…by Jonas E. Alexis, Fredrick Toben, and Gerard Menuhin
Gerard Menuhin is a British-Swiss journalist, writer, novelist, and film producer. He is the son of Jewish parents, the American violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, who is considered “one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.” Menuhim’s mother was a ballet dancer and died in 2003 at the age of 90. He graduated from Stanford University and is the author of the new book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.
Jonas E. Alexis: If you haven’t read Gerard Menuhin’s timely book, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, then I would highly encourage you to get a copy. It is a challenge to the New World Order because it deconstructs one categorical lie after another, including the lies that the Holocaust establishment has been marshalling for years.
As I have argued elsewhere, the most enduring legacy of the New World Order is contempt for morality and what Immanuel Kant calls practical reason in the comprehensible universe. Menuhin attempts to bring reason back to the political table by showing the inherent contradictions that exist in the political landscape in Europe and America.
Menuhin is an intrepid man and is not afraid to say the unthinkable. His recent work, LIES & Gravy: Landmarks in Human Decay, has been reviewed by my dear friend Dr. Fredrick Toben, a scholar and philosopher who has suffered much at the hand of the Holocaust machine. Toben’s assessment is indeed a gem in itself. Do yourself a favour: read it carefully.
Fredrick Toben: LIES & Gravy: Landmarks in Human Decay, contains Gerard Menuhin’s latest musings, which follow the serious and challenging tone set in his book, now in 4th corrected edition: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil: Recognize the True Enemy and Join to Fight Him.
Let me briefly deviate from the set task and comment on the use of “fight” in this book’s subtitle. “Join to fight him”? In this PC era, perhaps it would have been better to have used the word “expose” rather than “fight” because fighting, unless qualified, has a physical connotation.
Revisionists are known not to physically fight – and this does not indicate a lack of courage on their part but rather the realization that it is silly physically to challenge a state-powered and protected taboo topic. The question: Cui Bono – in whose interest? nearly always reveals who benefits from any such ensuing conflict.
Thus the advocacy of fighting can lead Revisionists, especially those focusing on matters Holocaust-Shoah, into a trap that can end in court with a charge of “incitement” by thus upsetting/offending any group of people who love nothing better than to play the victims of such “racist” aggression – if possible, of NAZI aggression. Also, in this way the professional liars can gain valuable protection from public scrutiny by employing various weaponized concepts with which to beat down any emerging public discussion on vital matters.
In Australia it is s18C of the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act that individuals can be tried in public, or in a court of law, for having uttered “offensive /insulting words”. The current buzz words that are PC protected and thus prevent the questioning of various taboo topics are: “hater”, “Holocaust denier”, “Antisemite”, “racist”, “Nazi”, “climate change denier”, “homophobe”, “xenophobe”, etc.
Revisionists have never been violent and so the “moral turpitude” charge – the act of physically damaging property or persons – does not grip. This is the test used in the USA to protect its much-prized 1st Amendment, which ideally absolutely guarantees free expression. But sophists have already split free expression into “free speech” and “hate speech”, the latter being used by individuals about that which they don’t like to see a debate emerging in public.
For example, the 18 May 2019 Australian Federal Election has seen individual candidates from various parties withdrawing either voluntarily or involuntarily from the election race on account of having uttered, during election time, or even in the distant past, some PC-protected matter.
Pauline Hanson had to backtrack on her comment about the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, an obvious insider job; a Liberal candidate had to resign because of questioning the 9:11 New York attack and claiming it was an inside job; another made homophobic remarks, which then contrasted sharply when a Lesbian Labor Senator made anti-heterosexual remarks during the election campaign by stating about the Liberals: … they are small men, small men with small ideas. It would have been appropriate for someone to call out to her: ‘ … and you are a mere pretend man…’, which would have been classified as “a hurtful, disgusting homophobic remark.”
Warning – Drunks – Homosexuals – Adulterters – Lairs – Fornicators – Thieves – Atheists – Idolaters – HELL AWAITS YOU – Repent – ONLY JESUS SAVES
Israel Folau, a devout Christian and Australia’s highest-paid Rugby player, was sacked from his club because he tweeted:
“Currently the PC-daddy of them all, the Holocaust-Shoah dogma/religion, is protecting a political candidate from being further scrutinized for suitability to stand for election while other non-Jewish candidates have lost their endorsement to stand as candidates in the 2019 election on account of the dual citizenship requirements as dictated by Section 355(c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, see: *http://www.teamlaw.net.au/article—frydenberg-case—s44i.html”
Most notable of all, former PM Tony Abbott lost his seat because a group, GETUP – much like the global George Soros NGOS – interfered within his Warringah electorate. The main reason for the GETUP campaign against Abbott was to eliminate him because he refused to bend to the Climate Change ideology pushed by GETUP and its supporters.*https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/abbottsend/11131084
As an aside, and as was the case in the US election where the Clinton-Democratic Party was predicted to win by a wide margin over Donald Trump, the Australian media predicted a Labor Party victory over the Liberals, which did not eventuate. This is an example of how public individuals pretend to be listening to the people but actually believe more in their own propaganda – and the poll predictions failed notably.
Both in the USA and in Australia the celebrated potential winners lost the election, and here the reaction of those who lost the election mirrors the nonsense we witnessed coming from the US Democrat supporters in explaining why Hillary Clinton lost. The hostile Australian Broadcasting Corporation-ABC, which backed Labor, the Greens and assorted minorities, has as a headline: *Analysis: How Morrison used Shorten’s big mistake to steal the election. Steal the election?
The seriousness of PC gone mad, and its devastating effect on human interactions, is illustrated in the following skit:
8:00 am – I made a snowman.
8:10 – A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn’t make a snow woman.
8:15 – So, I made a snow woman.
8:17 – My feminist neighbour complained about the snow woman’s voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere.
8:20 – The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead.
8:22 – The transgender ma..wom…person asked why I didn’t just make one snow person with detachable parts.
8:25 – The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with.
8:28 – I am being called a racist because the snow couple is white.
8:31 – The Muslim gent across the road demands the snow woman wear a burka.
8:40 – The Police arrive saying someone has been offended.
8:42 – The feminist neighbour complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needs to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.
8:43 – The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.
8:45 TV news crew from the ABC shows up. I am asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I reply, “Snowballs” and am now called a sexist.
9:00 – I’m on the News as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobic sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.
9:10 – I am asked if I have any accomplices. My children are taken by social services.
9:29 – Far left protesters offended by everything are marching down the street demanding for me to be beheaded. Moral: There is no moral to this story. It’s just a view of the world in which we live today, and it is only getting worse.
The Snow(man) sums up the currently prevailing fractured world view, which is the result of relying only on empirical thinking at the expense of rationality and idealism. Empiricism on its own prevents one from rising above any particular matter so as to get an overarching idealistic generality, a view which hopefully offers a meaningful explanation about a particular matter.
For example, the abstract concept of “equality” needs to be replaced with the ideal of justice because we are not equal, and so we must celebrate our differences. In the physical world we have individual uniqueness, and even a set of twins consists of two unique individuals. I am an identical twin and I know my brother and I never had the same taste in women – and I don’t think I am as ugly as he is! Nothing physical is equal to something else – only in abstractions can we equate matters, such as 2+2=4!
But even this is disputed by some so-called progressive educators who claim that a maintaining of pedagogical standards may be too upsetting for some students, as illustrated in this skit: *
The above illustrates how absurd it is deliberately to close the mind to the natural physical world, and to nurture in its stead a fractured process of hurt feelings – to play the eternal victim of fundamental universal constants. Thus, to disconnect our human existence from NATURE is not by accident, but by design. Gerard Menuhin illustrates this so well in his sweep of human history, and as his drama LIE$ unfolds the impulses responsible for causing such a deception are exposed.
It is much like the devastating effect one of the current dogmas, global warming/climate change, has on “true believers”; during the past months school children around the world have been organized to protest against those who critically refuse to accept and blindly embrace global warming. Much like Holocaust-Shoah believers, Ignorant school children claim to be upset whenever they are confronted by climate change deniers!
Fighting words – now called “weaponizing words” – are now also becoming subjected to the above-listed defamatory imputations that protect taboo topics from legitimate scrutiny, which then attract legal sanction, if not directly, then a resulting silence of a questioner is brought about by the targeted/willing individuals who themselves submit to PC protected fabrications. Threats of legal action will silence most critical thinking individuals because such violent action can bankrupt and destroy families.
Currently the book has no Preface and I would suggest the author’s Tyrants and Slaves is ideally suited because it follows in the vein of the famous Shavian Preface in Androcles and the Lion. G B Shaw, the Irish playwright, critic, polemicist and political activist, never claimed it as such but literary critics certainly celebrated this Preface as being somewhat unique in that it is longer than the play itself. Menuhin is far more modest.
Gerard Menuhin’s fitting PREFACE:
Tyrants and Slaves*: your future/your choice
Recently, I felt compelled to write a play about some starving folks who spend Christmas Day in an unheated garage.
The compulsion to compose this play derived from my hope to make more accessible to readers the warning in the last chapter of my book ‘Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil’, entitled ‘Communist Vassalage’.
Having written that play, it occurred to me that it needed some kind of introduction to complete the picture. I therefore wrote four short scenes, each with its own built-in verifiable quote, intended to emphasize the origins and evolution of our collective predicament. The entirety has now appeared as ‘Lie$ & Gravy’.
Short and easy to absorb though this 112-page work is, nearly no one has seen fit to notice or comment on it. I say ‘seen fit’ because my notoriety should have ensured at least a few nasty reviews from ethnics, trolls and fellow-travellers, not to speak of semi-literates and the like. I discount from the outset well-intentioned critics willing to try to grasp the issue, no matter how rudimentary their discernment.
As the topic is inescapably controversial, it’s bound to evoke aversion and this usually leads to insult, rather than to discussion. In any case, in imitation of physical brawls, the tendency among commentators is, the dumber the voice, the more strident and opinionated it is. Yet here, there’s just a deafening silence.
Of course it helps to be humble and not to equate dislike of a book with incomprehension. If one doesn’t understand a book, the problem probably lies with the reader, not the author. But humility is an outdated trait and plays are harder to read than books, demanding as they do more imagination on the part of the reader. Such effort is unjustified in our mobile-phone-led society, constantly at risk from persecution by a prying, politically correct judiciary.
So I was mistaken in my assumption that these plays would elucidate my doomful prophesy. On the contrary, their message seems to have completely by-passed the reading public, always assuming such may still exist.
I could of course try to explain the explication, by writing a brochure perhaps, on the subject of reading plays, which is a bit like reading any of those black marks on a white paper background, usually between covers. Don’t get me wrong, I say all this with respect, ‘Respect’ is my middle name.
To return to Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (not to be confused with ‘Tell Truse and shame deville’, as a Swiss fan read it, possibly assuming some connection to ‘101 Dalmatians’) – this book, vilified or ignored by the mainstream media, is merely an attempt at a fair assessment of history – and, of course, as the title suggests, to counter lies with truth. It was not intended to upset sensitive souls, convinced of, and coerced over generations to believe, a contrary interpretation of our past.
To my way of thinking, it’s nothing less than essential to see history as a continuity, not as a series of disconnected periods. That’s the only rational and coherent way by which yesterday may be attached to today and tomorrow anticipated; the only way by which the reasons for ostensibly mistaken decisions may be explained. Following this unbroken continuity leads to a logical conclusion about the identity of the real beneficiaries of such decisions: almost never the ordinary citizen; almost always the power behind the system.
Most media are just accessories of the system, or, if you like, accessories to government’s misdemeanours. For example, the media have helped the powerful to perpetuate the belief in ‘us and them’, meaning rich and poor. Whenever the occasion warrants it, perhaps when a distraction is required, the public’s attention may be switched to this evident inequality. Then, some political party is sure once again to promote a program to ‘soak the rich’. There is certainly an ‘us and them’, yet it doesn’t consist of rich and poor, but of those within and those outside the system.
Wouldn’t you really prefer to be part of the system, with all its attendant advantages? To be allowed to earn unsourced money, to be above criticism, to get away with crimes for which others are punished, to enjoy life even if others suffer from your decisions?
Well, you can’t.
Either you haven’t been born into the right ethnicity, or you haven’t reached a position, or haven’t shown the ability to reach a position, whereby you may profitably be integrated into the system. Ideally, you would have to show both aptitudes and defects. For instance, an unbeatable combination of assets might include competence in a useful field, cunning, fundamental dishonesty and sexual deviance.
We may presume that nearly all the prominent figures in politics, the law, entertainment and big business have some dirty secret, and that they would not have been allowed to succeed, if this proclivity had not been recognized and encouraged. How else is it to be explained that so many politicians couldn’t earn a living outside politics?
When you look at their grinning, complacent, lying faces on television, it’s wiser not to ask yourself where they’ve just been or where they’re going later, or what they do in their free time, away from their sinecures. Whatever you do, don’t let them kiss your baby, or shake hands with them. You never know where that hand has been. So, take comfort in the knowledge that all these people, these marionettes, are just inferior hominids; like circus animals, rewarded for performing their tricks. Don’t look to them for help of any kind. They’re not accountable. No one in government is accountable. Not accountable to you, anyway.
In my book, there’s a series of photographs of such politicians exchanging kisses, just like any crew of Mafiosi involved in a shared illegal enterprise. They don’t have to use complicated handshakes or make cabbalistic gestures. Their openly traded embraces could be interpreted as anything from feigned camaraderie to mutual consolation for having been caught in the same trap; from reciprocal admission of collaboration in the same conspiracy to reminders of a joint masked assignation that evening.
So now we’ve identified humanity’s enemy: the system or the state, an amorphous governing mass which, like a giant sponge, regardless of elections, increasingly engrosses and monopolizes our private lives by forming and reforming itself in ways counter to our interests, and by creating new laws to defend its latest appearance. For instance, laws against something it likes to call ‘hate crime’ or ‘hate speech’.
If you speak out against the system or offend its representatives, you may be punished for hate crime, or you may even be accused of terrorism. Even the use of the word ‘terrorism’, as here, may alert some government-installed electronic gizmo, allegedly intended to protect the citizen. The system calculates that the citizen would choose to be protected, to opt for security over freedom, would prefer to live a severely curtailed life in near-detention, rather than to risk some state-promoted unproven danger.
So, we’re faced with the ultimate choice: false security or real freedom. We need urgently to ask ourselves what the best way is to fight this system before it’s too late. Of course, most people would prefer not to fight at all; life is hard enough without additional effort. But sooner or later, what may now be viewed as a distant concern, certainly not an immediate worry, will become a personal threat.
Take the migrant crisis. How long will it be before every community will be asked to list each household’s facilities, with a view to imposing newly rescued ‘refugees’, actually economic migrants, on it?
Eventually we may be faced with a still more lethal menace: another international war. Right now, there are at least four locations from which a war (even the oft-touted WWIII) could erupt: Venezuela, Iran, the South China Sea and Ukraine. Depending on their priorities, the warmongers may decide to escalate circumstances in one of these regions and so provoke another lucrative conflagration.
Prior to both World Wars, populations had to be stirred up by atrocity propaganda to hate the designated enemy. It was the counterpart of peace-time advertising. How would you know which soap powder to use if the media didn’t tell you?
Similarly, in the run-up to actual bloodshed, ordinary folk have to be informed about what an invented enemy has allegedly done to deserve their hostility. Only thus could peace-loving populations be recruited, dressed up in uniforms and counted on to kill other peace-loving populations, dressed up in other uniforms.
Of course the system couldn’t fool ordinary people that way now, could it? They’re far too well informed, aren’t they? Yet, hordes of mainly young people (but also some sadly misled older people), headed by brainwashed, publicity-seeking actors, have recently blocked the centres of major cities in their attempts to instigate laws against something they call anthropogenic or man-made climate change.
As a young and, by definition, ignorant child, it’s much more fun to skip school, especially when the teacher encourages you, and to feel somehow important for doing so. As usual, such mobs are fuelled by propaganda, paid for by those whose agenda depends on creating chaos, so that order, their order, may ensue. However, many scientists would agree with this view:
‘We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited, it became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.’ (Andrey Illarionov, Putin’s senior economic adviser, Reuters, October 29, 2015)
But they’re not as strident and aggressive as their opponents.
Whether in peace or war, there is a continuous element which bolsters the narrative: the lie. Without constant lies, none of this would be possible. So the only way to fight the enemy is with the truth. Legend has it that the devil may be banished with a cross. For unbelievers, a head of garlic might do. A more effective equivalent than the vegetable defense against evil is simply to tell the truth loudly and continually and tirelessly, while we still can. They can’t put all of us in jail — yet.
* ‘It has been frequently observed that our civilization follows the course of the Sun westward: from Greece to Rome, from Scandinavia and Germany to England, France and Spain, from Europe to America.
It looks toward the west for fresh lands where it may build nobler cities and create more perfect forms of life, unhampered by the trammels of the past. It may be said that the west stands for independence of thought, free expression, and representative government: these principles are involved in the western conception of progress.
Beneath this great westward flow of our civilization, there are undercurrents moving eastward. These are impelled by a spirit which looks back to the east, to the days of tyrant and slave, of luxury and misery, and incidentally the suppression of western culture. This spirit is retrogressive, though often calling itself ‘Progress,’ and its ways are devious. But the currents for which it is responsible are broad, deep and violent in their effect.
The following pages are designed to cast light on these eastern undercurrents which have undermined western states… In brief, an attempt has been made to place in broad relief the inner structure of a system which has produced and still foments not only racial enmity, but also has even undermined certain civilizations and overthrown established national governments.’
(Father Denis Fahey, Preface, Leslie Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward, op.cit., 6th edition, Flanders Hall, New Orleans 1988) quoted in Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, pp. 335/336)
- FORM & CONTENT
- 1 BLURB-SYNOPSIS
On the book’s back cover the following three paragraphs reveal what has been worrying the author for a long time:
THIS WARNING COMES FAR TOO LATE!
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the hallucination of global supremacy was born. Few paid it any attention. After centuries of counter-organic interference, when the end is in sight, we’re more inclined to take it seriously. But now, we have only a few years of comparative freedom left before serfdom submerges us all.
So it’s time to summarize our fall and to name the guilty, or, as some have it, to spot the loony. Sometimes the message is so dire that the only way to get it across is with humor – to act out our predicament and its cause. No amount of expert testimony can match the power of spectacle.
Here, at times through the grotesque violence typical of Grand Guignol, at times through the milder but no less horrifying conspiracies of men incited by a congenital disorder to fulfill their drive for world domination, are a few of the most telling stages in their crusade against humanity, and its consequences, as imagined by the author.
YOU WON’T BE LAUGHING IN LEG-SHACKLES.
Lie$ comes with an explanatory subtitle:
A Short Play in the Grand-Guignol Style, which is a contextual reference to The Theatre of the Great Puppet … a theatre operating in Paris between 1897 and 1962: It specialised in naturalistic horror shows. Its name is often used as a general term for graphic, amoral horror entertainment, a genre popular from Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre.
My immediate thought is: Decay in the subtitle of Menuhin’s book title? So, what’s new? The essence of drama is conflict, so Decadence, here we come!
Is there room for any comedy? We shall presently see if there are funny characters in this human drama populated, among others, by intriguers, cheats, tricksters, deceivers, pathological and compulsive liars, the naïve and well-meaning, the morally upright. We shall presently see whether we have here a post-morality play in the making of the 15th-16th Century kind where clearly didactic impulses animate the author.
The four scenes in LIE$ divide across a sweep of over a thousand years of tumultuous human history:
Scene I: 8th Century –
At the Court of the Great Khan – circa 740 AD
Set at the court of Khan Bulan, two Rabbis are conversing with the Khan and his consort. Among other topics, they discuss the “dominant” power of Nature, to which one Rabbi responds: “…Nature is nasty! That’s why Nature is our chief enemy.” Then physical torture’s ugly effects is raised, and the suggestion made that it could easily be eliminated were his kingdom to adopt Judaism as its religion. Again the Rabbi pronounces: “… We know better tortures than you. Pulling off arms and legs is crude stuff. … Judaism gives you all our connections and sacred laws too.”
Without questioning the authenticity of this legendary Khazarian conversion to Judaism story, this ten-page sketch clearly will be repeated nine centuries later.
Scene II: 17th Century –
In nine pages we see Oliver Cromwell, Colonel Pryde and Major-General Lambert plotting to secure absolute power for Cromwell through parliamentary democracy, thereby eliminating King Charles’ Divine Right: “… that the people are, under God, the original of all just power; that the Commons of England being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this nation.”
As is historically recorded, Cromwell invites the Jews, after their 1290 expulsion, back into England, firstly for the sake of securing a financial base, and secondly because their re-admission will bring about their conversion to Christianity, and hence will hasten the Second Coming. As Cromwell says: “There can be no redemption that is not inspired by the inclusion of God’s chosen people.” The regicide then proceeds according to plan.
Scene III: 19th Century –
At the Court of the Dowager Queen –
Queen Victoria chastises her corpulent cigar-smoking and philandering son, Bertie-Edward VII, for not doing anything to curb his gambling addiction. She warns him that contrary to his dismissive attitude, his creditors will, once he becomes King, call in their generosity extended to him.
Nathaniel discusses money creation, control of the press and personal prestige, for which he needs a peerage – and Jacob Schiff is mentioned, as is the imminent war between Russia and Japan, and elsewhere.
Bertie shows a little initiative in that he directly asks Nathaniel, now called Natty, about the matter of his personal agenda, and Natty replies:
“We only mean well. The British habit of muddling through must stop. We will bring clarity to the whole venture of running a country. Just as we have in France.”
The scene ends with a man dressed as a carrier-pidgeon delivering a message about Serbia having declared war on Bulgaria …
Scene IV: 20th Century –
Financial Finaglers – 1910
Before proceeding, I had to stop thinking about the play and had to find a clear definition of Finagler:
- fi·na·gled, fi·na·gling, fi·na·gles – v.tr.
- To obtain or achieve by cleverness or deceit, especially in persuading someone: finagle a day off from work; finagled a reservation at the popular restaurant.
- To cheat; swindle: shady stockbrokers who finagle their clients out of fortunes – v.intr.
To use clever or deceitful means to obtain or achieve something.
There are seven characters on stage sitting at a table in a railroad car: Senator Nelson Aldrich, National Monetary Commission; Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Frank Vanderlip, President National City Bank of New York; Henry Davidson, senior partner J P Morgan; Charles Norton, president, First National Bank of New York; Benjamin Strong, J P Morgan; Paul Warburg, partner, Kuhn Loeb, New York.
In just 15 pages Menuhin has succeeded in explaining how the fraudulent legislation for the Federal Reserve Act Bill is drafted – and there is more!
Although the seven bankers openly explain to one another how the system is going to work once it has been globally established, it is through the alternate switching between the bankers and the Steward and Cook dialogue – whose latter job it is to ply the bankers with expensive alcohol and food – that the audience gains a deeper abhorrence as to what is going on.
There are still individuals who cannot quite grasp the meaning of the phrase: “out of thin air”, when asked about the money creation process. Both the Cook and the Steward feel there is something illegal going on because the Steward has overheard something about this whole matter being illegal.
The bankers plan to get the parliamentary Act passed before Christmas when an in-depth discussion is not likely to occur because most lawmakers will be home for Christmas, and so the gravy train moves full steam ahead – and to this day, Menuhin correctly implies, it has not stopped for anyone!
There is an exception though coming through the electronic medium of the Bitcoin blockchain industry that is having a dire effect on the Federal Reserve monopoly of creating money. It will be interesting to watch how this medium develops and if the global financial controls will remain or whether a liberation-decentralisation occurs.
Gravy, in three acts, focuses on seven characters, four males and three females, whose collective wisdom/folly spans three generations, ranging in age from 65–50–40–35–25 to 15–years: Bob, Rob/Sally, Tom, Beth, Kelly and D’Marion.
Seven homeless individuals are sheltering from a snow storm in a garage.
All have followed Sally’s invitation so as not to spend Christmas alone. While the focus is on opening a can of gravy with a screw driver, basic social chatter and banter ensues wherein the individuals introduce themselves to one another. All have a hard-luck story to tell why they are homeless, without family and starving, i.e. all except Beth, who is 35-ish, overweight and an accountant. She entered the garage because she had forgotten to take her umbrella when it began to rain!
Rob, Sally’s husband, pierces the top of the Golden Pork Gravy can, then takes a sip and passes it around.
D’Marion, the young 15-year old serves as a questioner for the older individuals’ chatter. 65-ish Bob takes issue with accountant Beth, and they chatter about the problem of the Federal Reserve’s role in creating money.
Tensions rise when Sally fails to get them to meditate, and 40-ish Tom ribs her failure, and Rob swiftly defends his wife by threatening violence against Tom who, however, is too weak to do anything: I would hit you, only I don’t have the energy left – and so it goes on.
25-ish Kelly distracts by informing the group that she stands on her head whenever she feels down and … the bad thoughts just run out of my ears… .
It is obvious why overweight Beth is the only one who refuses to participate in this exercise.
Sally reveals that her Spiritual Intelligence Institute – SII – is run by Mr Abe Cohen who, after having made his money on the stock market, now seeks to help others with their personal problems.
And then the obvious occurs – Bob who still pushes for clarification, especially of politicial matters is labelled by Beth an “anti-Semite” and a “Nazi”.
As they drift off to sleep – a chorus of “Good Night” is heard followed by notable silence, and then a megaphone pierces this silence:
This is the police! The house is surrounded! Come out with your hands over your heads!
All this happens within 30-pages –
The same individuals are sitting at a table in what is a confined open prison.
In this seven-page act we see accountant Beth back in the group. She has lost weight, then explains that she was arrested because “I asked the wrong questions” – about the gold price – and so allegedly she could not be trusted anymore.
The act ends when 65-ish Bob is called up through the loudspeaker to identify himself: Prisoner 324012B, identify yourself!
He exits, then a shot is heard. Tom and Kelly wonder why he was terminated, Was it because he was too old or too aware?
The individuals are emerging from containers on a rubbish dump – a pervasive sombre mood prevails – they have all been terminated!
In 11 pages the scene is set with five containers on stage resembling the rumoured FEMA plastic coffins. Successively the lids open and seven dead individuals emerge again to engage in a bantering conversation, in a re-evaluation of what their life was all about.
The youngest, D’Marion, seeks a little solace from the eldest, Bob, whose honest answer to the question why the liars are alive and the honest are dead, elicits a physical response from D’Marion – he exclaims: Do some parkour before I settle.
3 STAGING THE PLAYS
- Both plays could be staged by critical enthusiastic individuals who care about global Western culture and its current descent into an ideological strait-jacket, i.e. multiculturalism-anti-racism, which to this day is still fuelled by the mainly anti-Hitler/Holocaust narrative. Clips, such as the following are regularly blocked on YouTube because they offend against community standards: * https://youtu.be/V2taj4lbFqM
- Each play easily fulfils a minimalist producer’s dream because little is needed to create the necessary atmosphere, and props hardly matter because the action focuses on what the actors portray. There is no visual overload, which is the curse of some of today’s theatrical extravaganzas.
- Both plays could be performed in one session with an interval separating them, and the two plays could then, together with Menuhin’s Epilogue, serve as the subject of an in-depth live follow-up audience discussion. The depth and breadth of canvassed topics will guarantee a lively finale to an evening’s outing.
- It is interesting to note the existing thematic connection between the two plays: the past – Lie$ – flows into the present and no-future – Gravy.
This would, hopefully, help to lift the current Talmudic-Marxist-Feminist-materialistic-hedonistic-nihilistic ideological shroud hanging over most of Western-European culture, which is stifling creative impulses, as was the case during the Soviet Union’s decades of stifling ideological existence.
Having said that, however, it warrants repeating that the current PC phenomenon is not really anything new in human history. We recall, among other things, the 15th-17th Century European-American witch trials!
In his three-page Reflection on the Human Race and how it could have been successful, I sense the author envelopes a pessimism that may not be quite justified because his world view – Weltanschauung – appears to hold a key to getting the world back into joint.
Does this mean we must revise, give up, find a new Worldview, one that is not too influenced by our Judaic-Christian-Muslim concept of Heaven-Paradise where eternal happiness comforts the afflicted, the persecuted, the sinners?
I recall that as a young boy I always viewed suspiciously those individuals who wished to bring me the tidings of a Heaven where everything is there for an individual, without effort – just be good on Earth. I considered that rather boring – nothing to explore – nothing to discover. Later in life I was advised by a wise cookery teacher that religion and its accompanying promises of salvation is only for sinners!
Hence, I found the Wagnerian/Shakespearian worldview far more realistic than any such heavenly bliss promising ideologies/religions sold by often suspect individuals who always asked for a price to be paid for their promised bliss and comforts.
Why? In realistic world views, as so clearly presented in Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen Opera Cycle, even the Gods’ own constructs come crashing down, then to be cleansed of its inevitable corruption by the waters of the Rhine River – and the eternal mortal rises again to begin anew the journey through life.
This is generational thinking – this is what male-female-family is all about, something the PC mindset cannot and will not accept, and thus the authenticity of the human biological imperative upsets those who cannot fulfil it because they have disconnected from the physical world and have made their thinking the arbiter of their anger, of their dreams and schemes – without realizing that NATURE is a part of Human Nature, and that we can only in a limited way harness NATURE to our own whims.
It is the other way round to what PC infected individuals demand of NATURE, and this is evident in that scientists are beginning to realize they are politicising their special fields of interest for some financial gain. They will not admit that any new scientific discovery is actually an eternal and universal entity that has been waiting to be discovered by humans – to be copied and utilized by humans. Medical doctors are often now regarded as mere salespersons for the multi-billion pharmaceutical industry.
This discovery, this life-giving process is deliberately sabotaged and exploited by human interests. It is the uninhibited criminal exploitation of trusting and well-meaning persons, of the nurturing of double standards, which in current global politics is ruthlessly applied by globalists who seek to destroy any emerging autarky within a nationalist European country.
For example, why are Invaders from the African continent and from the Semitic regions of the Middle East, so keen to come to Europe, then ruthlessly despise and disparage the white population?
I always asked myself this question: If the Invaders don’t like Europeans, then let them stay away from Europe but don’t change the Europeans. Why come in the first place? Go back to where you came from! This maxim I heard in Australia during the post WWII era of immigration – and countless immigrants tried to fit into the national Australian ethos, which is not a requirement anymore.
And this is what LIE$ also addresses in-depth; that Gerard Menuhin has dared authentically to depict the results of such exploitative ugly behaviour in his GRAVY play, is a masterstroke in dramatic urgency.
The Epilogue provides a possible synthesis to both Lie$ and Gravy, thereby illuminating and imploring the reader to be accepting of basic fundamental facts of life without falling into pessimism-nihilism-self-destruction. There is hope, the impulse which enables individuals to construct for themselves and for the future generation a positive idealistic worldview. The main objective is again to connect with NATURE and to disconnect from usury and its deadly international impulses that enable crass materialism to prosper.
And so a miracle has occurred because two elderly observers, with much self-reflection, have spoken out against crass materialism and its accompanying timeless ailments: Gerard Menuhin bothered to sit down and write his beautifully crafted plays and I bothered to comment on his work!
 Humphrey Burton, “Lady Menuhin: Gifted dancer who complemented the life of her brilliant husband,” Guardian, February 7, 2003.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.