The Eternal Jew

In his famous book Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler has given his vision of “The Eternal Jew” - a people that managed to survive throughout the ages, unharmed, maintaining its own identity, in countries out of his own. He maintained that this “Eternal Jew” was destroying civilization and had to be eradicated, so the more competent “Aryan Race” would be able to flourish.

Well, Mr. Hitler, your vision has materialized: I have assumed the form of this Eternal Jew, and promise you that I will continue to haunt you and your likes forever. I, Shlomi Fish as one unified and eternal Jewish mind, body and soul.

Yes, I plan on living forever. And yes, I’m a Jew. But “The Eternal Jew” is much more than that. The Eternal Jew is aimed at haunting “gentiles” - which are not necessarily Jews or non-Jews in the traditional sense. What they are is people who have disrespect for the basic values associated with modern Judaism. And I will indeed haunt them and if I have my way, eradicate all of the “gentility” off the planet.

One final note: another famous Jewish myth similar to the Eternal Jew is “The Wandering Jew”. The Wandering Jew is also noble, but distinct from the Eternal Jew. This essay will focus solely on “The Eternal Jew”.

Before we continue, I will take the time to explain why I designated myself as “The Eternal Jew” instead of something else. First of all, it is because I am really a Jew by birth. Secondly, because Jews are a people (and as such noble) rather than a religion (and as such mystical and destructive).

Judaism is a peopleship, if you may. The Jewish religion, while it does exist, is only a small part of Judaism. Other parts include the Jewish history, the Jewish creation (made by ancient and modern Jews), the Jewish culture, Jewish traditions, the Jewish ethics, and so forth. Labelling Judaism solely as a religion is a wrong thing to do for both Jews and non-Jews. Also, believing that you cannot have one without the other, is also completely not true. It is highly possible to be a member of the Jewish people, while not believing in the Jewish religion (as is the case for me).

The Bible is not solely a religious book, albeit it has been filtered and preserved relatively religious-wise. What it does is contain various writings and testimonials of the ancient Jews and Israelites. It contains historical manifests, ancient Law and Ethics, religious writings, ancient Jewish philosophy, and various fictitious stories. I’ll be the last person to say that he supports the Ethics projected by it. But it nevertheless important for modern-day Jews.

A final note regarding Jews and Israel. As well as being a Jew, I happen to be an Israeli and an Israeli citizen. Nevertheless, I fully realize that the State of Israel cannot have laws discriminating for or against non-Jews, as is the case today. Such laws are immoral, and have no excuse whatsoever. It is much more important to me that my children be noble and will denounce all forms of racism, no matter how apparently justified they are, than them being Jews. As such I call upon all Jews to support the separation of Religion from State in Israel, and turning it into an equal country. Israel is the country of the Israeli, not of the Jew.

(That put aside, I should note that I am living in Israel by choice, because I think it is an otherwise good place to live, with good, moral people. Israel is heavily attacked in the global media, many times unjustifiably. While the Israeli Law leaves a lot to be desired, and I will do my best to remedy it, it is still much better than all of the surrounding countries.)

Most people believe that their death is inevitable. However, this may not necessarily be the case. It is highly possible that youth-rejuvenating biological immortality can be researched, implemented and become common. This will enable ordinary people to live forever, body, mind and soul. Why is it so important?

If I know I am going to die, then everything I do now is pretty much meaningless. After all, I cannot enjoy the fruits of my efforts during my death, which will probably just mean the permanent termination of my consciousness. But if I know that I can live forever, if I indeed wish to do so, then suddenly, everything becomes meaningful, again.

For thousands of years, philosophers had to deal with the inevitability of death. Some have tried to overcome it by several means. Others have tried to abuse this fact to assert some false conclusions. (like Kant who said that leaders must depend on promising their followers a good life after death - which is a blatant act of lying). All of these philosophies did not made the distance, because they accepted death.

Neo-Tech is the first philosophy I’m aware of, to fully acknowledge the importance of youth-rejuvating biological immortality, and as such and due to other reasons, it is fully complete and fully integrated.

I am The Eternal Jew partly because I fully intend to live forever. A Jew who is Eternal is someone who lives up to his greatest potential. (better even than “Jews” who are not Eternal).

As well as being a Jew, I am an Atheist, and being an Atheist is very important to me as well. My parents being non-religious, I was an Atheist from a very early age. For a few years during Junior High School and High School, I became a deist - I believed in God, but mainly to explain why I had consciousness. I slowly relieved myself of the belief in God, until I returned to my pristine Atheist and God-bashing state.

The first reason I don’t believe in God is because there isn’t a good reason to believe in him. One cannot pre-assume God exists just as much one cannot assume dragons exist, or that our neighbouring planets are inhabited by the Star Trek races, or that thought-reading is possible. It’s another assumption we are better not making because it won’t be scientific to do otherwise. (as scientists do not make assumptions without a good evidence to).

The second reason is that all the arguments for the existence of God can be refuted. If God created the Universe, who created God? If the Universe exists because of God, why does God exist? Finally, if we need God to explain our consciousness, we’ll have an equally hard time explaining God’s.

A better conclusion is to declare that existence simply exists and we as conscious individuals are aware of it. It always did, and always will, and wasn’t created (at least not conclusively). It simply exists.

And if I die or get killed, would believing in God, while he in fact does not, help me in any way? And would it be logical to assume that a god who created such wondrous existence, would be so petty to think that we must believe in him, or else follow the requirements that he put forth?

And further more, if I believe in God, which God should I believe in? The Jewish one? The Muslim one? The Catholic Christian? The Protestant Christian? My own self-invented God? The good thing about Gods is that you have so many to choose from.

Who is the most powerful man on Earth? Take some time to think of it before you decide on the final answer. When you are ready - read on.

Now, I’ll tell you what I would answer if someone asked me the question “Who is the most powerful man on Earth?”. I would tell them that “I am”.

The statement “I am the most powerful man on Earth” is a statement of intent, rather than stating a fact. Naturally, there are some things other people can do that I cannot do, at least not yet. But it is irrelevant to the fact that I have the greatest influence on my future, and if I so wish, on the future of the world at large.

Using this recognition, I can let no force, no matter how seemingly powerful stop me. Such a force cannot do this even if it greatly wanted to. If all people thought so, and never considered a single person their superior, the world would be a much better place.

Which brings us to the next issue. “I will change the World” is , in fact, my creed. It is not necessarily everyone’s creed (nor should it necessarily be, if one does not have the necessary ambition), but it is mine.

Many people in history have changed the world. Many people are still changing it today. It is my desire to become one of these people, who will change the world in the future.

There is still a great deal of evil, irrationality and stupidity in the world. Despite popular belief, it should not necessarily be that way, as people are not bad by nature. (and in fact, most of the people who claim or imply otherwise are the truly evil ones). I plan to do my best to eliminate this irrationality from the world.

However, even after my co-conspirators and I succeed, I still believe there would be a place to change the world. One can change the world technologically or scientifically as well, as much as Galileo and Newton revolutionized the world of Physics up in their days, and Albert Einstein did it again among an otherwise enlightened scientific community.

Many people have a negative sense of life and try to kill such ambitions among their peers. You can hear such things as “you have no influence”, “you are nothing”, “you are just a small screw in the machine”, etc. Yet, these claims have no basis in reality and are nothing but a pointless attempt to kill ambition. Some people were able to change the world for the better, some by intention and some by accident. They did it even though they were not particularly exceptional in their intelligence or other qualities. If they could do it, so can you and I.

What would I say if you ask me “How do you define myself?”. As a Jew? As an Israeli? As an Objectivist? As a Liberal? I am all of these, but that’s not how I define myself. In fact, I define myself simply as “Shlomi Fish”.

For once, I believe that defining myself as any property of me, does not do justice to myself. I am devaluating myself this way. Furthermore, and equally as importantly, when malicious people try to convince me or other people of doing something, they would say “As a Jew, it is your responsibility to do X”, “Every self-respecting Israeli should do Y”. They will hardly ever say “as Shlomi Fish, you need to do X and Y”.

The first thing a religion or a doctrine tries to take away from you is your personal identity. They want you to feel as if it’s more important to define yourself as a member of their collective, than as the individual that is yourself. No one should fall into this trap.

“LS-MS-RS-DWI!” stands for “Logic Sucks, Morality Sucks, Reality Sucks - Deal with it!”. This is one of my mottoes, and let me explain what it means.

First of all there’s the part that I mention Logic, Morality and Reality, all of which are absolute in Objectivism. But I also say that they all suck and that one should deal with it. The implication is that you cannot go on blaming others or the world at large for your problems. It is up to you to make sure you manage your way through reality, despite whatever obstacles you encounter.

You can often hear people irrationally blaming others or the world at large for their problems. Even some claimed Objectivists err on this part. Yet, this is a clear indication that they themselves are incompetent, or else they would not have needed to blame others or the world at large for their own problems.

In fact, most destructive people actively emit such routine accusations. One common theme of most doctrines is the “scape goat” principle, in which you find an enemy that can unite the followers, so they would be willing to lose their freedom for the sake of fighting him. This was the case for the Jews in Nazism, the Capitalists in Socialism, Israel for the post-WWII Arabs. It is the case for drug users in many countries today, and recently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists volunteered to be just that. (in an attempt to deprive the liberty of the innocent people).

As a godless person, it is important that one will have no scape goats of this kind, and that he or she will acknowledge that one’s problems are primarily his own, and that it is up to him to solve them.

So, just “deal with it”!

I am a warrior philosopher. What it means is that I’m not an Ivory Tower philosopher, who isn’t active in changing the way things are. Instead, I’m very active to promote the ideals I convey.

As a warrior philosopher, I won’t rest until the last remnants of evil are eliminated from this world. Nothing can stop me, and nothing will. There is a very delicate way to enlarge the community of warriors philosophers: first, become one, then make others, who will spread and make others as well.

Warrior philosophers are independent of one another, and each one can potentially make a world of difference for himself or herself and the surrounding society.

Another thing that is apparent about a warrior-philosopher is his commercialization. While my philosophy is free-as-in-free-speech and publicly available for everyone to read, distribute, modify and re-use, my time and presence are not. In fact, when and if I become successful, I am routinely going to demand a price for giving speeches or presentations. Perhaps even higher and higher. While I may in fact do some things for free in certain occasions, as a whole I would be a performer looking to make a living out of one of the things he likes to do and does best. (i.e: philosophy)

A warrior philosopher does not stand idly watching while the corrupt politicians are running his or her country and the world at large. Instead, he actively voices his opinion, criticizes the politicians, even claim he is the ultimate authority on what should be done. Thus, he or she is gradually taking more and more power out of the elected leadership, that the fact it was elected cannot give it more authority than if we consider the fact that a dictatorship of the majority is a good one.

Here is a thought for you: why don’t you announce yourself as a competing prime minister/president in your country? A better, more honest, and less limited alternative to the elected prime minister. In Israel at least, the leadership (prime minister and members of the parliament) are a joke and I’m certain I can do better. I don’t see the fact that most people elected someone, as anything that gives him or her an authority to become the dictator of the people. So, I’m simply going to become a competing prime minister who will uphold Liberalism, Freedom, Capitalism, Individualism, and rationality, which I cannot say that any of our elected leaders consistently do.

I won’t be a politician - just a statesman of integrity, and won’t have to constantly deal with my public image. If I am honest all the way, I don’t have to lie or to care about my public image. Some people will like me, some will hate me, but most of the people will respect me, because they’ll see I’m consistent, and eventually realize I’m very honest. Sooner or later, my co-conspirators and I will win.

If you hesitate on becoming a warrior philosopher, just remember the Modified Parable of Yotam:

The plants have gone to elect a king. They went to the vine and asked him: “would you be our king?”. The vine replied: “I have grapes to grow , so I don’t really have time for being your king. Sorry” They went to the Fig and asked him the same. The Fig replied: “Sorry, but I need to grow figs and big leaves, so I really can’t.”. And so it went on. After the ten or so plants, the Vine said: “This is getting ridiculous. Fine, forget the grapes. I’ll be your king.”

The Vine was very quickly able to organize the plants that well, that they did not have to consult him on anything. Ever. Thus, while he was still technically the king, he had plenty of time to grow grapes, without missing a single season.

I heard it more than once that artists claimed they did not try to advocate something bad through their work, just that they were reflecting the values (or lack of them) of society. This is something I’ll never do in my artwork or otherwise my life.

It is my intent to actually guide society and convert it to something that is a whole better. I aim to be a beacon to others and behave in the most noble and outstanding way I can. That way, people can be inspired by me, or otherwise find comfort in my being.

If people just reflect the values of others, the society as a whole will not advance, but rather maintain its own values, or deteriorate further. That’s why a noble man should aim to set up his own values of honesty, integrity, and individualism and not try to reflect what he sees in others.

Freedom in Liberal thought means freedom from oppression, not freedom from responsibilities. The only limitation on freedom is that an entity cannot perform initiatory force, threat of force or fraud against any other entity or its property. Other than that, everything is allowed. This is despite the many non-crimes propagated as “crimes” by many governments or religions.

As such, freedom means the freedom to harm yourself, either by consuming harmful substances (like Alcohol, Sugar, Tobacco, or the currently illegal drugs), or by holding irrational beliefs.

Freedom also means the freedom to hold racist views, and even to practice discrimination against others, as long as they do not involve force, coercion or fraud.

Freedom means freedom to bear arms and to form alternative militias to the government-sponsored ones. (and if necessarily oppose them)

Freedom means being free to duplicate digital media, break the copy protection mechanisms imposed on it, and reverse engineer software.

Freedom does not mean one is privileged to necessarily receive any kind of support from external entities. Thus, freedom means that the government has no right to forcibly extract money out of you for most of its whims.

Freedom means the freedom to live and work everywhere you chose, as long as you find some means to support yourself. Thus, it is unethical for a government to impose immigration control on its territory.

Freedom implies the freedom of expression, which must not be violated.

Freedom means freedom of business practices, a free economy, and lack of government control of it.

Freedom means not being forced to serve in the military against one’s will.

Freedom means being able to gamble or provide gambling services, and practice or pay for prostitution.

Finally, freedom must be fully satisfied. Partial freedom is not enough, and lack of freedom in some respects can always be abused to deprive even more freedom.

No discussion of my philosophical foundations is complete without mentioning my involvement in the Open Source initiative. I am in fact a user of Open Source software, a developer and contributor to several open source packages, and also an open source advocate.

If you don’t know what Open Source means, refer to an essay I wrote about the subject. Here I’ll just sum up.

Most software written is not distributed outside the organization in which it originated. Software that is distributed to the outside can come in several classes. Being free (as-in-speech) software, which is mostly a synonym to open-source software means it is distributed with the source code, allows free modification of it and free re-distribution of it and modified forms, and that it’s use is not restricted for any purpose.

Such software differs from software that either comes only in binary forms, cannot be re-distributed, costs money to use, or is otherwise restricted in its use.

When I first seriously started working in a UNIX environment where open-source software has been common and dominant for years, I did not thought or knew too much about its guidelines or ideology. All I knew was that there was software that came in source forms, which I could download, compile and use free of charge, on the UNIX workstations and servers of the company in which I was employed.

However, as I became more and more involved with Linux and the open source community, I became aware of the principles behind free software. There are a great deal of people who are very religious about it. They claim that distributed software that is non-open-source is evil and immoral, and that all software must become open source. I don’t hold this view, but I still see the importance of the open source movement.

I routinely use open source software on a day to day basis. The system I work with most of the time on my home computer, involve the Mandriva Linux System, the KDE Desktop Environment, the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the Perl Programming Language , DocBook/XML, The Vim Editor and other free software packages. I find these packages far superior to their commercial counterparts (Microsoft Windows and other software from Microsoft): far more enjoyable to work with, better documented, more robust, more independent of each other, and easier to debug and solve problems with.

As a result, I am doing my best to reduce the amount of time I’m using Windows to a minimum as I can no longer stand using it.

Generally, it is its open source nature that has enabled making this software superior. The code is there for everyone to contribute to, look at, or modify, and there isn’t a single entity that holds all the cards. Therefore, it is actively being developed by a large amount of contributors from around the world, with a lot of peer review, support and cooperation. The open source world at large has at its disposal human resources that one single company can never hope to have.

I had the opportunity to contribute to several open source projects and even to head some projects of my own. The project I invested the largest amount of effort on so far is Freecell Solver. It started out as a command line application to solve games of Freecell, and gradually evolved. Now it can be compiled as a library for use within Solitaire implementations, and solve other variants of card Solitaire, is much faster, and has many more features that it started with. Most of the work on it was conducted by me, but I also received a lot of feedback, input and even occasional code contributions from others. Without them, I would never have been motivated or inspired enough to further work on it.

The amount of effort I invested in working on the code, and helping users who encountered problems, made me realize the amount of time and effort that is required to write a high-quality marketplace software (open source or otherwise). One could say that it turned me from just a “boy” who dabbled in open source to a “man” who invested a lot of time working on a serious program like that.

Working on open source software is hard work but at the same time, highly enjoyable. Contributing to the body of open source software out there is a snow-ball effect: as the use value of this software increases, so are further contributions made easier. People feel motivated to contribute to open source software, because they actually can, because they use it legitimately without paying a price and so do not feel exploited, and because the developers of open source packages encourage contributions to the code. As a result, more and more people actively contribute to it, either by occasional bug reports or patches, or even by more serious involvement.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the most important trait a software should have is that it will “just work”: be bug-free, easy to install and use, well-documented and get the job done. There is too much open source and non-open source software out there that fails to achieve that goal. Furthermore, if a non-free software can achieve the required goal better than a free one, I may recommend using it instead.

Still the open source model (especially when following the Bazaar Model of development) has proved that it can competently fill more and more niches in an equal or better way than commercial software can. Open source software is very attractive to the user and the developer alike for the reasons I mentioned.

I hope you enjoyed reading this essay and that it inspired you in one way or the other. With best regards: