I, Dynamo

Analysis, Critical Theory And Greil Marcus

by

R.E. Prindle

     Through the moral and political rhetoric of John Winthrop, the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, America explained itself to itself as a field of promises so vast they could only be betrayed.  The attempt to keep the promises- of community, liberty, jutice, and equality for all, because once let loose the genie could never be put back in the bottle- in face of the betrayal became the engine of American history and the template for our national story.

-Greil Marcus

http://.powells.com/ink/marcus.html

     The problem I have with Mr. Marcus’ writing is that it is all skewed.  His vision is distorted by his ideologies.  Mr. Marcus purports to write about the US using terms like ‘our’ when he is in fact an Israeli citizen and places the interests of Israel above those of the United States.  This situation is exacerbated by the fact that he is an adherent of the Jewish Critical Theory or Frankfurt School while being a leader of the Situationist Internation.  Both organizations are subversiive of the ideals and goals of the United States seeking to supplant those goals with those of Israel or, in another word, Judaism.

     Mr Marcus is not clear and honest in his intentions, seeking to mislead his readers into believing that he is objectively analyzing America rather than denouncing it in favor of the Israeli point of view.  He refuses to admit that his intent is the supremacy of Israeli/Jewish interests.  I find this both dishonest and offensive.

     Further in his zeal to demonstrate that the United States is a failed society he refuses to take into account any social or scientific developments since, essentially, John Winthrop of the seventeenth century.

     Winthrop is essentially a religious bigot who because of his historical era was necessarily devoid of any scientific knowledge.  His spoutings originate in the ignorance of the Jewish Bible written some two thousand or so years before his present which he takes as the literal truth and the word of ‘God.’

     While his views may be of interest to explain his times and while his views were influential in forming New England with its inherent bigotry they in no way reflect the views of Jefferson and others who were responsible for the formulations of the DOI and Constitution.  There were worlds of difference between the East Anglian Puritans and Cavaliers of both the South of England and the US.  Further Jefferson was a Revolutionary and Freemason learning his Freemasonry in the France of the Revolution.  Whether he was a Jacobin I can’t say but he has been so accused.

     While the Framers of the founding documents used the same words such as equality that we use today they undoubtedly did not undersand them as we do today.  To refuse to understand and take that into account is willful obtuseness on Mr. Marcus’ part.  The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ was gainsaid by their counting Negroes as only three-fifths of a man.  Quite obviously they did not actually believe that all men were created equal.  Whether ‘all men’ is meant to include women is also conjectural as women were denied the attributes of citizenship being considered appendages of men as per the Biblical creation myth.  So clearly the Founders understanding of equality is quite different from that of, at least, Mr. Marcus.  On that basis his views can’t help but be skewed.

     The African in America was an insoluble problem to the society then as it is to society today.  While counting Negro men as three-fifths of a human certainly sounds ridiculous yet modern evolutionary science has proven what was evident to observation then that the Africans as the first Homo Sapiens to evolve from the Last Hominid Predecessor was necessarily left behind by future evolutionary species of Homo Sapiens or sub-species if you prefer.  Mr. Marcus and his fellow Liberals insist that equality of Blacks and Whites is denied solely on the basis of skin color.  This is nonsense.

     If Africans were equal or superior to Whites, Semites and Mongolids there could be and would be no denying the status of the African.  Furthermore such superiority would be self-evident as it must.  Instead of the so-called White Skin Privilege there would be Black Skin Privilege and then black skin would indicate superiority and be desirable.  There isn’t and the reason why is because that while equality is a fine sounding ideal it does not exist in fact in either the macro or micro example.  It cannot be made to exist by legislattion so long as differences between the five human species exist.

     So, I would object to Mr. Marcus’ characterization of ideals as promises, they are two different things, that have been betrayed.  There has been no betrayal.  Mr. Marcus misleads us with his approach of Critical Theory.  The Founding Fathers set high ideals to live up to, perhaps impossibly high ideals but ideals worth striving to realize nevertheless.  The problem now has been complicated by the scientific reallization of the incompatible differences between the species so that the original meaning of equal of the DOI seems to be the correct one.

     The Negro problem, bedeviling America from its origins, was the rock on which those ideals first foundered resulting in the Civil War between Whites, Reconstruction and the current New Abolitionist Movement proclaiming the need to exterminate Whites by any means necessary.  So, over the hundred fifty years since the Civil War Africans and their Liberal and Israeli/Jewish handlers are in a position to realize the goals of post-war Radical Reconstruction which was the elimination of Southern Whites by Africans in a larger version of the San Domingo Moment.

     As the Whites struggled to come to some resolution of the Negro Problem that has always bedeviled American history large, even huge, numbers of Southern and East European immigrants flooded the country.  It is useless to use racial arguments and say that antipathy to these peoples was somehow racial when there was no difference in color which is the only thing Liberals recognize as a barrier to assimiltion.

     Rather these peoples were culturally unable to understand the ideals that underlay the American attitude, disdained them and sought to replace them with their own.  Thus we have a tremendous criminal underworld led by Sicilians and Israelis while the Israelis seek to subvert the ideals Mr. Marcus notes as ‘promises’ to replace them with a State resembling that of Israel in which the Israelis are paramount while all others are denied humanity much as Mr. Marcus accuses the Europeans of the US in relation to the Blacks.

     One therefore has to believe that as an Israel citizen Mr. Marcus is hypocritical in his criticism of American ‘racism’ and the ‘betrayal’ of the the ideal of equality.

     Unless Mr. Marcus can reconcile his ostensible beilief with actual Israeli actions I, for one, find it impossible to take him seriously.  Critical Theory and the SI are antipathetic to the ideals he seems to be espousing.

     I too believe that we have fallen short of the ideals expressed in the Founding Documents but for different reasons than those mentioned by Mr. Marcus.  I find no betrayal of those ideals but rather the sabotage of them by competing social systems such as the Sicilian, the Israeli and the African.

     Mr. Marcus may be an expert in Critical Theory but he is no analyst.  Analysis is Science; Critical Theory is religion.  Oil and water and the two don’t mix while Science trumps Critical Theory every time.