Stock Market Bottoms & Intuition

The stock market bottom that is. Have we seen it? Can intuition and emotion help predict stock prices or is market timing a purely rational exercise? Do feelings count?

On November 20th, 2008, we took my father out for a fancy lunch to celebrate his birthday. The Shore Club in Vancouver is a pretty posh eatery with great food and fine service, but there was a glum feeling that day that even a birthday lunch could not shake.

From my vantage point I could see the long and lonely bar, devoid of the usual crush of stock brokers, and above it a television screen tuned to BNN, Canada’s version of CNBC. The numbers were grim. The TSX closed down a staggering 765 points. And that sell-off came on the heals of what seemed to be endless days of sell-offs.

I stared at the depressing numbers for a while, then turned and remarked to my assembled family and coworkers that the market was down a shocking amount. Then, with the absolute assurance of a prophet (or the overconfidence of a fool, take your pick), I said to them all that the market had bottomed, and that, furthermore, the market would never be that low again for at least 5-10 years.

“I hope you’re right” my father said grimly. So far, a mere month and a half in, I was right. Neither the TSX nor the DOW has since been lower than Nov 20, 2008 when the TSX closed at 7,724.76 (today at 9,121.34) and the DJIA was 7,552.29 (now 8,769.70).

I firmly believe that 11/20/08 was a bottom that will not be seen for many years to come. But why do I believe this? The raw data? Sophisticated financial analysis and projections? No. My certainty was based on a solid knowledge of the numbers combined with a rare set of feelings that I had felt 8 years earlier.

On March 9th of the year 2000, I sat at other bar and watch another screen with similarly remarkable numbers. I had just inked a deal with a new business partner from Scandinavia. We both flew into Los Angeles to hammered out the terms for the European expansion of the Internet start-up I had launched a mere nine months earlier.

My new Swedish colleague and I celebrated our deal over a beer at the hotel bar. On the monitors CNBC was rolling the numbers. We both observed in amazement that the NASDAQ had closed above 5,000 for the first time in history. It was an amazing moment of euphoria.

My next stop was a Florida conference where, at the request of IBM luminaries, who had expressed interest in an alliance, I would present my ideas to Fortune 500 companies. Like the markets, I seemed to be on an unstoppable roll. A few weeks later, everything began to unravel. A few months later, my multi-million dollar paper profits turned to a sea of red ink.

I did not know at the time that my Swedish friend and I were looking over our beers at the top of the market. But I remembered the feelings, the same feelings I felt on November 20, 2008. The shared emotions were unmistakable: astonishment, disbelief, unreality, puzzlement, shock, overwhelm, a sense of gravity, of momentousness, of time standing still, as if history was being made right before your eyes.

There is no question that right now the world is staring into a dark tunnel of gloomy economic realities. But we human beings are sometimes unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, the reflection of the sun from the sun itself, the perceived impact of negative GDP growth from the actual impact.

No human or machine can possibly track the infinite variables that cause the future to unfold. However, I do believe we as humans have the ability to intuitively sense when the world is not unfolding as it should. Back in early 2000 I felt that something profound had just happened, but I was too caught up the game to know what it meant. Things were so good I did not want to believe anything else. I was not observing the bubble, I was the bubble.

This time around, hopefully with a modicum of perspective, in this time of bad news and extreme words, of talk of depressions, of “great depressions,” and “the biggest” and “the worst in a generation,” my feeling is that things are not as bad as they are perceived to be by many. Intuitively, I can’t foresee 2009 turning out to be as bad as advertised.

To kick off 2008 I added a catchphrase to my emails to friends and coworkers “It’s going to be great in 2008.” This year? It’s going to be fine in 2009.

The market seems to agree. Wishful thinking again? I hope not.

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Food for Thought

The current food crisis gripping the planet put me in mind of former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers’ infamous World Bank memo on pollution that cost him his job. In the memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_Memo), Summers appears quite bluntly to advocate for the export of pollution to poor countries on purely economic grounds. “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that,” wrote Summers in the 1991 memo. The memo is often cited as an extreme example of how the “the dismal science” puts people off (to put it mildly) by expressing the value of human life in dollar terms.

Summers’ memo was clearly repugnant, but is there a kernel of truth in it? Intentionally sending pollution to any place is preposterous. But within the note there nevertheless lies a nagging question: are “pretty air” and vast, untainted wilderness parks the mere baubles of luxury when compared the gnawing pangs of hunger biting those in abject poverty? “The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high
income elasticity,” Summers wrote, implying the rich can afford to be environmentally scrupulous whereas the poor are more likely to be concerned with more basic needs such as food, water and shelter. Can the current food crisis be linked to the West’s greedy demands for clean everything?

My favourite Canadian gas vendor Mohawk (its Regular gas has Premium level octane) bills itself as “Mother Nature’s Gas Station.” Why? Up to 10% of Mohawk’s gas is ethanol, which burns cleaner than petrol, is renewable, and therefore allegedly more “sustainable.” Ethanol and other bio fuels are often touted as the environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. As is now widely reported, the amount of corn required to create enough ethanol for one gas tank is enough food for a person for a year. The tremendous demand for corn and other grains is a key factor driving up food prices worldwide. The Economist reports that for every 20% increase in the price of food, 100 million new people are reduced to the absolute poverty level of $1 per day in wages. Is a slight reduction in greenhouse gases worth the corresponding starvation of thousands? Is anyone doing the math?

The dominant pop culture cause celeb of the 1980s and 1990s was undoubtedly world hunger. “We are the World” rings the quintessential anthem proclaiming our public responsibility to feed the poor. Now undeniably the overwhelming mind-share consumer is Global Warming. Witness the recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar. Ironically, the meteoric rise of environmental issues in the public consciousness is well correlated to the rise in standards of living and wealth. Could it be that our desire to stop Global Warming has strengthened because now we can afford it? To Summers’ point, the demand for low pollution rises and falls with income. With a recession in the wind, a fair prediction is that, over the next two years, the fever-pitched push to reduce carbon emissions will slow, and the problem of hunger will re-emerge as the number one focus of celebrity fund raising. Reducing one’s carbon footprint seems rather trite compared to reducing child starvation deaths.

Despite the uncouth flavour of Summers’ remarks, the undeniable reality is that rich countries like Canada place a high premium on pollution reduction, whereas up and comers like China, and poorer countries in general have more lax environmental standards. Can the export of dirty industries to poorer countries be simply attributed to corporate greed, or should it attributed to the countries who allow more pollution than others do so because their need for the basics of life outweigh their need for a nice environment?

One is reminded of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pyramid, with basic physical needs such as food and shelter at the bottom, followed by love and belonging, and “self actualization” at the top. Once we have met our lower order needs, we are free to grow and become our true selves, Maslow hypothesised. Deep down, no one, rich or poor, can deny the beauty and mystery of the creation, as we humans too are one of its glorious manifestations. Deep down, no one wants a dirty planet. But our survival instinct cannot be extinguished, and we will choose a genetically modified, non-organic, Styrofoam encased apple from the other side of the planet over hunger, every time.

Is there a solution to this conundrum? Arguably, the richer a country becomes, the more its citizens will demand clean air, clean water, and a healthy, beautiful, unpolluted environment. The proven route to wealth creation is free markets and low government intervention. Ironically, low government regulation is often cited a major cause of pollution. So we are faced with a paradox: low environmental regulation can lead to pollution generating financial success, which success in turn drives demand for high environmental regulation and pollution reduction. Let’s pray that Smith’s “invisible hand” operates to the benefit of the environment as well as the people living in it.

So let us rich be carefull about preaching the environmental gospel to the poor, remembering the Book of James (2:15-16): “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” Amen.

Further reading:

Climate change and biofuels to cause further hunger in Africa say IIASA experts

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Environtology: Sacred Earth, Profane People

These days it is not uncommon for environmentalism to be described as a kind of religion. Even without analysing such a statement, it rings true to many people. Why?

Some might assume that because the environmental arena is fraught with emotion and extremes of commitment (tying one’s self to a tree, for example), that religion must be at play. This reduction is inadequate, as extremes of emotion and action accompany politics, for example, and politics is rarely equated with religion. There must be another explanation.

In his fascinating 1957 book The Sacred and the Profane, Mercea Eliade observed that many religious world views divided reality into sacred and non-sacred domains. Certain physical locations were designated as “holy” places where the divine could safely exist in proximity to the temporal, “profane” world of decay and imperfection. Temples and shrines of all kinds are obvious examples of people creating sacred spaces free of “defilement.” This was a way for human worshipers to reunite with their creator.

Eliade observed that in many creation stories the divine being(s) would exit the world following its creation. Supernatural beings retreated to other realms often with the expectation of eventual return to the cosmos. Echoing the theme of creation as chaos being subdued by order, Eliade saw that pre-modern “religious man” also observed “sacred time.” Recurring festivals linked to the cycle of life draw humanity to the sacred, divine order. Eventually, in a future sacred time, the present, chaotic order of life, susceptible as it is to unpredictable change and entropy, will be replaced by the eternal, divine order.

Much western thought, heavily influenced by Judeo Christian thinking, sees the created world as a profane and untamed domain infected by “the fall” and therefore hostile to order. Survival is hard fought and not guaranteed. The “environment” is no Eden.

Curiously, our modern scientific approach to the planet also suggests a cruel and harsh world, where only the fit survive. Science itself seeks to find order and understanding in an often complex and mysterious world. The theory of evolution is itself an extremely elegant means of subduing the chaos of nature, providing an orderly progression along a predictable timescale. Modern cultures take comfort in this notion of order and in great hope often project a future time when yet more order and nobility will be imposed on our cosmos.

Herein lies the central paradox of an emerging environmentally based religious world view I have dubbed Environtology. In Environtology, sacred and profane time and space are reversed. Heavily influenced by eastern religions, Environtologists believe that the environment is pervaded by and demonstrative of the divine. Much “new age” spiritual thought is grounded in the idea that a transcendent “life force” is inherent in all living things. The idea of a divine and benevolent force exuding from nature is a precursor to Environtology.

Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth is as much a paean to the soul’s quest for meaning as it is an exposition of scientific enquiry. Caring for the environment is a way to become one with the divine. The creation is entirely sacred, a divine “Mother Earth” violated by the profane. But what is profane in Environtology?

Whereas Elide’s religious man sought to create separate holy places for the divine to commune with worshipers, in Environtology, humanity itself represents the profane. The environment represents the imagio dei, and mankind must become one with it to reach God. Our propensity to dominate over the environment is sin. Vancouver’s respected weekly newspaper The Georgia Straight recently reared up like a biblical prophet decrying in its cover story “The Sin of Air Travel.” The underlying philosophy of such a posture is that the invention of flight, an example of humanity’s triumph over the limitations of nature, is an example of man profaning the sacred.

Environtology puts forward a utopian eschatology and calls for an acetic lifestyle. Through self denial, mankind can redeem itself and achieve a “sustainable” future. Failure to deny our cravings will result in an apocalypse. Under Eliade’s sacred/profane dichotomy, sacrifice and ritual cleansing are viewed as a means to create a purified space for the divine to enter the cosmos. By contrast, Environtology seeks to remove that which is unclean (human infestation) from an already clean space. “Cleaning up” is a way to unveil sacred spaces profaned by human inhabitation.

Since Environtology is a religion it is therefore susceptible to the problems faced by religions. In theory, all religions seek to find and promote truth and reduce suffering. Unfortunately, it their zeal to promote truth and guard the sacred, religious communities can become intertwined with political power structures and this usually leads to corruption. Corruption in this context is meant to suggest that the original quest for truth is supplanted by a quest for power and resources, increasing suffering.

Environtology is becoming increasingly intertwined with political power and can therefore no longer be viewed as a benign worldview. In traditional cultures, populations saw no distinction between religious and political authority. Since Environtology is not widely viewed as a religion, there is a real danger that the hard fought separation of “church and state” will be increasingly compromised in the near future. Evidence of this is schools worldwide mandating that Al Gore’s film be viewed in the classroom, amounting to a form of indoctrination. However, much like praying in school, children are as likely to be helped as harmed by Gore’s sermon, and detractors will be ridiculed.

Environtology is not inherently “bad” as an idea, but look for it to start controlling your behaviour through guilt and force of law soon. Also, as Environtology becomes more entrenched, look for hypocrisy to spread. Well-off sinners even now can buy indulgences in the form of “carbon credits.” As with any system of rules and regulations, you will never, ever measure up.

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Corpophobia

It astonishes me how seemingly rational people buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories. A popular fantasy that people sucker into regularly these days is the myth of the evil corporation run amok. Bloodthirsty with greed, shadowy corporate operatives conspire to topple governments, rig wars, and wreak havoc on the environment. Having no soul, they are devoid of morals and care only for their insatiable desire for power. They are the uber-villains of the 21st century Hollywood blockbuster and the fool-proof straw-man of the left-wing hack.

But why can’t the innocent masses stop all these evil mega-corps? Well, shhh…, you see, …it’s all done in secret! Only a few, elite, powerful people are in the know. We the little, powerless people are at their mercy.

Conspiracy theorists love going after corporations because no particular person or set of circumstances need be relied upon to build up a good yarn. One can hurl the most awful slurs imaginable at a disembodied corporate entity and no business woman and her family will get hurt in the process. (Oh, yeah, I forgot, in the mythology, only grey-haired, white men are at the head of the cabal.)

Conspiracy theories are a common tool of the propagandist. Any set of facts can be twisted to suggest that some person or group is to blame for this or that. Truth is not important. Anti-Semitism and other racial prejudices thrive on contrived stories of the supposed secret plans and devices of hidden forces. One assumption leads to another and before you know it you have a mob calling for blood. In the old days, “communists” were assumed responsible for everything from bad weather (“they’re salting the clouds!”) to social unrest (“they’re stirring things up!”). Now its “multi-national corporations” that are poisoning our children (“GMOs to goodness knows”) and flat-out destroying the planet (“Global Warming”).

No one should suggest that corporations are incapable of crime, as it does in rare cases occur. That is why there exists a vast labyrinth of laws governing corporate behaviour. Often such regulations frustrate economic activity so much that they drag whole countries into poverty (eg. India, which is just now breaking free from “corpophobia” and prospering wonderfully because of it).

Here’s a challenge to anyone who thinks big corporations are evil: tomorrow, try not to consume anything that has any input whatsoever from these corrupt organizations (that means no cars or phones or electricity, for example). If you fail, hang your head in shame because you may as well be paying the country club dues of that heartless, white-haired old white guy you love to hate (news flash: the world’s richest person is now from Mexico).

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Panic Locally, Warm Globally

I was having a few beers with some friends the other day and the conversation got around to global warming.

“Complete bull-#$%!,” exclaimed one friend. “It’s all left-wing politics.”

“He’s right!” said the other.

Who in their right mind would hold such views? Well, one has a M.Sc. in geology and the other a Ph.D. in geology. Geologists are also known as “earth scientists.” You would think they would know something about all the great changes happening to our earth.

“You see,” said the first one, “The earth has been warming and cooling over the millennia. Shakespeare used to walk across the frozen Thames. Not anymore. But why?”

“The earth is wobbling on its axis,” explained the other. “People assume we have a constant angle to the sun. That’s not true. It’s not a proven answer, but its a possible answer. Climate change has nothing to do with human activity.”

So why has the world bought into global warming on such a mass scale?

“It’s a religious thing,” one explained. “People need to feel guilty about something. They feel better if they can expunge their guilt through some kind of righteous acts, such as cutting their emissions.”

Are we heading for another Y2K style “cry wolf” situation with the recent hysteria over climate change? If history has taught us anything, it is that widespread panic over past possible disasters has left people thinking later “wow, I was so worried about that and nothing happened.” Does anyone remember the film “The Day After” and people building bomb shelters and tens of thousands marching in the streets chanting “No Nukes?”

My view is that when an issue fills the headlines for weeks and months at a time, and Hollywood goes on a crusade, its time to become skeptical. Here’s an interesting climate change skeptic site:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php

Here you will find links to things like:

“Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change”

and:

A UK Channel 4 documentary “THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE.”

Heads up everyone. That sky might not really be falling..

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The February March

My son’s indie rock band has changed its name from Formula to The February March.  They have just released a ctitically aclaimed new CD entitled City of Glass

Check them out at myspace.com/thefebruarymarch

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Christians, Jews and Anti-Semitism

Credible Jewish groups such as the Anti Defamation League and other commentators have said that Mel Gibson’s blockbuster film The Passion of the Christ is anti-semitic. Why?

I still remember the shock I felt when I learned in 1983 that many Jews believe that the Christian Gospels themselves are the main source of the rabid anti-semitism that has flourished in the world over the millennia. In 1983, I was taking a course at the University of British Columbia called Post Biblical Judaism , on my way to earning a BA in 1984 with a major in Religious Studies. The Professor, a Sabra (a Jewish person who was born in Israel) and war veteran, declared flatly one day, in an massively thick accent, that he believed the New Testament was the root of all anti-Semitism. Ironically, the small class of six students was made up of five born-again Christians and one Israeli student.

The Christians in the class, myself included, were aghast at his suggestion and a vigorous debate ensued for the balance of the term. Since that jarring experience, I have taken a strong interest in the historical relationship between Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, a review of Church history does more to support my Jewish professor’s grim opinion of Christendom than confirm the Church as champions of peace, love and reconciliation.

The New Testament Church

The earliest Christians were at odds with the Jewish authorities and rife with dissention over questions of their own Jewish identity. Comprised mainly of converted Jews, the New Testament Church could have rightly been be considered just one of the many a small sects within Judaism. The decades preceding and following the time of Jesus saw the rise of numerous factions and splinter groups in Israel.

The Essenes, for example, made famous by their prominence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, were an anti-orthodox Jewish group that, among other doctrines, predicted the overthrow of Rome at the hands of a triumphal Jewish leader, the so called “Son of Man.” The early Christians could easily have been looked on with contempt by the Jewish authorities as yet another heretical and unbiblical movement. Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, later named Paul, the Apostle, led the way in attempting to stamp out the Christians. After his conversion, Paul would become the key transformer of the Church from a small Jewish sect to an explosive new world religion.

Acrimony between Paul and the Jewish Christians is evident throughout the New Testament. Paul’s mission was to bring the good news of salvation through Christ to the gentiles on the basis that faith alone was required for redemption, and that the Jewish legal system, including its complex dietary laws, was obsolete, or as Paul more diplomatically put it, “fulfilled.” To many Jewish Christians, this view was preposterous. An example of the debate comes from Acts 15:1-2:

“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”

The ensuing debate saw a compromise worked out whereby certain key laws would be observed by the gentile Christians with most other Jewish customs being optional. In spite of the truce worked out in Jerusalem, Paul’s writings in the Epistles are infused with disdain for anyone who would suggest that legal observances were required for salvation. “For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” (Romans 2:28-29).

Paul has some harsh words for those Christians who sought to integrate Jewish laws into a plan for salvation, as in Galatians 1:7 “there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” However, Paul writings go to enormous lengths to explain why his view of salvation was correct and emphasized that he was in no way disparaging the Jews, his own people.

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Romans 11:1-2). But Paul admits to sometimes antagonizing his brethren: “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them” (Romans 11:13-14). Paul was indeed zealous.

The Church Fathers

Paul was a man whose heart broke for his people. Romans 9:1-4: “I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.”

Unfortunately, many of the Church Fathers, early and revered proponents of Christianity, had all of Paul’s frustration but none of his warm heart toward the Jews. The following are notable instances of anti-Jewish rhetoric wherein Jews are blamed for Jesus death by Church Fathers (source: YashaNet.com):

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) :

“We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.”

John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.):

“The synagogue is worse than a brothel, it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ a house worse than a drinking shop a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition.” “I would say the same things about their souls. As for me, I hate the synagogueI hate the Jews for the same reason.”

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14

“How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!”

Given the above pronouncements issued by respected Church leaders in the formative days of the Church, its no wonder that Jewish and other scholars often link orthodox Christian theology to anti-Semitic thinking. It’s hard to believe that in such a short time the message of the love inspired Gospel and Spirit filed Apostles could have been so poorly interpreted. However, as reprehensible as it is to speak hatefully about any particular group, harsh words do not necessarily lead to action. But a fulfillment of these early sentiments was all too evident throughout the Middle Ages, as deplorable acts against the Jews became common throughout Christendom.

The Middle Ages

After the Roman destruction of Israel’s temple at Jerusalem in the 1st century AD, many Jews were dispersed throughout the world (forming what is known as the Diaspora) while many remained in Israel. Remarkably, in spite of widespread persecution, Jews flourished during the early Middle Ages (BC 200-700), a time when the core Jewish texts of the Talmud and the Mishna were compiled and a strong tradition of rabbinic thought was established. Until Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire by emperor Constantine in the 4th century CE, Jews and Christians had shared a common persecutor in the form of a brutal, repressive and pagan state. Although the Romans had sacked Jerusalem, they allowed Judaism to remain a legal religion for decades, but reversed that status under Hadrian in the second century. For Christians and Jews, survival under the Roman sword was never guaranteed.

During the fourth century and the rule of Emperor Constantine, who converted to Christianity, the legal status of Judaism steadily declined in the wake of Christianity’s rise as the official religion of the Roman state. Although not outlawed like paganism, Judaism was subject to increasing state stricture into the next century, such as the banning of intermarriage with Jews and exclusion of Jews from government posts. The Emperor Justinian (525-565), famous for developing one of the most important legal texts in history, the Justinian Code, introduced further discriminatory legislation against the Jews, such as prohibiting rabbinical biblical writings. In spite of the upheavals of beginnings of the first millennium, the worst was still ahead for the Jews.

Ironically, the rise of Islam in the early 8th century, proved less of a threat to the Jews than the Christians. Under the Pact of Omar, believed to date for around 800, both Jews and Christians, called by Muslims “People of the Book”, enjoyed inferior but somewhat tolerable status in Islamic states. Although prohibited from proselytizing and overt worship (e.g. church bells were banned), Jews and Christians were guaranteed religious freedom and normal property rights. The centuries of Islamic rule over Jewry in Spain, the Arab world and other areas provided relative sanctuary compared to the persecution that would follow, especially during the medieval crusades.

In 1095 in the south of France, Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade, ostensibly a call to forcibly wrest the Holy Land from the control of the Muslim Turks. The proclamation had the effect of setting off widespread hysteria and fervor for salvation and blessing through violence. While official armies were being marshaled, it became commonplace for hoards of self appointed holy crusaders to wreak havoc on such unbelievers as were to be found throughout the countryside. Throughout 1096, Jewish communities throughout Europe were attacked, plundered and slaughtered unless they consented to baptism. In some cities, total extermination of the Jews resulted. Church and state leaders eventually put a stop to the rampages and eventually provided some legal protections to the Jews.

The 12th and 13th centuries saw a pivotal shift in the careers of many northern European Jews, also called Ashkenazi Jews. Due to the Christian monopoly over most trade and merchant guilds, some Jews moved increasingly into the field of money lending. The expanding economy of Western Europe of the period created a significant demand for loans, and Jews vied for this business with Christian groups such as the Lombards of Italy and the clerical order of Templars. However, the Jews had a competitive advantage in that they were outside the rule of the Church that discouraged the making of profits through lending. The economic prosperity experienced by some Jews resulting from their successful banking business became an ongoing source of resentment in Europe, even though their success helped fuel a prosperous economy.

Perceived economic inequalities mixed with religious prejudice combined to make the later middle ages a difficult time for the Jews. The stereotypes of the Jew as a deliberate disbeliever with demonic qualities flourished, as did bizarre superstitions and myths portending Jewish wickedness. A particularly unpleasant myth, believed to have originated in England in 1144 that has survived in various forms down to the 20th century, is the notorious “blood libel,” where Jews were accused of murdering Christian children and using their blood to make matzah, the unleavened bread used in Jewish ceremonies such as the Passover. The legend, often used as a pretext to confiscate Jewish property, surfaced later in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in the form of The Prioress Tale, an account of an innocent Christian choir-boy wickedly murdered by Jews:

From that time forth the Jewish folk conspired
Out of the world this innocent to chase;
A murderer they found, and thereto hired,
Who in an alley had a hiding-place;
And as the child went by at sober pace,
This cursed Jew did seize and hold him fast,
And cut his throat, and in a pit him cast.
I say, that in a cesspool him they threw,
Wherein these Jews did empty their entrails.
O cursed folk of Herod, born anew,
How can you think your ill intent avails?

When the crime is revealed “by a miracle:”

The Magistrate at once put every Jew
To death with torment and shamefulness.

A variant of this “blood libel” ritual murder in Christian folklore was the accusation that Jews would routinely steal the elements of the sacrament of communion, i.e. the blessed “host” or wafer, so that they could secretly repeat the murder of Christ.

The official position of the Church during the Middle Ages did not support prejudicial treatment of Jewish people, but some Popes were openly critical of the Jews. For example, Pope Innocent III wrote in 1205:

“…although they ought not to be killed, as wanderers ought they to remain upon the earth, they ought not to be aided by Christian Princes but ought rather to be forced into servitude of which they made themselves deserving when they raised sacrilegious hands against Him…”

Negative religious, social and economic sentiments in Europe against the Jews lead to routine expulsions and massacres for centuries. In 1182, King Phillip Augustus of France expelled all Jews from the Royal domains (in and around Paris) and confiscated all their property. In 1290, all Jews were order to leave England, their possessions reverting to the King. 13th Century France saw all Christian loans owed to Jews cancelled and numerous bogus ritual murder and host desecration trials proceed. Germany saw plundering gangs massacre Jews in 140 communities in 1298. During the plague of the Black Death in the 14th century, it was widely believed that the Jews had caused the Plague by poising the wells of Europe with a vile mixture of animal and human parts combined with the sacred host. These outrageous allegations lead to an unprecedented slaughter of Jews throughout Europe for the remainder of the century. The once relatively stable Jewish communities of Spain were thrust into turmoil by rising Christian hostility towards Jews, leading to widespread massacres in 1391. The violence against Jews lead to tens of thousands of Jews converting to Christianity to save their lives and property, setting the stage for one of the most infamous Church institutions in history, the Spanish Inquisition.

Jewish converts in Spain, or Conversos, at first enjoyed greater privileges after baptism, and many went on to leadership roles. In 1480, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain established the Spanish Inquisition to investigate rumors that many Conversos were not sincere Christians but secret Jews. Those whom the inquisition claimed to have discovered as false Christians had their property confiscated and were sentenced to various punishments. Those who refused to recant were burned at the stake. The inquisitors used torture to extract an alleged blood libel confession, which led to the total expulsion of Jews from Spain. Besides sending Columbus off to discover the new world, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella made Judaism illegal in Spain, and an exodus of 100,000-150,000 Jews ensued.

The Reformation

Martin Luther (1483-1546) led a protest against the Catholic Church and its horrendous abuses that completely changed the course of history. Unfortunately, Luther’s achievements and profound contribution to the Christian faith are marred by his fanatical hatred of Jews. In a disastrous tracked entitled Against The Jews and Their Lies, Luther rages in words that could easily be mistaken for Nazi propaganda:

“What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy.  Let me give you my honest advice.

First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.”

Far from extinguishing superstition and prejudice through a return to the scriptures and renewed spirituality, Luther stoked anew the horrors of Jewish hatred and violence brewing for centuries. Wittingly or not, Luther through his detestable outburst help set the stage for the Holocaust wrought by an ever more virulent strain of anti-Semitism born out of deep rooted religious fear mixed with more “enlightened” theories of racial difference and social evolution.

Modern Anti-Semitism

In 1770, 1.75 million of the world’s 2.25 million Jews lived in Christian Europe. The early days of the enlightenment period showed promise for the Jews, who were still subject to a multitude of discriminatory laws. The widespread rejection of the dogma of the middle ages led some intellectual leaders to rise to the defense of the Jews and lobby for greater freedoms and equality. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizens instituted during the French Revolution of 1789 typified the yearning for equality and freedom in Europe and the nascent United States of America. After much debate, Jews were finally granted full French citizenship in 1791. The spread of the French empire under Napoleon also brought citizen rights to Jews in Germany and other jurisdictions. Throughout the 1800’s, liberal political forces expanded Jewish emancipation, marked by occasional resurgences of medieval prejudices and nationalistic fervor, particularly in Germany. Liberal policy was usually to promote assimilation of Jews into the Christian fabric of society, which often stirred up resentment when such assimilation did not occur. The later 1800s saw great prosperity and new opportunity for Jews in all walks of life, exemplified by Benjamin Disraeli, a man of Jewish decent who became Prime Minister of England in the 1870s. The Jews seemed poised to enjoy increasing peace and security at the dawn of the modern age.

By 1880, the ascendancy of rational and scientific thought over the prior predominantly religious worldview was largely established. But whereas earlier in the century concepts of freedom and enlightenment had promoted equality, hostility towards Jews now took the form of discrimination based on cultural and ethnic differences. The term anti-Semitism was invented during this time in part to establish Jew-hating as a legitimate position supported by reason and not faith, purporting that Jews possessed specific undesirable “traits” inherent to their race. Wilhelm Marr, the likely inventor of the term “anti-Semitism,” wrote that the fate of Germany lay in the crux of an epic struggle between Semitic aliens and native Teutonic stock. The Jews, he wrote “corrupted all standards, have banned all idealism from society, dominate commerce, push themselves into ever more state services, rule the theatre, from a social and political phalanx.”

A resurgent conservative movement sprung up in Germany during an economic downturn in the 1870s and some politicians seized on anti-Semitism as a popular platform from which to campaign. The Christian Social party organized in 1878 had overtly anti-Jewish policies. In 1881, a zealous anti-Semite collected 225,000 signatures supporting cessation of Jewish immigration and other legal sanctions. In 1893, small anti-Semitic parties succeeded in having 16 representatives elected in Germany. In France, anti-Semitism proved to be a good political ploy as clerical and monarchist groups fought against certain tenets of the French Revolution. Far more ominous for the Jews ware developments in Russia, where anti-Semitism became official government policy. The assassination of a tsar in 1881 led to widespread pogroms (from the Russian word for havoc, an organized massacre and persecution of a minority group, especially Jews) in the Ukraine, resulting in looting and destruction of 150 Jewish communities.

Modern anti-Semitism was in some ways more potent than prior instances because it appealed to a wide range of societal fears such as the economy and national security. However, ancient superstitions such as blood libels and ritual murder charges were dragged out as pretexts for riots, boycotts, quotas, and hateful rhetoric. In its most rabid form, anti-Semitism was at the heart of a growing political paranoia and crisis of national identities in Europe.

As the concept of evolution took hold, Social Darwinism mixed with racism to further intensify anti-Semitic tendencies. The theory that the fit survived led to speculation that the Jewish race, deemed by anti-Semites to have inferior traits, would eventually die out. Jews were portrayed as having a “Semitic Mentality” consisting of egoism, materialism, financial skill, low physical courage and creativity, whereas “Aryans” were seen to be heroic, life-affirming and highly poetic. Secular anti-Semites promoted images of a pagan, Germanic warrior race and even criticize Christianity for its Jewish charity toward the weak. The success of Jews in the earlier part of the 19th century gave anecdotal credence to suggestions that the Jews were too powerful and that they must be manipulating commerce and government through secret means. Even the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx (a Jew) was portrayed as merely a thinly guised front for a further rise of Jews to power.

In Russia, in an attempt to discredit socialist advances towards civil rights, the tsarist secret police forged one of the most notorious works of political propaganda in history: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Supposedly the minutes of a hidden Jewish world government, the tract documents alleged plans to control the press, manipulate all political parties, and dupe the populace through alcoholism and other devious means. Originally circulated by an Orthodox priest in 1905, the Protocols were largely discredited initially, but after World War I they gained credibility and were increasingly used in anti-Semitic propaganda.

The Rise of the Nazis and The Holocaust

Even a cursory review of the horrific events of World War II Europe is beyond the scope of this article. In light of the overwhelming suffering of the Jews in the preceding centuries, it would have been hard for Jews to imagine that their calamities would get worse by an order of magnitude completely beyond comprehension. The goal of the Nazis was nothing short of total eradication of all Jews. As declared by the infamous Nazi Heinrich Himmler: “The hard decision had to be taken: this people must disappear from the face of the earth.”  Ostensibly rooted in pagan myths of a mysterious and ancient Aryan race of superior beings, Nazism nevertheless cleverly used the age-old demonic view of the Jews to stir up popular support for their macabre plans. From a Jewish perspective, Nazi Germany was simply continuing and building on millennia of hatred and violence in Christian Europe.

For all the facts and reasons listed above, anti-Semitism is not in my opinion just one of many forms and manifestations of racism that plague humanity. It is beyond racism. It is an evil so unmatched in human history it deserves a category all its own.

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Relatively Speaking

Profound truths are often to be found in paradox. This is why Pope Benedict XVI’s attack on “the dictatorship of relativism” is a stoke of brilliance that will simultaneously strengthen Christianity and ease religious strife worldwide. Called “fighting words” by the New York Times, Ratzinger’s offensive undermines the liberal religious camp’s gambit to build unity through weakening exclusive claims to truth. The suggestion that an insistence on absolute truths will bring unity to the Christian world and ameliorate religious conflict is certainly counter intuitive.

The expression “relativism” in the religious context for me brings to mind two popular schools of thought that I believe are completely absurd: 1) social evolution, i.e., the proposition that human societies are evolving into progressively better states and 2) the “Multifaith” movement, i.e., the belief that religions are not mutually exclusive, but rather expressing equally valid and worthy paths to God, or as the so called “pluralists” might say, “the Divine”. Both these idealistic notions seem to ignore history and the daily news of the world.

Insisting that humanity is evolving towards an ever-improving condition is merely a sophisticated form of wishful thinking. The horrors of our previous century make it hard to argue that the world is getting better and fairly easy to argue we are in fact going backwards. The atrocities of WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, and mass exterminations under communism, are clear proof that the onset of modernity, the enlightenment of reason, and the progress of scientific enquiry, have done nothing to restrain man’s inhumanity to man. Medical breakthroughs like penicillin and new inventions such as electricity have indeed provided massive improvements to our quality of life, but unfortunately science and technology have provided us with ever more powerful ways to destroy that quality of life, and to extinguish life itself. The shear number of deaths, and the appalling manner and reasons for the slaughter, has perhaps caused us to lapse into a state of denial regarding the stunning failure of mankind in the 20th century. The atomic bomb is perhaps the most powerful reminder that mankind’s centuries on this earth do not illustrate a steady path toward an ever more peaceful and happy existence. Even if we assume that scientific knowledge is merely neutral to justice and goodness, we must conclude that humanity is actually getting worse, since we are harming each other simply out of greater malice and not solely because of the manner in which technology makes it easier for us to kill each other.

Take the recent case of Rwanda, for example, where very crude weapons were used to affect a horrible genocide. It could be argued that communications technologies such as radio and television helped spread and coordinate the violence; by contrast, the same communication tools were totally ineffectual in stopping the destruction. Through technology, we could see and hear what was going on, but our flawed humanity prevented us from doing anything about it. It seems we have not progressed as a society and are as pathetic as ever.

An example of social evolution theory in practice is religious ecumenicism, the growing philosophy proposing that the world’s religions can coexist by only accepting the proposition that there are no absolute truths. The idea that the world’s religions are gradually learning to coexist with each other is built on the spurious notion that evolved cultures are by definition more tolerant of each other. Unfortunately, recent world events do not exactly evidence a blossoming of global togetherness and reconciliation. On the contrary, world religions are becoming progressively more divergent and exclusive in their claims and practices. For proof of this, look no further than the doctrines of the new Pope, the rise of Islamic states, and the re-election of George W. Bush. Religious people having a huge impact on world affairs are not the ones with a relativistic bent; they are absolutist. And herein lies the genius of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s assault on relativism.

The common enemy of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hinduism, Sikism, and all other faiths more than mildly dedicated to their various creeds, is the global movement to undermine those very creeds, abandon orthodoxy, and neutralize proponents of adherence to religious tenets. Creeds, designed to enshrine orthodoxy and exclude heresy, are antithetical to the concept of truth as existing only as a relative position based on one’s subjective perspective. Creeds would never have arisen if truth were deemed relative, as they would be deemed to introduce unnecessary exclusivity. In a pluralist, multifaith world, faith statements should multiply infinitely, as we are encouraged to see the “unity in the diversity” and seek “heterodoxy” as opposed to orthodoxy. In the relativistic world of Multifaith, dogma is anathema and orthodoxy becomes orthopraxis. Praxis, the putting into practice of one’s beliefs, under a pluralist outlook, becomes the ultimate standard of faith, as opposed to the traditional view that in order to be saved one must believe the right beliefs. But, as Ratzinger points out in “Relativism: The Central Problem For Faith Today” (1996), in the context of analyzing failure of “praxis” in communist regimes “…they tried to change the world without knowing what is good and what is not good for the world, without knowing in what direction the world must be changed in order to make it better. Mere praxis is not light.” Ratzinger paints relativism as the bringer of a great darkness, where we follow practices that we are asked to admit have no proof of efficacy for anything, save perhaps the pleasing of a consensus of our peers. Is this a philosophy that will unite the world?

There is a long standing and notion in the populace that religious intolerance is the prime impediment to world peace. John Lennon perhaps best expressed this sentiment in the song Imagine, his utopian vision of a world living in peace. “Imagine no Religion…” Lennon wrote, adding that the concepts of heaven and hell prevent us from dealing with the very real problems of this present world. “Imagine all the people, living for today…” In sharp contrast, all major world religions pin mankind’s tragic downfall on the transient, corruptible, self-absorbed nature of temporal reality, with all its puerile appetites and lust for power. Religions encourage us to seek eternal truths emanating from divine sources beyond ourselves. To the vast majority of the world’s populace, a world without religion would be one devoid of all hope, where evil and violence would run rampant. As Lennon humbly admitted, “you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.” There is a certain nobility in holding to beliefs that swim against the tide, which, ironically, is the essence of dogma, asserting that specific truths are absolute. Relativists are in essence unwitting absolutists, positing that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Therein lies the fatal flaw, and Pope Benedict is going after it, to expose it as a week and bankrupt philosophy. Good for him.

So how is an attack on relativism going to reduce religious strife? Ratzinger has seen that the bridge between religions is to affirm the right of each worldview to claim primacy over the other. By affirming the philosophical validity of proposing absolute and exclusive truths (that Mohamed’s revelations supercede those of Christ, or visa versa, for example), religious zealots are encouraged to proselytize, winning over converts to their world view. In a world where evangelism is tolerated, and even encouraged, religious strife does not increase; rather, I would suggest, strife decreases. Currently, global religious persecution takes the form of discouraging or forbidding proselytizing. In the Muslim world, it is widely forbidden to preach the Christian Gospel. In the Western World, we have so negatively stereotyped Islam, that the minds of the populace are closed to it. Meanwhile, we fail to see that the Dhali Lama is an evangelist.

In conclusion, we see that revivalism has failed to inspire unity, and absolutism should be given a chance to reduce geopolitical tensions. It is hardly peace inspiring to say to a person of faith that their position is no longer valid. Perhaps the world’s orthodox believers should unite in a rousing redux of Lennon’s immortal chant: “All we are saying, is Give Dogma a Chance.”

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Match Point – The Opera

Woody Allen’s recent film Match Point affords a great look at contemporary London and a truly operatic plot with love triangles, shocking violence and a main character seduced by his vaulting ambition. The film opens with an ancient and worbling recording of the legendary tenor Enrico Caruso. The Opera looms large in Match Point, suggesting to me that Allen intended to write a modern Opera. The score is not musical, but rather the visual richness of the worlds greatest city and the fantastical world of its ultra wealthy elite.

In a subtle and brief frame of foreshadowing, the main character, a recently retired professional tennis player who has seems to have had the talent to be great but not the killer instinct, lays in bed reading Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. This classic novel involves a somewhat hapless character who seems an unlikely murderer. The moral of the story is that while chance and happenstance may allow one to escape the law, one can never escape the ever more brutal punishment of a relentless conscience.

I highly recommend this intriguing film.

Link: http://www.matchpoint.dreamworks.com/main.html

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rant # 3, War of the Words; Islam and the "T" Word

The language of dialogue in the current global war of worldviews is so vague that any chance of peace is lost in a sea of meaningless words and overused catchphrases. To see a way to understanding between the West and Islam requires an attack on a dangerous vocabulary that we often throw at each other like so many unexploded mines waiting to reap their grizzly, unintended consequences. To win the peace, we must wage a war on words.

There are many words that need attention, but ones that stand out are the ubiquitous “terror”, “terrorism” and “terrorist”. No doubt to the great frustration of Muslims, these words increasingly evoke in the Western psyche a disturbing image of militants acting out in the name of Islam. The phrase “War on Terror” does not typically bring to mind images of “animal rights” activists blowing up abattoirs or Japanese cultists poisoning morning commuters. Since 9/11, terrorism has become almost synonymous with violence quite literally in the name of Allah.

The problem for me is that I am not 100% sure what these terrible “T” words mean. Given that it is now de rigueur for everyone on every side to label everyone else a terrorist, I might not be the only one realizing that the word is open to interpretation. Everyone seems to agree that terrorists are very bad. But what is a Terrorist?

Encarta online dictionary offers the following definition of “Terrorist”:

“Somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate.”

Pretty wide open definition, in my opinion.

“Terrorism” on Encarta comes up:

“Political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.”

Wow, you could shoehorn a lot of stuff into that definition too.

It seems to me there’s got to be a clearer meaning spelled out somewhere for these super important words.

Consider the following very eloquent description of one particular terrorist:

“The famous terrorist had never in his life raised personally as much as his little finger against the social edifice. He was no man of action; he was not even an orator of torrential eloquence, sweeping the masses along in the rushing noise and foam of a great enthusiasm. With a more subtle intention, he took the part of an insolent and venomous evoker of sinister impulses which lurk in the blind envy and exasperated vanity of ignorance, in the suffering and misery of poverty, in all the hopeful and noble illusions of righteous anger, pity, and revolt. The shadow of his evil gift clung to him yet like the smell of a deadly drug in an old vial of poison, emptied now, useless, ready to be thrown away upon the rubbish-heap of things that had served their time.”

Who, you might ask, is being described here? A senior al-Qu’eda operative, perhaps? In fact, the character described is a fictional anarchist named Karl Yundt from Joseph Conrad’’s strikingly relevant 1907 novel The Secret Agent, inspired by the actual 1894 bombing of the Greenwich Observatory in London. Conrad’’s fascinating story seeks to sound out the inner workings of a pathetic band of anarchists bent on hacking away at society’s underpinnings in hopes that they will crumble, making way for a new world order. Conrad’’s characters range from a hack ideologue that grew massively obese while incarcerated to a wizened and bitter old bomb maker ready to do himself for the evil Mr. Yundt. Conrad’’s insightful depiction of Yundt underscores the outrageous criminality of terrorism, which has little to do with any particular philosophy, cause or agenda. Rather, Yundt’’s “evil gift” was to motivate others to act out their “sinister impulses.”

If Conrad’’s Yundt is a kind of archetypal terrorist, then it may be useful to think of a terrorist as a leader and not a mere follower. In The Secret Agent, a bombing takes place that appears to be a suicide bombing but in fact the dead “bomber” was completely innocent. It’s as if Conrad wanted to underscore that the main culpability lies with the depravity of a relatively small number of evokers who justify terror as a legitimate outlet for “righteous anger, pity, and revolt.” Would Bin Laden fit this profile? He himself was no impoverished soul, nor does it appear he personally carries out any terror acts. He is an evoker, and a good one at that.

The relevant point I believe is that in Conrad’’s analysis, what drives a terrorist has nothing to do with any particular set of doctrines or creeds, religious, political, or otherwise. In this light, it becomes clear that Islam itself has nothing to do with Terrorism. Rather, because there is a great deal of angst in the Islamic world, people with the Terrorist pathology raised in that culture are simply more successful, due to shear numbers of persons to evoke.

The forgoing is not meant to suggest I have defined these words with any precision, and I’’m sure many books have been written on the subject that make my comments trivial by comparison. Consider my views to be just that, the attempt of one person to put in some perspective the concepts and rhetoric that pervades our daily lives and thoughts. I hope that if you have any comments you will add them to this discussion.

 

Posted in Posts | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments