From my favorite Iranian site
The materialist origin of the age of modernity is the same sentimentality of the Jews who, as Kabbalistic scholars, founded and developed modernity
While their centrality can be disputed, I quote this here because you will not see an English-speaker postulate thus even if it were indisputable.
Entertain the possibility for a moment that it IS indisputable. If Buddhists founded modernity wouldn’t you want to learn about Buddhism? And imagine if Buddhists did found modernity and 99.9% of books on Buddhism were written only by Buddhists. Would you be interested in seeing some non-Buddhist perspectives on Buddhism?
This is the type of article one can find on the Farsinet
They use the word “shell” in this article, coincidentally or not- they say the religion of Moses is a shell that was left behind. Kabbalah is the pistachio. Better yet, Kabbalah is the turtle that hides and protects itself with the shell of the religion of Moses. This is only the first stage. Kabbalah is also a shell in the contemporary world. The secular ones are the pistachio now. Suppose that this is the story of the foundation of modernity. Suppose that the founders of modernity are a turtle that protects itself with a shell constituted by a fabricated history of persecution.
Are you happy with modernity? Interestingly, I read yesterday in that book on the “fascist” poets that they emerged from a similar intellectual milieu of many of the Marxists of the 20th century. All these people had their gripes with modernity. My question for you is whether you think modernity is protected by a certain kind of shell. In other words, even if you were not happy with modernity would you be able to get to the turtle, or would it hide in its shell? Suppose you had a sledgehammer. Could that theoretically exist? No, that’s sick. Though, have you ever tried turtle soup? I suggest you give it a try, it’s quite delicious if you ask me.
It’s not up for debate whether it’s against the rules to directly question modernity. It IS against the rules. Reflect on that. People are forced to indirectly question modernity. IF they do at all, that is. Because many people seem to be perfectly happy with modernity. There’s a subtle trick in circulation though where “modernity” is spoken of and when it is spoken of it isn’t truly modernity that is spoken of. Because you are not allowed to directly speak of it. You’re living in it and your discourse about it is limited. It’s as if you’re living in a dome and you’re supposed to act like it’s the world. No, there’s an actual sky, that’s a dome you’re looking up at.
The founders of modernity love modernity, that’s why they founded it in the first place! They want it to be protected. They want you in the dome, thinking it’s the sky.
Why do so many people want the worst possible thing for me? Oh right, because they want modernity protected.
Do you know how much the supposed brain of our culture, the academy, speaks of “modernity”? A lot. And it’s never talked about in a direct way. That’s a form of protecting it. Because if you can’t speak about it directly you can’t question it.
With that said, Shamir seems to be onto something when he claims that a certain interpretation of Christianity lends itself to materialism. He calls that the “Judaic element” in Christianity. Similarly, one often finds on the MENAnet the idea that Protestantism, Calvinism in particular, is essentially Jewish Christianity. So, you want to talk about what “modernity” is? It’s heavily Jewish. And in my opinion heavily distasteful as well. Most people are entrenched in ~modernity~ however and do not like to be accused of being spiritually inept, so I’m aware this is a losing battle. I just like to flip the turtle and watch its legs squirm around in the air.
It’s sad to watch all the posers of the world. It’s the role of those who champion “philosophy” to speak directly about things. And since they utilize a con-artist’s concept of modernity they also use a con-artist’s concept of philosophy. Unfortunately being made aware of that won’t stop them from using those terms, likely because using them is advantageous in a materialist sense within the dome of modernity. Likewise, a glaring type of poser I’ve noticed is the bitcoiner. Even if you’re part of the process of reforming the financial system YOU yourself are still a minion of “modernity” so nothing in any substantial sense is going to be reformed. Most people these days have the soul of an international banker. They’ve been made in their image. So this is another way of looking at the futility of crypto-currency. You are modern, that is to say!, you are a Jew, so don’t pretend you are a real reformer. (Narrator’s voice- they continued to pretend.) And when you look upon me with bitterness for saying these things it is a Jew that is looking upon me in such a way. Know yourself. “Modernity” was a mistake, you are a mistake, try to own it. If you do that then maybe one day you can join me in critiquing actual modernity. A life where you aren’t a poser anymore, imagine that.