic I-pride’, meaning that they have to take pride in the super-ego because their kind have no Ego distant from current ideals and others’ their fantasies, nor can they take pride in their own stagnated growth and thus need to take substantial meaning from abstract symbols and historic references, which, once they put it on themselves, become meaningless. Of course a society or community can only grow so far their genetic make-up allows them, it is about the cumulative of a whole volk and not a few geniuses living amongst complete idiots; but that’s the problem of today where we have masses of technological emancipated retards googling what they should parrot, presenting themselves as independent from the medium to which they are so dependent upon to spit some ‘brilliant on(e)-liners’.

A volk of course should be in touch with its history, but to merely take pride and not give it back, such a parasitical concept is the norm of Modern nation-states; the nationalists / consumerists watch a Morally-filtered documentary and say based upon those images; ‘’these are my ancestors and I take pride in them and I will wear their symbols as an identity I can pick, just like I can choose to be a woman or a man’’, how ridiculous, what kind of cultural input do they have themselves, be it to make hand-made boots, be it as a creator of specific fine arts, a ‘simple’ shepherd, a folk dancer or musician, a poet or a construction worker of an architectural delight.

No, they are producers and consumers of economic factory quantities and when they build they build (not create) more abstract boxes we call ‘’homes’’ but in reality are as alike to other homes as the ‘’individuals’’ are to other individuals – products of Modernity and unique on the surface with their symbols of nations and products, yet from within they are abstract copies of each other based upon abstract Moralism, representing themselves with abstract symbols and talking the talk with abstract words disconnected from their actual meaning; their words have no weight, their actions do not gravitate towards what they have said, an orgy of spewing words shooting through the air like semen from an random dick to target a random orifice, or a surface to what or whoever it belongs, who cares anyway anymore; mind fucking – infertile – fuck fests to inseminate sheltered minds with their Idealistic poisons protected from reality by the system they say to oppose.

What does it mean when I see some fat negress wearing a ‘I love London / Paris’ t-shirt which she bought in a shop somewhere in New-York which they on their turn imported from elsewhere in China. Can’t you see the damn humour. What does it mean to be a part of this and that volk, if the nation gives away symbolic citizenships to anyone whether they speak the language or not, whether they are of the same blood or not, not to the exceptional individuals who proved their quality, value and loyalty, but to the masses who don’t care anyway. And is a German Shepherd born and raised in sub-Saharan Africa, re-named ‘’African Shepherd’’, really something else than what its blood says to be in all the corners of the world, or does its blood say ‘I am what I am and you cannot change my being, not even by another superficial name’ – to speak and pretend is not the same as to be and unfold to potentially be-come.

I laugh to you all, belonging to any political, moral, ideological, symbolic, nationalist or whatever kind of other economical consumption worldviews you adhere to – with your failed, cowardly and infertile ideals, or ideals to superior for you to comprehend, lowering its value through your pathetic symbol representations which you do not understand, pretending to be the representatives yet only expose your inferiority and your kind alike; like attracts like.

Nothing you own, but divide you do all

Nothing you own, but divide you do all

By Samuel Roth

JUDAS: What do you want with me?

I: I want you to order the pride to die out in your eyes. I want you to be ashamed and confess your guilt.

JUDAS: But I am guilty of nothing. So what is there to be ashamed of?

I: Perhaps you can explain what you happen to be doing here. Spying on me, aren’t you? But what is spying to you that it should worry your conscience? And whom do you think you serve by imposing your unpleasant presence on me?

JUDAS: You yourself.

I: Perfect. It’s what I expected you to say. It wouldn’t properly be you if you didn’t interpret your easy meanness as an act of unselfish philanthropy. That’s the most damnable thing about you. You must lie and cheat because it’s second nature with you. But you must always be doing it in the name of some worthy cause. You put your ill-smelling hands on a man, and proceed to carefully, painstakingly choke the life out of him. But that is not enough. Not for you. You must explain to the world that you are really doing a good thing, that you are choking the man out of sheer love of him.(37)

JUDAS: I do love you.

I: Of course. I do not doubt it. You love me, just as you love your mother, your wife, your sons or your daughters. For you are not content with being merely good: you are respectable, too. You have made of your house a very fortress of respectability. No one loves a mother more than you love a mother. No one adores a sister more tenderly than you adore a sister. But you have built a fence about your home and about those you fancy to love. You have drawn an ominous line under your life and under the lives of those related to you by the more obvious blood-ties. Do you remember what they taught you in school about a line? That it’s really imaginary, that it has no existence in the physical world? Such a line you have drawn to separate yourself from the world you rob, choke and murder. You think it is the essence of virtue to feed your own mother and starve the mothers of others. You think it an irreproachable thing to build a tender shelter about your sister and expose the sisters of others to shame and hunger. Well, you have fooled yourself. There is no difference between your mother and other mothers, between your sister and other sisters, between your daughter and the daughters of the people you hold aloof from as strangers. And so, without knowing it, you have consigned your own precious mothers, sisters and daughters to your own loathsome brothels.

JUDAS: I cannot understand this passion of yours. I have done nothing wrong, nothing unlawful.

I: I do not accuse you of being unlawful, but of being inhuman. Why, pray tell me, do you praise only what you sell, and invariably scowl at what you buy? Is that not against all sense of decency and humanity? You purchase what seems fair in your eyes, and certainly it must be precious to the one who parts with it. Yet when you are making the fatal exchange-money for beauty-you have not a smile or a kind word for the man who is about to enrich you by yielding something of a reluctant order to your grasping faculties. Have you ever seen yourself when you offer something for sale? What you sell may have usefulness. If it ever had beauty the beauty died in it the moment you touched it. Yet as you offer your awful offal your face lights up with animation, your lips curve with joyous anticipation, and only words of praise tinkle from your tongue.

JUDAS: That’s handel, business.

I: Maybe. Handel seems to justify you in almost every one of your monstrous acts. But if I were you I would try to change about a bit. I would be a little critical of what I sell, and a bit appreciative of what I buy. If only as a first exercise in elementary honesty. And I have another major recommendation to make. You have already got yourself into the habit of wearing glasses. Why not wear smoked glasses?


I: So that you will see less and find what you do see a little less desirable. Nothing in the world seems to me to be quite as extensive and as destructive as your vision. You seem to see everything. And whatever you see you want.

JUDAS: But my wants have never been immoderate.

I: You mean you never thought your wants were immoderate. How could you consider any want of yours immoderate when in your black heart you feel that as a son of that old thief Jacob you are the true owner of everything lovely and desirable on earth? Maybe if you will see less your heart will lust less and your arms and your hands will not always be reaching out for the property of others. If I were you I would lose no time finding densely smoked glasses to cover the eyes. Otherwise hands might be extended to pluck them out.

JUDAS: One or two eloquent gestures in that direction have already been made.

I: Yes, I know. And you are not frightened. Not because you are unafraid. Because you know that always, at the last moment, the world is softened by your pleas, and withholds its hands. You have learned thoroughly the trick of falling on your knees before it and imploring mercy in the names of all your sacred devils. So frequently have you given this performance that the world has almost come to regard those sacred devils as its own. The grand result may be that instead of the world plucking out your terrible eyes, it will be you who, with your filthy fingers, will nail out the eyes of the world. For you have succeeded in teaching the world mercy without ever seriously entertaining the idea yourself.

JUDAS: So you even fear for the world on account of me?

I: And with good reason. In the struggle for civilization the issue has always been between the world and you: the world striving upward, you pulling down, down. It will be a wonderful thing for the world when you are quite completely gone.

JUDAS: You hate me, don’t you?

I: Yes, I hate, I loathe you.

JUDAS: I can’t understand why?

I: I don’t fully understand it myself. But I do know that I hate you. I particularly hate your face, face of a Judas, of a Satzkin. The revengeful heels left their tracks on that horrible face of yours. It is a, face which has absorbed an ocean of outraged spit, and it is drooping with a dark greenness out of the mean corners of your mouth.

JUDAS: And that you think is a good enough reason for your hatred?

I: Look at you., You have no bank, yet your are represented at all bank counsels. You have no army of your own, yet you dictate wars in which armies of the young of the world are destroyed. You have no honor, no decency, and yet you talk continually of your pride. You have no real possessions of your own, yet you are always prepared to advise other people how to divide what is their own. All the things in the world which are hateful are hateful in you. And the things which in the rest of the world are lovely and lovable in you are hateful and contemptible. If it is a beautiful thing in a brother to love a sister it is a mean thing when it is a Jewish brother loving a Jewish sister. If it is a beautiful thing for a man to stand up for his country, when it is a Jew who stands up for his country the act is corroded with hatefulness. I know that the whole arrangement of the universe, as I am living in it, is a sort of benevolent democracy in which the smaller as well as the more monstrous reptiles, the insects which attack one’s blood from within and those planetary powers which shape us from without, each has a function, a usefulness, a justification. So have you, I suppose. But I abhor you even more than I abhor lice, spiders, diseased orifices of the body, roaches, the germs of syphilis and gonorrhea, and those rebellious little aristocrats who compose cancer. You seem to me to be some unhealable disease in the blood of the race. Without you, life for humanity might be as free, joyous, happy-go-lucky and adventurously fatal as it must be for the rest of animal creation, as it probably was for those lucky races who spermed into a world that had not yet fallen under the shadow of your dominion. I do not know when I hate you most: by day or by night, when you are victorious or when you have lost, old or young, stout or lean, drunk or sober, just or unjust, when you are most happy or when you are most miserable. I only know that I hate you with a hatred so steady and deadly that it consumes in me all sense of time and place. What can I do to you to prove to you how fearfully I detest you? Abuse you with speech as I am doing now? Futile gesture! About whom have nastier or more terrible things been said? Spit on you? The whole world has spit in your face and ground its heel into the spittle. I know. This solid drinking glass may well do something a whole world has failed to do. See me hold it up? In another moment it will go crashing through your horrible skull. …

The mirror fell in a thousand shattered fragments at my feet.


(37) “The difference,” says Boris Abramovitch in Skolom Ash’es Three Cities, “between the Russians and the Jews consists rather in this: that the Russian loves to confess the evil that he does to his fellow-men, while the Jew prefers to confess only his good deeds. He conceals the evil within him, or forces himself to express it. The reason at the back of this is that the Russian likes to have something on his conscience; without a few pecks of sin, as it were, he doesn’t like to show himself in the street, and if he shouldn’t happen to have committed any he thinks up a few sins simply that he may be able to promenade with the mark of Cain on his brow. The Jew, on the other hand, likes always to have a clean conscience so as to be on the sure side. The slyness for which Jews are so famed consists in keeping their ‘account’ in the spiritual ledger perpetually balanced, as if an inspector might come along at any minute. A few may commit the meanest offenses, but he will always find some way of putting them in such a pure light in his own mind that they are changed into little virtues. If nothing else will serve, then he will make the good Lord his accomplice, as Jacob did. If a Christian had tricked Laban like Jacob – even if only in a small fraud like the peeled wands – he certainly would have felt guilty; but Jacob actually made a good deed out of it, on the excuse that it was necessary for his wife and children. The Jew is always prepared to transform his dirty, brutally egotistic interests into holy virtues. That’s the kernel, if you’ll excuse my saying so, of Jewish cunning.”

“You can change your noses, but you can’t change your Moses”

“You can change your noses, but you can’t change your Moses”

By Sander Gilman

“In the 1940s Hirsch used to tell his debutantes who wanted nose jobs that “you can change your noses, but you can’t change your Moses.” In remembering Hirsch, Berman stressed the significance of the Jewish nose as a hallmark of his opposition to simple-minded acculturation. Hirsch was one of the first generation of Reform rabbis who were also Zionists. He saw Jewishness as unalterable: Jewish authenticity was tied to the unalterability of a Jewish identity, represented by the Jewish body.

How can one bridge these two moments: the desire to alter the Jewish face before the beginnings of modern aesthetic surgery of the nose and its seemingly widespread practice among Jews following the Shoah? How can one recognize the desire to mask and the simultaneous desire to reveal? As a cultural historian, I mentally raced through my readings of Marcel Proust. In his Remembrance of Things Past, a series of novels written to recapture the world of the 1880s and 1890s, there is a self-reflexive passage in the novel entitled Swann’s Way. Here the narrator is talking about the arrival of the immediately identifiable crypto-Jewish character Charles Swann at the dinner hour, disrupting his schedule:

After two shy peals had sounded from the gate, she would inject and vitalize with everything she knew about the Swann family the obscure and shadowy figure who emerged, with my grand- mother in his wake, from the dark background and who was identified by his voice. But then, even in the most insignificant details of our daily life, none of us can be said to constitute a material whole, which is identical for everyone, and need only be turned up like a page in an account book or the record of a will; our social personality is a creation of the thoughts of other people. Even the simple act which we describe as “seeing someone we know” is to some extent an intellectual process. We pack the physical outline of the person we see with all the notions we have already formed about him and in the total picture of him which we compose in our minds those notions have certainly the principal place. In the end they come to fill out so completely the curve of his cheeks, to follow so exactly the line of his nose, they blend so harmoniously in the sound of his voice as if it were no more than a transparent envelope, that each time we see the face or hear the voice it is these notions which we recognize and to which we listen. And so, no doubt, from the Swann they had constructed for themselves my family had left out, in their igno- rance, a whole host of details of his life in the world of fashion, details which caused other people, when they met him, to see all the graces enthroned in his face and stopping at the line of his aquiline nose as at a natural frontier . . .

The point of Swann’s nose is clear: for Proust it is a map of the world in which the Jew is the boundary marker that defines the limits of what is French. This boundary is risky to traverse and more over, in spite all other protestations of equality, still visible. The nature of this self-consciously constructed and internalized identity of the Jew as diseased, as polluting, is reflected in his physiognomy. The new nose (faux nez) is a mask identical to the new persona adopted by the Jew. Proust recognized that such a view possessed such power that even Jewish writers like himself (i.e., writers who felt themselves stigmatized by the label of being “Jewish”) needed the mask to disguise the nose. (Proust’s uncom- fortable relationship to his mother’s Jewish identity haunted his life almost as much as did his gay identity.)

Swann is more than a visible Jew who desires some form of invisibility. He is also a member of the elite who marries a courtesan. This link between Jew and prostitute is mirrored in Proust’s manner of representing the sexuality of the Jew. For Proust, being Jewish is analogous to being gay—it is “an incurable disease.” But what marks this disease for all to see? For to the turn-of-the-century mind, syphilis in the male must be written on the skin, just as it is hidden within the sexuality of the female. Proust, who dis- cusses the signs and symptoms of syphilis with a detailed clinical knowledge in Cities of the Plain, knows precisely what marks the sexuality of the Jew upon his physiognomy. It is marked upon his face as “ethnic eczema.” It is the infectious nature of that “incurable disease,” the sexuality of the Jew, that Proust’s Jew fixated upon his courtesan.

The Jew’s sexuality, the sexuality of the polluter, is written on his face in the skin disease that announces the difference of the Jew. For Proust, all of his Jewish figures (including Swann and Bloch) are in some way diseased, and in every case, this image of disease links the racial with the sexual, much as Proust’s image of the homosexual links class (or at least, the nobility) with homosexuality. (“Homosexuality” is a “scientific” label for a new “disease” coined by Karoly Benkert in 1869 at the very same moment in his- tory that the new “scientific” term for Jew-hating, “anti-Semitism,” was created by Wilhelm Marr.)

The image of the infected and infecting Jew also had a strong political and personal dimension for Proust. And yet, how can one reconcile the notion that the internalization of the image of the Jew is a reflex of a false set of values generated by society and in- ternalized by the powerless (even though they are wealthy and well-placed)? For the ability to “see” the Jew who was trying to pass as a non-Jew within French society is one of the themes of the novels, a theme which, after the Dreyfus affair in the late 1890s, had overt political implications. Seeing the Jew was seeing the enemy within the body politic, the force for destruction. And Proust’s “racial” as well as sexual identity was tied to his sense of the importance of class and society for the definition of the indi- vidual. Thus, Proust’s arch Jew, Swann, was visibly marked by him as the heterosexual syphilitic, as that which he was not (at least in his fantasy about his own sexual identity). But was syphilis a dis- ease of the body or of the soul?

One clear problem is the notion, which develops at midcen- tury, that the reconstruction of the face is the reconstruction of the face not of the Jew, but of the syphilitic. In 1834 the Berlin surgeon Johann Friedrich Dieffenbach, the central figure in nineteenth-century facial surgery, wrote that “ . . . a man without a nose [arouses] horror and loathing and people are apt to regard the deformity as a just punishment for his sins. This division of diseases, or even more their consequences, into blameworthy and blameless is strange. . . . As if all people with noses were always guiltless! No one ever asks whether the nose was lost because a beam fell on it, or whether it was destroyed by scrofula or syphilis.” The surgeon’s moral imperative was evident: correct and hide the fault, no matter what its cause, so as to allow the individual to pass as whole and healthy.

Theodor Billroth, the famed nineteenth-century Viennese surgeon, often carried out “plastic operations with artistic ability to correct defects of beauty (Schönheitsgebrechen) . . . one could see his joy when he was able to successfully improve the appearance (verschönern) of a damaged person, so that that person was no longer the object of pity or horror.” Whatever the cause of their disfigurement, Billroth’s Viennese patients struck their observers with the same pity and horror, the classical hallmarks of ancient tragedy, as did the victims of syphilis. One of his most distin- guished students, Vincenz Czerny, pioneered the modern reconstruction of the saddle nose, a nose without a bridge. Recounting a case in 1895, Czerny stressed that the patient came from “a healthy family (without a history of rickets or lues) and had suf- fered a depression of the osseous nasal skeleton through a fall on his nose, when he was 3 years old.” It was a childhood fall (as in Sterne’s Tristram Shandy) and not inherited syphilis that was the cause of the child’s deformity. But all deformed noses (and souls) in this world were assumed to be syphilitic in nature! Even Socrates’s proverbially ugly nose is read in the nineteenth century as a clinical sign of syphilis.

(It seems odd since Socrates had his nose long before the illness was introduced into Europe in the fifteenth century—but this argument was made by a scholar arguing against Columbus having “discovered” syphilis in the Americas and having carried it back to Europe!) The unclean nose embodies all of the horrors associated with the illness and the bad character of those who have it.

According to nineteenth-century medical science, the Jew had a special relationship to syphilis (through the agency of the prostitute). But this special relationship could literally be seen on the Jew. The British pamphleteer Joseph Banister saw the Jews as bearing the stigmata of skin disease (as a model for discussing sexually transmitted disease): “If the gentle reader desires to know what kind of blood it is that flows in the Chosen People’s veins, he cannot do better than take a gentle stroll through Hat- ton Garden, Maida Vale, Petticoat Lane, or any other London ‘nosery.’ I do not hesitate to say that in the course of an hour’s peregrinations he will see more cases of lupus, trachoma, favus, eczema, and scurvy than he would come across in a week’s wan- derings in any quarter of the Metropolis.”11 The image of the Jew’s nose is a delicate anti-Semitic reference to the phallus. For the nose is the iconic representation of the Jew’s phallus throughout the nineteenth century. Indeed, Jewish social scien- tists, such as the British savant Joseph Jacobs, spend a good deal of their time denying the meaning of “nostrility” as a sign of the racial cohesion of the Jews. It is clear that for Jacobs (as for Wilhelm Fliess in Germany) the nose is the displaced locus of anxiety associated with the marking of the male Jew’s body through circumcision, given the debate about the primitive na- ture of circumcision, and its reflection on the acculturation of the Western Jew during the late nineteenth century. Indeed, even the putative blackness of the Jew’s skin reflected the infec- tion of the Jew with syphilis! Jews bear their diseased sexuality marked on their skin like the leper.

This view is to be found in Adolf Hitler’s discussion of syphilis in fin-de-siècle Vienna in Mein Kampf (1925). Hitler links the Jew, the prostitute, and the power of money:

Particularly with regard to syphilis, the attitude of the nation and the state can only be designated as total capitulation. . . . The invention of a remedy of questionable character and its commercial exploitation can no longer help much against this plague. . . . The cause lies, primarily, in our prostitution of love. . . . This Jewification of our spiritual life and mammonization of our mating instinct will sooner or later destroy our entire offspring.

Hitler’s views also linked Jews with prostitutes and the spread of infection. Jews were the arch pimps; Jews ran the brothels; but Jews also infected their prostitutes and caused the weakening of the German national fiber. Jews are also associated with the false promise of a “medical cure” separate from the “social cures” that Hitler wishes to see imposed: isolation and separation of the syphilitic and his/her Jewish source from the body politic. (Hitler’s reference here draws upon the popular belief that particularly the specialties of dermatology and syphilology were dominated by Jews, who used their medical status to sell quack cures.)

Between the eras of Proust and Hitler began the aesthetic medical alteration of the Jewish nose. The means to change the nose, and perhaps the character, was supplied by Jacques Joseph, a highly acculturated young German Jewish surgeon practicing in fin-de-siècle Berlin. Born Jakob Joseph, he had altered his too- Jewish name when he studied medicine in Berlin and Leipzig. Joseph was a typical acculturated Jew of the period. At the univer- sity he had joined, like many Jewish students, a conservative dueling fraternity and bore the scars of his saber-dueling with pride.

Like many acculturated Jews, such as Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, Joseph “relished the test and adventure of the duel, the so-called Mensur, which was considered manly and edifying.” The scars (Schmisse) from the Mensur were intentionally created. Students challenged each other to duels as a matter of course, without any real need for insults to be exchanged; being challenged was a process of social selection. “Without exclusivity—no corporation,” was the code of the fraternities as late as 1912. The duelists had their eyes and throats protected, but their faces were purposely exposed to the blade of the saber. When a cut was made, it was treated so as to maximize the resulting scar. The scar that Joseph bore his entire life marked him as someone who was satisfaktionsfähig (worthy of satisfaction), someone who had been seen as an honorable equal and thus had been challenged to a duel. Marked on the duelist’s face was his integration into German culture. The more marginal you were the more you wanted to be scarred.

Such scarring was not extreme among the medical students of the day. The scar marked the individual, even within the medical faculty, who was seen as a hardy member of the body politic. This was the context in which the Jewish fraternities (most of which did not duel) sought to re-configure the sickly Jewish body into what the early Zionist Max Nordau called the “new muscle Jew.” The Jewish fraternity organ- ization stated in 1902, that “it desires the physical education of its members in order to collaborate in the physical regeneration of the Jewish people.” For some Jews, a dueling scar marked the so- cially healthy individual. At the very close of the nineteenth century, after Joseph and Herzl left the university, Jewish men were strenuously excluded from Christian dueling fraternities. Being a member of a frater- nity, like being an officer in the army, was a badge of truly belong- ing to the in-group in the society. It was a sign of being a German. With the expulsion of the Jews from the dueling fraternities, this sign of belonging was denied Jewish men. In 1896 the Christian dueling fraternities had accepted the following proposal:

In full appreciation of the fact that there exists between Aryans and Jews such a deep moral and psychic difference, and that our qualities have suffered so much through Jewish mischief, in full consideration of the many proofs which the Jewish student has also given of his lack of honor and character and since he is completely void of honor according to our German concepts, today’s conference . . . resolves: “No satisfaction is to be given to a Jew with any weapon, as he is unworthy of it.”

Jews are different and thus dishonorable; they are unworthy of sat- isfaction, even if those with facial scars, look just like “real Germans.” The visible scar advertises and guarantees the purity of the group. Because Jews cannot be pure, they must be denied the right to scar and to be scarred in duels. For a Jew to bear a facial scar is to hide his sickly essence from the mainstream. This duplicity is what is meant by “Jewish mischief.”

By the 1920s such seemingly false scarring comes to be part of the German discourse on aesthetic surgery. The aesthetic sur- geon Ludwig Lévy-Lenz tells the tale of a young man who, having won money in the lottery, came to him and wanted him to create artificial dueling scars through a cosmetic procedure. In this way, he could pass as someone who was worthy of being challenged to a duel. Lévy-Lenz refused to do the surgery and the young man went to a barber who scarred him with a straight razor and in doing so severely damaged his salivary glands. The visible scar enabled the young man to pass as a man of honor. But was it an authentic mark of honor or merely cosmetic?

The scarred Jacques Joseph was trained as an orthopedic surgeon under Julius Wolff, one of the leaders in that field. In 1893 Wolff had developed a surgical procedure to correct the saddle nose, which followed up James Israel’s earlier work repairing the syphilitic nose in the mid-1880s. Wolff’s major surgical innovation was not cutting the graft from the forehead, thus avoiding a tell-tale scar. More important, he established the “law of the trans- formation of the skeleton.” This argued that every function of the skeleton could be described through the laws of mechanics and that any change in the relationship between single components of the skeleton would lead to a functional and physiological change of the external form of the entire skeleton. Wolff’s wide-ranging contributions to the practices of his day included developing a therapeutic procedure for correcting a club foot with the use of a specialized dressing that altered the very shape of the foot. Orthopedics, more than any other medical specialty of the period, presented the challenge of altering the visible errors of develop- ment so as to restore a normal function.

Joseph’s interests did not lie with the foot, even though the feet were often considered another sign of Jewish inferiority, but elsewhere in the anatomy. In 1896 he undertook a corrective procedure on a young child with protruding ears, that, while successful, caused him to be dismissed as Wolff’s assistant. Joseph’s procedure was his own, but it paralleled the work of the American otorhinolaryngologist Edward Talbot Ely who had corrected a “bat ear deformity” on a twelve-year-old boy in 1881. Ely undertook the procedure because the child had been “ridiculed by his companions.” In Berlin in the 1890s, this sort of operation was seen as “beauty” rather than “real” surgery. When Joseph was dismissed, he was told by his Jewish supervisor Wolff that one simply did not undertake surgical procedures for vanity’s sake. A child’s protruding ears were not in the same class as a functional disability, such as a club foot or the reconstruction of the external ear, which had been a major problem for surgeons from the earliest written accounts. (The congenital absence of the external ear [microtia] was often attributed to hereditary syphilis. This would have been grounds to operate!)

Yet, according to the child’s mother, the boy had suffered from humiliation in school because of his protruding ears. It was the child’s unhappiness with being different that Joseph was correcting. Abnormally big and protruding ears alone might account for the child’s unhappiness. But it was the specific cultural mean- ing of protruding ears at the close of the nineteenth century that really added insult to injury. They were understood in Central Europe to be a sign of Jewish identity.

An old European trope about the shape of the Jew’s ears can be found throughout the anti-Semitic literature of the fin de siècle. The racial anthropologist Hans Günther summarizes the turn-of-the-century view that Jews, especially the males, have “fleshy ear lobes” and “large, red ears” more frequently than other peoples do. They have “prominent ears that stick out.” According to Günther, prominent ears are especially prevalent among “Jewish children; one refers to them in Austria as ‘Moritz ears.’” Moritz (Morris) was a typical Jewish name of the day. They are the “elongated ears” that appear as the “ill-shapen ears of great size like those of a bat,” according to an English-language anti-Semitic text of 1888.

In his major paper of 1910 on the correction of “prominent ears,” William H. Luckett of New York comments obliquely about the “odium attached to these ears.” In the American cultural context, these may have been the jug ears that dominated the caricatures of the Irish (and which contemporary Irish aesthetic surgeons continue to treat aggressively in modern Eire). They may also have been the ears of the Jewish immigrants on the lower East Side. The stigma they evoke is repugnance at a visible sign of dif- ference, a difference ascribed to the character as well as to the body. Luckett reports that one of his patients suffered “the constant harassing by classmates [which] frequently is the cause of so much distress as to produce a very bad mental condition in the child as well as in the parents, and to warrant our surgical inter- ference.” The strife that a big-eared child sows among his class- mates spreads so much unhappiness in the world that the surgeon’s larger duty, as well as the needs of his patient, demands that he operate.

The “scientific” belief in the visibility of the ear as a racial marker is also a major subtheme of one of the major works satirizing the world of turn-of-the-century Prussia, Heinrich Mann’s Man of Straw (1918). In that novel, Mann’s self-serving convert, Jadassohn (Judas’s son?) “looks so Jewish” because of his “huge, red, prominent ears”  which he eventually has cosmetically reduced. He goes to Paris to have this procedure done. Mann clearly intends the ugly ears to be read as a sign of the Jew’s lack of good character. They give the lie to any claim of conversion away from Jewishness. They mirror the shallow characterlessness of the Jewish parvenu.

The association of Jews with syphilis is not merely a fantasy of anti-Semitic rhetoric, which classified them either as carriers of the illness or as being immune to it. This also reflects disapproval of no- table Jewish scientists such as Adolf von Wassermann and Jadassohn for choosing to study and treat such a disreputable disease.

This image of the “Jewish ear” flourished into the twentieth century. Adolf Hitler was convinced that Joseph Stalin was Jewish (as he claimed all Bolsheviks were) and arranged to have photographs analyzed to see whether his ear lobes were “ingrown and Jewish, or separate and Aryan.” Race is written clearly on the body—especially on the ear. As late as in the 1970s in Central Europe “men request plastic operations of the ears more frequently than do women.” No wonder. A standard textbook on physical anthropology published in 1974 still listed the ear as a sign of Jewish racial identity: “The ear is large, wide in its upper part, and provided with a large lob.”31 From its inception the operation on the ear is a deracializing operation that is gendered in complex ways. It comes to have the same significance for Jewish males as the Jewish nose and the circumcised penis. It is a sign of the male child’s humiliation. The desire to pass as normal, which is the re- sult of the felt need to be completely “male,” created the need for a new specialty that would dispel psychic pain by intervening in the body of the male child. For Jewish women and girls with big ears, long hair obviated surgery and allowed them to pass.

After being dismissed from Wolff’s clinic, Jacques Joseph had opened a private surgical practice in Berlin. In January 1898, a twenty-eight-year-old man came to him, having heard of the successful operation on the child’s ears. He complained that “his nose was the source of considerable annoyance. Wherever he went, everybody stared at him; often, he was the target of remarks or ridiculing gestures. On account of this he became melancholic, withdrew almost completely from social life, and had the earnest desire to be relieved of this deformity.” The symptoms were analogous to those of the young boy whose ears Joseph had repaired.

Joseph took the young man’s case and proceeded to perform his first reduction rhinoplasty, cutting through the skin of the nose to reduce its size and alter its shape by chipping away the bone and removing the cartilage. On May 11, 1898, he reported on this op- eration before the Berlin Medical Society. In that report Joseph provided a detailed scientific rationale for performing a medical procedure on an otherwise completely healthy individual: “The psychological effect of the operation is of utmost importance. The depressed attitude of the patient subsided completely. He is happy to move around unnoticed. His happiness in life has increased, his wife was glad to report; the patient who formerly avoided social contact now wishes to attend and give parties. In other words, he is happy over the results.” The patient no longer felt himself marked by the form of his nose. He was cured of the “disease of nostrility.” In his own eyes, he looked less different from the group he desired to join, the non-Jews. Joseph had undertaken a surgical procedure that had cured his patient’s psychological disorder! Yet, he had left scars that pointed to the procedure itself, and this became a major concern of Joseph. He warned his colleagues that “disclosure to the patient on the problem of scarring is very important. Many patients, however, will consider even simple scars too conspicuous.” He raised the specter of a court case in which the “unsightly scar might represent a greater degree of disfigurement than the enlarged cartilage [of the nose] presented previously”. More centrally though, surgical scars, unlike dueling scars, reveal the inauthencity of the body and the effort to pass by means of medical intervention.

On April 19, 1904, Joseph undertook his removal of a hump from within the nose using cartilaginous incisions. He retrospec- tively commented that in 1898 he had used the extranasal procedure which “caused a scar, but this scar will be hardly visible after a short time, assuming that the incision is sutured exactly.”35 But “hardly visible” was not sufficient. Even the slightest scar was enough to evoke a visual memory of the too-big nose. The invisibility of the patient hinged on the elimination of the scar. Both patients needed to become (in)visible to pass, and Joseph had learned that only invisibility left his patients happy.

Joseph’s claim to fame was his solution to the problem of the visible scar. His procedure to remove the excess bone and cartilage intranasally (from within the patient’s nose) is still used today, as are the surgical tools he used to carry out the procedure. But oth- ers also claimed to have recognized this problem earlier and to have corrected it. His priority as the first surgeon to use the in- tranasal procedure was challenged in 1923 by the Berlin surgeon Friedrich Trendelenburg, who described undertaking (and docu- menting) such a procedure in 1889.36 Joseph’s procedure also par- alleled one developed by John Orlando Roe in upstate New York.

Large numbers of Joseph’s patients needed to become invisible to become happy, but the men and women had different vi- sions of happiness. In his summary paper on the reduction of the size of the nose published in 1904, Joseph commented on the psychology of his male patients: “The patients were embarrassed and self-conscious in their dealings with their fellow men, often shy and unsociable, and had the urgent desire to become free and un- constrained. Several complained of sensitive drawbacks in the exercise of their profession. As executives they could hardly enforce their authority; in their business connections (as salesmen, for example), they often suffered material losses. . . . The operative nasal reduction—this is my firm conviction—will also in the future restore the joy of living to many a wretched creature and, if his de- formity has been hindering him in his career, it will allow him the full exercise of his aptitudes.” According to Joseph, the patient “is happy to move around unnoticed.” The visibility of the Jew (often defined in the nineteenth century in terms of his mercantile ability) made it impossible for him to compete equally with the non-Jew in the economic world at the turn of the century. Only vanishing into the visual norm and passing as non-Jewish in terms of his appearance enabled the young Jewish male to become part of the general society. Passing thus meant functioning more fully as a male, because masculinity was defined in economic terms.

Such a transition became possible in late nineteenth-century Germany when the legal restrictions, which limited the Jew (and especially the Jewish male), were lifted. Jewish women were still bound by the limitations applied to women in late nineteenth- century Europe, but Jewish males generally could enter into the world of masculine endeavors as long as they were not too evi- dently Jewish. No law bound them (unlike African American males in the United States at the same moment) from becoming officers, doctors, lawyers, or businessmen in the general society, but the powerful social stigma associated with the Jews continued in spite of civil emancipation. Thus one did not want to appear Jewish—one needed to be able to pass as German or French. A twentieth-century commentator notes about Joseph’s procedures that: “Even today, 70 years later, one often hears the erroneous re- mark that rhinoplasty is an operation for vanity’s sake. That is not true. Vanity is the desire to excel. The average rhinoplasty patient wishes to be relieved of a real or imagined conspicuousness of his nose.”40 The route to happiness lay not in standing out but in blending into the dominant group whose silently taking no notice of one was the key sign of one’s acceptance. Being (in)visible is being intensely visible, but as a member of a group which defines itself as the norm, as beautiful and healthy. Friedrich Nietzsche quite insightfully noted that we are only aware of our bodies when we become ill. This was the boundary Joseph’s patients desired to cross. They wished to forget their bodies, to become one with those they imagined had no worries about the acceptability of their bodies. This is the essence of passing and it set the model for all aesthetic surgery for the future. In order for such a model even to appear effective, all awareness must be on the level of con- sciousness; no unconscious desire or hidden goals can influence the individual. Physical change must alter consciousness. But the male Jew’s hope of passing, of vanishing into the world of the Ger- man or the French, depended not just on the alteration of all-too- visible ears and noses, but on the surgeon’s ability to alter the most hidden and secret aspect of the male body.

Proust’s fascination with the Jewish body was a reflection of this European, scientific discourse about the fixed nature of the body and the desire of Jews to alter their own visibility. His ambivalent sense of belonging to high culture in France was heightened by the split in his cultural world by the Dreyfus affair. As much as Franz Kafka on the eastern frontier of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Marcel Proust, hidden away in his cork-lined room in Paris, saw his own body (Jewish, gay, French, Catholic) as the object of contestation. For Proust, syphilis marked the Jewish body.” [Jewish Frontiers: Essays on Bodies, Histories, and Identities]

Loyalty & Trust!

”This is not about Christians or faith… It is about LOYALTY & TRUST!
Something you can’t understand…

The most beautiful scene and words I can think of, in context..

Promiscuity, whoredom, disloyalty, back stabbing traitors, breakers of oath, abusers, fake friends, bitches, ill intended fucks, Roman dogs, emotional vampires, Gutmenschen … Everywhere around me.