Part II Timeless: David P. Goldman Considered

Timeless

Judaism Rejects The Notions Of Beauty That Underscore Christian Classical Music, From Bach To Mozart- But The Music Still Speaks To Us

Part II

By

R.E. Prindle

Dave Goldman

In his ethnocentric search to distinguish what he considers the Jewish true notions of beauty from the Christian false sense of beauty, David Goldman lets slip the perpetual Jewish war on the other, Christian, European or Aryan whichever you want to consider it.

At the conclusion of his imaginary humiliation of Father A he says:

     “What about Mozart’s opera Cosi Fan Tutti, in which music as beautiful as any Mozart ever wrote promotes outright lies?’  The opera involves two young men who set out to test the faithfulness of their fiancées by seducing the others intended.  There is not a single sympathetic character in the work, whose music is on a par with The Marriage Of Figaro or Don Giovanni.  That may explain why it is less popular.  The men are cynical and the women slutty.

“If art employs beauty to promote falsehood, then I cannot consider it truly beautiful.”  Father A decided.  “ If you include, Cosi, your idea of beauty won’t convince a single classical musician,”  I said.  And we moved on to dessert.  The Greek idea of beauty, naturalized into Catholic theology by St. Thomas Aquinas, is entirely alien to Mozart’s quirky humor.  One might even speak of Mozart’s Jewish sense of humor, for his librettist in Cosi Fan Tutti, was the converted Jew Lorenzo da Ponte, and his ironic view of Christian society belongs to a peculiar mode of Jewish irony.

Here as later Dave makes a clear distinction of the separation of the Jewish from that of humanity while assuming the absolute correctness of the Jewish view against what he imagines is the falsehood of the European or Aryan.

This is clear in the concluding sentences of the above quote when he smugly reveals that the librettist of all these lies that Mozart has apparently set to beautiful music is in fact- Jewish.  Thus the father of the lies is a Jew.

Now, does the fact that the Jew Da Ponte has played a dirty trick on Mozart diminish the beauty of Mozart’s music?  After all the Jewish ethic is that good can come from evil so there is no reason that beauty cannot arise from filth.  Jewish filth in Dave’s case.  Da Ponte according to Dave has ‘an ironic view of Christian society,’ which he treats with ‘a peculiar mode of Jewish irony.’  So da Ponte is dishonest from the beginning which Dave characteristically applauds as Jewish.

In this case as throughout Dave’s essay he bases his argument on false premises to derive his imagined infallible conclusions.

While dismissing the undeniable beauty of Mozart’s superb music that stands the test of beauty regardless of the libretto which in any case  can be easily rewritten and a better substituted for that of da Ponte which would match beauty to beauty completely invalidating Dave’s absurd argument.  Poor old Father A who can’t speak for himself.

In order to impose his Jewish Knowledge on Aryan Knowledge Dave offers us what he considers a conclusive argument: Kohelet tells us that beauty comes from God.  For this to be true of course, the Jewish god would have to have an objective existence.  In fact the Jewish god is merely a projection of the Jewish ego hence being a fantasy having no objective existence.

As Dave’s definition of beauty is that it comes from God it is easy enough to see that Dave’s conception of beauty is no conception at all.  We have no choice but to accept Mozart as our standard of musical beauty and as luck would have it he was Aryan and not Jewish.

Advertisements

2 comments on “Part II Timeless: David P. Goldman Considered

  1. “While dismissing the undeniable beauty of Mozart’s superb music that stands the test of beauty regardless of the libretto which in any case can be easily rewritten and a better substituted for that of da Ponte which would match beauty to beauty completely invalidating Dave’s absurd argument. ”

    Huh? Uh, yeah, sure…we go in and rewrite the librettos for Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro as well…easy easy rewritten (don’t take much to write opera libretto, do it? – no, Prindle he say) and they will be better because they weren’t written by that Jew Da Ponte and beauty will stand the test of beauty or whatever as long as it has what it takes to get over on that Jew, that Jew, that JEW Dave me NO like no matter what he say……

    “Kohelet tells us that beauty comes from God. For this to be true of course, the Jewish god would have to have an objective existence. In fact the Jewish god is merely a projection of the Jewish ego hence being a fantasy having no objective existence.”

    Ok…now who goes there? But of course. Real God has objective existence…she/he is in that burlap bag on the sofa and me cathect with that. But fake God is fantasy God equals Jew God. Jew he/she waste big wampum time on God because it big fantasy. Me realize that Einstein Theory O’ Relativity and Photoelectric Effect merely projection of Einstein Jewish ego. Me realize that Freud Funny Theory With object/ego/projection merely no object with projection of Freud Jewish ego. Me realize that Jung student of Freud – he just big fantasy because he projection of Freud Jewish ego. Me realize that Prindle Potato Chip student of Jung – he just big fantasy because he indirect projection of Freud Jewish ego through Jung. Conclusion – Prindle Potato Chip “fantasy having no objective existence” – now we know who goes there…

  2. Yood: I’ve already answered your comment to The Talmud’s Many Demons so bear that answer in mind. This comment is kind of a yawner; I liked the other one better.

    In your finale here you mention Sigmund Freud as one of the transcendent Jewish geniuses but then you fail to apply his learning. While we’re on Freud let me say that Freud was a fine organizer who followed Sherlock Holmes dictum to read all the material on a subject before forming your opinion. Thus most people, perhaps including yourself, believe that Freud invented the concept of the unconscious. Contrary to that opinion the unconscious was a subject of intense investigation from Mesmer on through Freud’s very narrow formulation that is also, alas, mistaken.

    For the rest he took his lead from the Frenchman Jean-Martin Charcot selecting his material from the extensive body of investigation in an attractive formula. Jung had established himself independently and was certainly no student of Freud’s although as an intelligent colaborator not unlike Freud he accepted whatever of Freud seemed pertinent while reserving the rest.

    A pity he didn’t follow Freud’s formulation on emasculation. Those views also were well organized and developed although Ralph Waldo Emerson had come to the same conclusion with a less complete formulation.

    I’m not going to discuss the God Complex with you here other than to say: Scrap it. As far as Freud’s emasculation theory goes my advice is to study it, apply it to Freud’s notions of group psychology and then apply that to Judaism.

    By the way: can you tell me the difference between Yahveh and Sherlock Holmes?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s