About a week ago I came across this exchange, (I like your word exchange rather than dialogue as is a much more apt description of what is going on) at
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1552888.php
On the site someone had posted an article purporting to be called “Holocaust Industry and Zionism” by Professor Finklestein. This was then exposed as false and not by Finkelstein at all.

This is NOT by Norman Finkelstein! by Aaron
“This article is not by Norman Finkelstein, the author of The Holocaust Industry. It is by the notorious white-supremacist and Jew-hater William Pierce, best known as the author of The Turner Diaries. Except, apparently, for substituting “Zionist” for “Jew” or “Jewish”, the article as posted is identical to Pierce’s.

The next poster wrote:

Why Does It Matter Who Wrote It? by Phinneas
“If it’s true, why should we care about the political viewpoint of the author?”.

Whilst I would never defend the original perpetrator of the false source I do relate to the sentiment expressed by Phinneas.

It is mostly in that light that I would try to read the interview with Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gamei’a.
I say ‘mostly’ and ‘try’ because sources do matter to us and it’s no use fooling ourselves. We become filters, blocking out entirely or becoming antagonistic towards those whose motives we question and being receptive and sympathetic to those in whom we find a source of agreement. It’s pointless trying to pretend otherwise.

In processing information, opinion, beliefs or attitudes the challenge is to bring a healthy scepticism towards and about the motives and assertions of those who are trying to convince us.
Is it ignorance and prejudice to dismiss ‘out of hand’ the arguments of those whose position we feel no (or low) correlation with or are we ‘duty bound’ to examine their propositions? If we do ‘filter-out’ are we merely practising a form of self-defence, universally practised? The position of the Politically Correct is to instantly dismiss as illegitimate the concerns of the traditional populations of European settlement to maintain the integrity of the societies they established and punish those who resist their demands. We judge them by their actions or potential actions as much as or more than what they say.

So with those who Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gamei’a represents. They, like the PC’s, see themselves as not one opinion among many but THE one correct belief. We see where they have the power to do so they are fanatical in their imposition of their law. They display no toleration at all to ‘unbelievers’ and little more towards their own that do not go along with them. The assassins bullet or worse is never very far away from those who would stand against them.

Yet by that fact does that merely ‘de-legitimise’ their propositions or rather assertions than test whether what they say is true or not? Many of the assertions of the Sheikh are open to testing whether they are true or not though what we make of the subsequent analysis will, no doubt vary. We do not need to rely on whether or not the motivation is anti-Semitism or not though if all or the crucial assertions were to prove false this would point to an underlying ulterior motive. It gets more complicated though if some assertions were correct.

What we must avoid is to become enmeshed in the politics of giving a ‘free pass’ to those that charge anti-Semitism whilst being sceptical of the motives of those who by their actions show their intolerance to any form of Western Civilisation. I see them though as no threat to the West unless they are allowed to descend on the West, en masse, as they have in France and parts of Britain. Unfortunately, as you have previously pointed out, the pace and extent of this invasion is being facilitated by those who should be their enemy.

In interesting line of enquiry would be how Sheikh Muhammad, though as an individual expelled, would reason, if it is true that Jews predominate and have hi-jacked the American political process why have millions of Muslims been let into the US to settle? Of course the answer you would get would relate to the micro personal rather than the mass macro picture. Ah well, that’s third world thought processes for you. It is part of their psychology that they are only capable of seeing their own short-term interests.

A pity that the forces of intolerance, in both its East and West versions, are on the rise and their policies and its accompanying psychology is being so thoroughly implemented by its advocates and the forces of scepticism and preservation are being crushed.

“I see them, though [ie, Muslims who are intolerant of any form of Western Civilization], as no threat to the West unless they are allowed to descend on the West en masse, as they have in France and parts of Britain. Unfortunately, as you have previously pointed out, the pace and extent of this invasion are being facilitated by those who should be their enemy. An interesting line of enquiry would be how Sheikh Muhammad [can claim that] Jews predominate and have hi-jacked the American political process [when] millions of Muslims [are being] let into the US to settle?” — Freddie Taylor

This article, “Anti-racism,” by Jim Kalb ( http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/index.html , scroll down the table of contents and click on article), helps explain why this and other similar outrages, such as multi-culturalism, are happening. While everyone knows that the influence of particular prominent Jewish public intellectuals (neocons among them) and of well-funded Jewish ethnic-interest groups such as the Anti-Defamation League push things strongly in the wrong direction, there are other factors which, without any doubt, MUST be the decisive determining ones without whose enthusiastic collusion the former could not have hope of success. One such “other” factor, for example, is the inclination of the wealthy white Euro Christian class to rejoice in the suppression of non-wealthy whites whom they view with contempt just on general principle, and whom they also see as constant potential rivals and threats to their own position. They are relieved of having a chance to keep smart, potentially “up-and-coming” whites down, where they can’t threaten to compete with the already-rich. Apart from this, the article contains many additional examples of the various factors causing the present debacle.

There is no doubt whatsoever but that white Euro Christians are being stabbed in the back by their own élites. Don’t look to see anyone named Rockefeller, Bush, Perot, Buffet, Turner, Gates, Kennedy, or Skakel posting sympathetically on forums such as “View From the Right.” It ain’t gonna happen.

Mr. Taylor declines to call the Sheikh’s anti-Semitic ravings anti-Semitic. Instead, he says they are arguably true: “Many of the assertions of the Sheikh are open to testing whether they are true or not though what we make of the subsequent analysis will, no doubt vary.” If Mr. Taylor could say that about the Sheikh’s statements, he could say it about anything. Thus it’s clear that there’s virtually nothing Mr. Taylor would call anti-Semitic. Based on his reply here, I would expect that if I quoted to him William Pierce’s expressed desire that all Jews on earth be killed (I have the quote from one of Pierce’s radio addresses), Mr. Taylor would reply that we can’t KNOW that Pierce’s statement is anti-Semitic until we first examine the question of whether in fact in would be better if all Jews on earth were killed.

So, I asked my question, and I got my answer. The healing of the deadly polarization I described is not going to come from the likes of Mr. Taylor. Indeed, notwithstanding his concern that the right is being silenced by the establishment, Mr. Taylor seems to have no conception of the fact that as long as some people on the right say the kinds of things he says, they are justifying the establishment’s view of the right, including immigration restrictionists, as anti-Semites, and thus assuring that the right will continue to be silenced.

Mr. Auster:

Your dismissive and hostile attitude towards Sheikh’s comments shows that you, like the liberals, are not capable of seeing outside the box of the contmporary zeitgeist. It is tragic to see such willful blindness on the right, and the using of the same tactics of the politcally correct left to demonize your opponents. Just because you think that the Zionist influence is not as evil and powerful as Sheikh thinks it is, doesn’t mean he is simply wrong and to be dismissed! It also, obviously, doesn’t mean that anyone who believes organized, anti-Christian Jewry is a very dangerous movement wants Jews to be killed! How ridiculous!

Do you have any evidence that what he says is false? There is, on the other hand, much evidence to show he is on to something. You can find this in the books of Father Dennis Fahey.

If the zionist/Masonic influence was as powerful as Sheikh says it is, then it would make sense that even the “right” would think as you do. It would be proof of their power. Something to think about.

Read Father Fahey and then make your points. He is very convincing and his information is documented.

Perhaps you should consider if a big reason you are averse to anti-Masonry and Zionism is not because your reputation might be tarnished? I mean, wouldn’t you be dismissed as you dismiss Sheikh?

“Do you have any evidence that what he says is false? There is, on the other hand, much evidence to show he is onto something.” — TK

TK, in a response I submitted recently to a post I saw in different thread on VFR, I said that Victimology held no promise for the future advancement of our side. By “Victimology,” I was referring to the notion that the white Euro Christian world are helpless victims who are led around by the nose by a particular rival ethnic group. This is the same mistake made by the leftist-inspired “cults of Victimology” that we all criticize. It is so completely and utterly wrong, when Blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, women, and other “Victim groups” are told by their so-called “leaders” that their victimization by evil white men or whatever explains the situation (real or imagined) they find themselves in. They are dupes for believing it. Those on our side who can see the falseness of Victimology when certain other groups wrongly invoke it shouldn’t have too much trouble seeing that we ought not to fall into the same self-pitying and simply untrue and UNPRODUCTIVE trap.

Do you think someone who says that Jewish doctors in this country are killing Arab-American children, or that four thousand Jewish office workers were told by the Mossad not to report for work at the WTC on the morning of 9-11, might be onto something?

If that person does have valid criticisms of specific groups or individuals, let him name names and cite concrete acts. But if he mixes el-bizarro fantasy with the points he is trying to make, he has only himself to blame if he gets dismissed as a crank.

TK’s protest against my unfair and dismissive treatment of the Sheikh is most enlightening. Now we know what some people on the right really mean when they complain that “substantive” ideas and issues are being suppressed by the establishment: the “substantive” ideas these rightists have in mind are those of the Sheikh.

The politics of conspiracy holds fast the sheik’s POV and that of his entire Islamic world.

It permits opinions in the absence of any factual data and colors colors every one of his and their otherwise unsupportable defenses.

I cant help but wonder if they embrace it because Islam is one giant conspiracy infused belief structure that allows for no dissent.

I invite everyone to check out this web site:

www.legionofstlouis.com

In it you will find an excellent analysis of 9/11 in terms of Judeo-Masonry, one that you will not find anywhere else. Why? because of the sophistication, depth, and courage of the writer. Check it out.

I believe that no matter what I said, other than completely agreeing with him, that would prevent Lawrence Auster from attacking what seems a perfectly feasible position. Whilst I am not surprised the vehemence with which he attacks seems over the top. I near enough find myself “charged” with providing a rationale for supporting a William Pierce sponsored genocide programme. Oh, um, I don’t think so. I thought this was a rational debating “chamber”.
In brief I tried to say two things.
One, that we should look sceptically at a source, taking cognisance of the known overall position of that spokesman that represents a particular position and
Two, that, not withstanding how much we disagree with that representative, the criterion we should judge assertions by is that of truth. If the assertions were proved to be a tissue of lies and therefore false then that would point to an ulterior motive, if some were true and others false then things become a lot more complicated and a lot more outcomes could be envisaged.

Lawrence Auster would seem to hold to the same position as that of the neocons in that there is this irrational and prejudicial force, without any roots in the reality of conflicting interests and agendas, that appear, without reason, in the minds of non-Jews, concerning their perception of Jews, which is defined as a pathological condition known as “Anti-Semitism”

Whilst militant Islam and Muslims in general will always have an anti-western bias the current conflict between the ‘island’ Jewish state of Israel and the Moslem and Arab sea it inhabits provides a conflict with special bitterness and piquancy.
The “anti-Semitism” of Sheikh Muhammad is not necessarily based on an irrational hatred but on the perception that Jews occupy their own state who’s founding and maintenance is based on the displacement by military force of a indigenous Semitic population by that of a European one, whatever their ultimate origins were.

Sheikh Muhammad position involves, I am sure, hatred but it is not irrational, though it is hypocritical, as I’m sure that he does not object to Moslems settling in the lands of the West. He also brings as part of his baggage the particular methods by which conflicts are ‘resolved’ in that part of the world so he wishes to destroy and dispossess what he sees as an alien force. He is a nasty piece of work but does not have a monopoly in that area.

Lawrence’s view seems to be is that if a spokesman’s known overall position is so antagonistic to the one they hold then there isn’t any need to examine their individual assertions or whether or not there are real conflicts of interest going on. They are just irrational nuts who can be summarily dismissed without recourse to evidence and argument.
Isn’t this the same position as the PC psychos and the neocons adopt towards their critics on the right?
There are plenty of grounds you could attack the assertions of Sheikh Muhammad without invoking “anti-Semitism” as a ‘catch-all’, non-negotiable free pass from presenting your own evidence of its presumed patent falsity.
Why are you so sold on this position Lawrence? You will not win over, make amenable or sympathetic to your position on immigration and the preservation of our Western heritage a single neocon by this attachment no matter how much you try to accommodate them.
They like their “anti-Semitism” notions neat and undiluted. They obtain a comfortable and secure living embracing this catchall non-negotiable free pass.

Islam’s unwavering conceit is that no westerner shall ever occupy a “Muslim Land”; that Israel was always a Muslim land, and that the teachings of Mohammed’s Islam require all good muslims to work to restore the area to its Islamic character as pre zionist Palestine by every means possible..

Prior to 700 A.D. there were no Muslim lands because there was no Islam.

As a non muslim westerner you have a choice: accede to the dictates of Islam or resist.

Choose.

My reaction to Sheikh Al-Gameia’s exchange is that it is completely paranoid, whining, and yes, blatantly anti-Semitic. He paints every single Jew on earth with the same brush. The outlandish charge is made that it was Israel and the Jewish consipiracy that organized the WTC attack. Given the fact that NYC has a proportionally larger Jewish population than any other US city, why would the ‘evil Zionists’ risk slaughtering a large number of their own? There are likely a large number of Jewish names on the WTC victim list (No, I haven’t actually looked at the list myself). With the Islamist knowledge of the machinations of this vast conspiracy, how were their followers so easily duped into this attack? How could any rational person take these allegations seriously - especially in light of the muderous actions of the Sheikh’s followers and allies? He is simply a criminal trying to con anyone gullible enough to listen.

Unadorned’s point about the white, Gentile elites is very much on the mark. (Note that I refuse to use the term Christian in describing these people, since I expect few, if any, really are Christians.) As for Jews in America; Yes, it is true that Jews are highly successful in many fields and are able to therefore exercise influence on this society way out of proportion to their actual numbers. I would attribute that success and influence to a cultural strength on their part. Even the leftist Jews I know are all very disciplined in their personal lives, and quite diligent and consistent at working towards goals. They also tend to support their own to strong degree, which is hardly a vice from a traditonalist view. The cultural strength Jews have demonstrated here is something traditional Christians would do well to emulate.

On the previous thread, Yehuda touched upon what I think is perhaps the real issue with leftist Jews. Apart from some nationalist sentiment for Israel and fellow Jews, they have abandoned traditional Judaism with its moral code and system of faith. The actual religion of such Jews (and the white Gentile elite mentioned above) is leftism - perhaps described best by John Fonte as Transnational Progressivism. To my mind, this theory offers an explanation of the overt hostility to traditional Western, Christian culture that is evident in the actions of so many Jewish leftists and neo-cons - even when such actions (like supporting unlimited immigration of Muslims and other incompatibles) could very well lead to their own destruction. There might be some reflexive anti-Christian bigotry mixed in with all of the leftist religious dogma, but I doubt such bigotry is part of Judaism per se, given the very warm support and friendship on the part of mainstream conservatives (usually Orthodox or Conservative in practice) like Don Feder and Michael Medved. The use of terms such as ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘racist’ as a smear to silence any opposition to imposition of utopia is a long-standing doctrine of the leftist religion. Leftist Jews like to throw ‘anti-Semitic’ around (thus cheapening the term) in this way (Abe Foxman being a great example) while the ‘racist’ label is preferred by their Gentile comrades. The above terms both have legitimate meanings. The problem arises from the leftist appropriation and abuse of these terms. That is why I think it is important that we define the terms in their traditional, strictist sense.

Freddie Taylor has said nothing to alter my previous assessment. Like many people today (I’m reminded in particular of the Holocaust deniers), he employs what sounds like the language of reason and of a concern for truth in order to avoid coming to unavoidable conclusions. Thus, according to Mr. Taylor, we don’t yet know enough of the real facts to reach any conclusions about the motives and credibility of someone who claims, inter alia, that Israel was behind the 9/11 attack and that Israel told 4,000 Jews not to show up at the World Trade Center that day.

A second aspect of Mr. Taylor’s parody of rationality is his relativism. He tells us that the Arabs are involved in a conflict with Jews over land and territory, and in such conflicts people naturally say bad things about each other. Thus the Sheikh’s specific statements get absorbed into this larger relativistic mush of “conflict” where no judgments are possible, or must be continally be put off pending some further elucidation of the “real” truth of the matter that has so far been suppressed by the Jewish-run establishment. Furthermore, since the Jewish-run establishment controls everything including all knowledge (which is one of the Sheikh’s central assertions), no judgment about these things can ever be reached and therefore we must always keep an open mind about claims such as the Sheikh’s.

A third aspect of Mr. Taylor’s obscurantism is his assertion that if some part of what a person says is true, then, no matter how vicious and false the rest of his statements, we are required to look at that person’s statements as a whole, take in the true, and reject the false. He writes: “If the assertions were proved to be a tissue of lies and therefore false then that would point to an ulterior motive, if some were true and others false then things become a lot more complicated and a lot more outcomes could be envisaged.”

By Mr. Taylor’s relativistic reasoning, no matter how bigoted and dishonest a person has shown himself to be, if that person mixes his lies with some arguably true statement then we don’t have the right to dismiss him. The practical result is that no one could ever be decisively judged and discredited, since, as we all know, there is no liar in the world who doesn’t make some true statements.

The motive behind relativistic arguments such as these is plain, whether the speaker is a Jew hater, or a Holocaust denier, or a Clinton defender: it is to avoid making judgments about things that the speaker doesn’t want to make judgments about.

“Unadorned’s point about the white, Gentile elites is very much on the mark. (Note that I refuse to use the term Christian in describing these people, since I expect few, if any, really are Christians.) … The actual religion of … the white Gentile elite mentioned above … is leftism — perhaps described best by John Fonte as Transnational Progressivism.” — Carl

Check out this article, to see a good part of the reason why what is happening is happening: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5254

Is Bishop Spong nothing but a puppet being controlled by others — by the “world-wide Judeo-Mason conspiracy,” for example? Or are he, Bill Buckley, Pres. Bush, Ross Perot, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda, Brit PM Tony Blair, and all the others who aren’t asking what in the hell is going on, as capable as any of the posters on this Forum of asking that question?

They won’t ask it because what’s going on is exactly to their liking.

Re: Lawrence Auster’s of 12.52 PM-
Larry wrote:

…parody of rationality -…specific statements get absorbed into this larger relativistic mush-
….no judgments are possible, or must be continally be put off pending some further elucidation of the “real” truth of the matter that has so far been suppressed by the Jewish-run establishment- …..No one could ever be decisively judged and discredited, since, as we all know, there is no liar in the world who doesn’t make some true statements.

…The motive behind relativistic arguments such as these is plain, whether the speaker is a Jew hater, or a Holocaust denier, or a Clinton defender: it is to avoid making judgments about things that the speaker doesn’t want to make judgments about.

Larry’s is truly a clear linguistic analysis and demolishment of the islamic mind set followed by his coup de grace observation that the motivation of Islamic thought and discourse is always to avoid the appearance of criticism of fellow muslims while poisoning all rational western efforts to judge Islamic conduct.
(Also applies to Liberals who dont diaper their heads or wear masks).

Dont waste your time over the site posted by TK on 12/28.
Its a warmed up hash of the old jew hating Irish catholic priest Denis Fahey’s anti semitic drivel.

When Fahey died in 1954 the New England irish were in an uproar over his particularly rabid anti-semititism.

He and the distributiionists wrapped their hatred for jews in Catholic rhetoric and tried to sell it to the working class Irish of New England.They didnt buy it then, and there’s no reason why we should buy the lies of his evil spawn either.

Because words such as racist and anti-Semite have become overused curse words, we should consider restricting their use to extreme cases. In the meantime, when we need to refer to the mildly racist, anti-Catholic, or anti-Semitic person’s views on race, Catholics, or Jews, we could take time to compose an apt phrase such as “somewhat irrational on race” or “unfairly critical of Catholics.” Most people have somewhat irrational ideas about a great many things. I don’t see how we can have productive discussions with people that we curse.

In addition, I suggest attacking the unfair idea instead of the person, at least until the curse words regain their meaning and lose their derogatory connotations.

The Sheikh makes so many irrational statements about Jews that he deserves descriptions such as mentally disordered, programmed, or brainwashed. Discussing his ideas here would be as useful as discussing whether the sun will rise tomorrow. But at least we leave the door open to such people to come here and maybe learn something. In addition, less damning descriptions better enable us to realize the Sheikh is human and not subhuman. Liberals have many irrational (or so we think) ideas, but we don’t get anywhere by calling them names.

There is an old muslim saying:

“Your grave has already been dug o’ infidel.
All that remains is to decide the time and the place of your burial”.

In the face of such ingrained patterns of Islamic cultural and religious evil, calls for moderation of tone and assertions that the Sheik is human are tantamount to disarmament in the face of genocide.

To Mr. Murgos,

The reason I quoted the Sheikh at such length was not to attack him per se, but, given the fact that his statements were such a pure expression of Jew-hatred, to find out if there was any limit to Freddie Taylor’s position that nothing should ever be called anti-Semitic. We found out that there isn’t.

Furthermore, I’m not sure where Mr. Murgos is coming from when he says that the Sheikh is merely “mentally disordered, programmed, or brainwashed…. But at least we leave the door open to such people to come here and maybe learn something. In addition, less damning descriptions better enable us to realize the Sheikh is human and not subhuman.”

In other words, Mr. Murgos starts out by saying that anti-Semitism is such a damning word we should reserve it only for extreme cases, not mild cases. But then he suggests that the Sheikh is a mild case and that by characterizing his statements as anti-Semitic I have dehumanized him!

Something big is happening in the world, reminiscent of Europe in the 1930s, but some people don’t want to face it. Here for example is an article from FrontPage quoting some of the flood of anti-Jewish statements coming out of Europe, Canada and the Arab countries. But by Mr. Murgos’s standard, I suppose, these statements are just “mild,” and therefore not anti-Semitic. After all, we wouldn’t want to dehumanize anyone.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5240

Lawrence Auster said: “What is particularly relevant and fascinating about this interview is that Gamei’a makes many of the same types of complaints that we commonly hear from the, ahem, Judeo-critical right: that the Jews control society (even, the Sheikh would have it, down to a microscopic manipulation of everything that happens);”

Your attempt to discredit Sheikh’s views by lumping them with a group — the “Judeo-critical right” — whose views you imply are either false or exaggerated, doesn’t work. This is so simply because Jews control most of the major media outlets, which has enabled them to mold the opinions and beliefs of American society. The owner of Viacom, MTV, CBS and Paramount Pictures, Sumner Redstone, is a Jew. I need not remind you that MTV is famous for promoting race-mixing and illiterate, vulgar hip-hop. The chairman and CEO of Disney, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. I need not remind you that Disney owns Miramax Films, which run by the Jewish Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such degenerate filth as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids. Additonally, The Associated Press, which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish managing editor, Michael Silverman. So to deny the influence Jews exercise on American society through media-control is, to say the least, very dishonest.

I’d like to hear the same correspondents who point out the wrong-headed influence of Jewish-Americans on U.S. society also from time to time point out the just-as-wrong-headed influence of Christian Americans, or the utter failure of Christian Americans who have the power to oppose what is going on, to do so, the underlying reason for their failure being that they FAVOR what is going on. They LIKE it!

In my posts I’ve criticized the bad influence of Abe Foxman and also the failure of many white Euro Christian élites. The latter have more influence and do more harm than the former. Anyone remember billionaire heiress Pat Stryker? Last I heard, Abe Foxman wasn’t number 240 or whatever it was on the Fortune-500 list of wealthiest Americans, as she is. With one single stupid donation she sank Ron Unz’s decent and very hard-fought campaign against bilingual education in Colorado, I think it was. I’ve never met her or read her biography, but anyone wanna bet this bimbo is not a member of the Jewish Community? We can multiply her by how many Christian bimbos and morons, doing their harm behind the scenes? Who is one of the biggest funders of these Mexican nationalist groups like La Raza? Is it the Anti-Defamation League? Hell no, it’s the Ford Foundation, no less!

Is Karl Rove Jewish? I don’t know, but he doesn’t strike me as being, and he has more influence on this country at present than any Jew on the planet, and his influence on Pres. Bush is atrocious, atrocious in precisely some of the ways Jews get blamed for. What’s the matter with him? Can’t he think? (And if it turns out Rove is Jewish, then we have to ask, what’s the matter with the President for listening to him?)

Were Supreme Court Justices Warren and Brennan Jewish? For those in Rio Linda, no they weren’t. Brennan in fact was Catholic, if memory serves. And yet these two were the most harmful, stupid, and destructive jurists in U.S. history — and were all of these things in precisely the ways liberal and leftist Jewish-Americans get blamed for.

Are the utterly despicable Senators Leahy and Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords from my state of Vermont Jewish? Is Lincoln Chaffee (the Rhode Island Senator who is waiting in the wings to do the same thing Jeffords did)?

I mean, the list goes on and on. What about the Clintons, for crying out loud? Yes, Jewish-Americans should be criticized where they exert bad influence. But let’s not leave out those destructive Christians whose influence cannot be distinguished from that of liberal members of the Jewish Community and who, taken together, have more power, obviously, than Jews taken together.

My reason for saying this isn’t to be nice toward Jews (or mean toward Christians), but rather to get to the real, true root of the problem — which ought to be everyone’s goal.

Its utterly chilling what a rabidly anti-semitic mind such as E.T.’s can make of the American dream of success for all her people.

Mr. Austers above observation that “every liar in the world tells some truth” should now be amended to include the observation that skilful liars also extract a few innocent facts, which taken out of context, can be twisted and used to try to incite hatred for American Jews.

Your Islamic fueled conspiracy fantasies are out of touch with the American reality.

Mr. Auster is accurate when says I implied the Sheikh’s statements were mild when in fact they were extreme. I was mistaken. I was distracted by pity.

My thanks to “Exposing Truth” for demonstrating the kind of world-view that can be constructed by a combination of poor thinking abilities and a bad will. “Exposing Truth” apparently believes, and would have us believe, that if the statement “Jewish persons exercise a disproportionately large (and often negative) influence on American society through media-control” is true (which it is), then it follows that the Sheikh’s particular list of charges about the Jewish people, amounting to superhuman control by the Jews of all events and all knowledge in America (and, who knows, perhaps the entire world?), are true also.

Think for a moment what it would be like to see the world the way “Exposing Truth” (or the Sheikh) sees it. Think what it would be like to be in possession of the “hidden truth” that every bad thing that happens is really being controlled from behind the scenes by the Jews. Think of the seething frustration and fury a person must experience to be in possession of such an important truth about the world, and to see that truth being continually suppressed because if anyone dares expose that truth, those all-powerful Jews will call him an anti-Semite!

The FrontPage article noted above resurrects my thought that in the two millennia history of the Jews and Judaism in Europe, there was never a time or territory where there did not exist a major animus toward this small human sub-population.(minor respites excluded)

I point this out only because we seem to think that the present European/Islamic surge in hate crimes against all things Jewish is a new and unusual thing. Not so. The period since the end of World War II,and now over, was only a temporary interlude of introspective sanity,..

Europe’s post WWII sympathy for the holocaust victims has now faded. The publicity driven revulsion for anti-semitism’s worst manifestations are no more. In a nutshell Europeans no longer look back in shame. The all too brief respite from carnage against the Jews is over.

The stark and bitter truth of present Europe is that after wave upon wave of Muslim immigration, Islamic religious hatred of the jews is now wedded to the home grown, garden variety of European Anti Semitism.

More extremely clumsy wording on my part: I said, in my post above, “(And if it turns out Rove is Jewish, then we have to ask, what’s the matter with the President for listening to him?).” What I meant, and hope was clear to anyone reading my post, was, “And no matter what ethnicity Rove may be, if he gives the wrong advice, then we have to ask, what’s the matter [etc.].” I’m sure most of VFR’s correspondents could cite, off the top of their head, a great many members of the Jewish-American Community, as well as members of a lot of other “Communities,” who’d be way better presidential advisers than Karl Rove — I know I certainly could.

Lawrence Auster said: ‘Exposing Truth’ apparently believes, and would have us believe, that if the statement ‘Jewish persons exercise a disproportionately large (and often negative) influence on American society through media-control’ is true (which it is), then it follows that the Sheikh’s particular list of charges about the Jewish people, amounting to superhuman control by the Jews of all events and all knowledge in America (and, who knows, perhaps the entire world?), are true also.

This is a whopping big inference to draw from my comments. You claimed Sheikh’s views were akin to the views we “commonly hear” from the “Judeo-critical right,” which, by implication, means the Judeo-critical right’s views are either false or exaggerated (or both). I simply pointed out that the group whose views you claimed reflected Sheikh’s (the Judeo-critical right) were not inaccurate or false at all — insofar as Jewish control of American society is concerned. Somehow, you interpeted this as a defense of the rest of the Sheikh’s “particular list of charges,” when I only addressed one of them — “that the Jews control [American] society.” They do this through dominance of the major media outlets.

Unadorned said: “One such ‘other’ factor, for example, is the inclination of the wealthy white Euro Christian class to rejoice in the suppression of non-wealthy whites whom they view with contempt just on general principle, and whom they also see as constant potential rivals and threats to their own position. They are relieved of having a chance to keep smart, potentially ‘up-and-coming’ whites down, where they can’t threaten to compete with the already-rich.”

This is a great admission on your part. Here, you claim that wealthy white gentiles fail to display any strong ethnic loyalties towards middle and lower class whites. In other words, they wouldn’t bat an eye at the racial dispossession of their own group by another (Jews), as long as they were able to retain their lifestyle of gated communities and private jets. In fact, they might even assist them, since, as you also claim, they view “up-and-coming” whites as a threat to their status. This level of intra-racial friction is almost unknown among Jews, who, for the most part, see themselves as a distinct (and special) group.

I should emphasize also that Jews comprise 3 percent of the US populace, whereas Christians comprise well over 70 percent. Does it seem coincidental to you that the ultra-left Clinton presidency had a 40% Jewish representation from a poplulation that only represents three percent of the US populace? Does it seem coincidental to you that this small group has been at the forefront of every negative cultural trend of the past century (communism, group rights and racial egalitarianism)? If it does, it shouldn’t.

“Exposing Truth” has got things exactly wrong.

I did not mean in my earlier comment that the Sheikh’s views are discredited because they are like those of the people I politely refer to as the “Judeo-critical” right: I was suggesting that his views are substantially more extreme and irrational than theirs. But what has been demonstrated in this discussion is, in fact, the exact opposite of what I intended and hoped to see: that the Judeo-critical right, by its refusal to criticize any of the Sheikh’s statements, and indeed by its positive agreement with them, has shown itself to be as bad as he is.

Furthermore, the original question I raised was not whether Jews are at the forefront of liberalism and of other trends that have weakened the American nation; that is a general point on which many conservatives agree, including those who are supportive of Jews and of Israel. The question I raised was how would members of the Judeo-critical right respond to the ravings of a paranoid Muslim Jew-hater who said that Israel was behind the 9/11 attack and that Jews, like some evil super race, exercise control over literally everything happening in America. (The Sheikh presented many examples of his world-view which I don’t need to repeat here.) To a man, the representatives of the Judeo-critical right who participated in the discussion had not a single critical word to say about the Sheikh.

The discussion has served its purpose as far as I am concerned.

In the passage from my post which Exposing Truth quoted, I had made a typo: I wrote, “They [ie, rich white Christians] are relieved *of* having a chance to keep smart, potentially ‘up-and-coming’ whites down,” where I should have put, ” … are relieved *at* having a chance to keep smart, [etc.].”

Exposing Truth made this comment: “This is a great admission on your [Undorned’s] part. … you claim that wealthy white gentiles fail to display … strong ethnic loyalties towards middle and lower class whites. In other words, they wouldn’t bat an eye at the racial dispossession of their own [ethnic] group …, as long as they were able to retain their lifestyle of gated communities and private jets. In fact, they might even assist [in that dispossession], since, as you also claim, they view ‘up-and-coming’ whites as a threat to their status.”

ET, yes, you’ve got it exactly right: that’s a very good statement of the problem. Where I would differ is where you say, “they might even assist [in that dispossession]” — “MIGHT”? They ARE assisting in it! In what you wrote, ET, you have stated one of the main reasons (not the only reason, but a principal one) why all the crap that’s happening is happening. Here’s the passage from the Jim Kalb article I got this insight from:

” … anti-racism [author Kalb’s term for what some refer to as “the race racket”] draws support from anti-white bigotry. While many think ‘anti-white bigotry’ a paradox, elite contempt for nonelite whites is simply the contempt of an ascendant group for a group it has superseded and intends to keep subordinate. Most members of our ruling elites are white, but they identify themselves by ideology and class rather than race, and their rejection of racial identification is fundamental to their claim to power. By attacking whites as a group they identify themselves with the principle of rule now ascendant. Whites are thus not immune to racial targeting. In the case of immigration and affirmative action governing elites routinely override lopsided popular majorities that would protect whites from adverse treatment as whites.”

http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/index.html (scroll down table of contents, and click on article by Jim Kalb, entitled “Anti-racism”)

ET goes on to say, “This level of intra-[ethnic] friction [wherein the upper classes are glad to see obstacles put in the way of the upwardly-mobile] is almost unknown among Jews, who, for the most part, see themselves as a distinct (and special) group.”

ET, don’t bet on it. In fact, you’re wrong. Just as do Christian Americans, every Jewish American sees himself as being in competition with every other American, Jew and Christian alike, and expects to get nothing in life except as the result of hard work. If he’s in a high school or college or corporation which is ninety percent Jewish he considers that he has to work his butt off no less than if he were in a high school or college or corporation that was ninety percent Christian. He expects — and gets — no free ride from his co-religionists (there are exceptions to this as there are to everything but, by and large, that’s how it is, and to the extent there are exceptions, they are the same within all groups, not peculiar to Jews). I’d say Jewish upper classes probably have the same apprehensions about preserving their power (apprehensions which may take the outward form of snobbishness, for example) as Christian upper classes, no matter what ethnicity the lower classes may be.

The ignorance of traditionalists of the forces of organized naturalism led by secular, messianic Jews would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. I was once ignorant until I read the works of Father Fahey. Read them, please. They are scholarly and full of uncontrovertible facts, including the fact that Jews financed the train ride that delivered Lenin from exile into Russia and that Jews constituted a considerable majority of the original Communist leaders and financiers.

We are talking not of racial hatred but the justified hatred of a false religion that denies Christ and seeks to take His place, communally, as a secular messiah-state bringing about a world civilization predicated upon the absolute ecliplise of the supernatural and the destruction (or irrelvance) of the Catholic Church. Of course, lapsed, apostate Christendom is in league with this movement, but this does not excuse us from identifying the reality of the organized forces of naturalism led by secular Jews.

Why are we allowed to denounce Islam (a heresy) but not anti-Christian Judaism (an apostasy)!?
We are not talking Orthodox Judaism but secularized Judaism.

It is simply unendurable to hear some of you dismissing these facts as if they were mere ravings of the maladjusted! Read Father Fahey for God’s sake before you open your mouths. Don’t dimsiss him based upon a phony slander campaign waged against him in virtue of his courage, erudition, and integrity! At least then we could debate the facts and stop using psychoanalysis and suggestions of mental insanity to demonize opponents. I thought traditionalists respected the intellectual life for God’s sake!

Here is a brief commentary by the great Father Fahey about anti-Semitism. Could those who have the nerve to slander his reputation and denounce his ideas please refer to this or other ACTUAL words of his before you type another harmful letter! The following is a summary of his teachings ont he subject. Please note what he cites as the, “two reasons [that] can be assigned for the fact that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who should be on the side of Christ the King.” They are a very accurate diagnosis of many on this website. Honor dictates that Father Fahey gets a just defense, and here it is from his own mouth:

WHAT really IS ANTI-SEMITISM?

By Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.

Father Fahey, the great apostle of Catholic Social Doctrine, wrote this brief, but excellent expose on the question of what the Catholic Church defines as anti-Semitism. Even more so then when it was written in 1950, such a clear distinction is needed today.

On account of the confusion of mind prevalent amongst Catholics concerning the question of Anti-Semitism, a few words must be said about it.

In the excellent review of my book The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism which appeared in the Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica (Rome, March 1947), the reviewer laid special stress on the distinction which I have been making in all books. He wrote as follows:

The author wants a clear distinction to be made between hatred of the Jewish nation, which is Anti-Semitism, and opposition to the Jewish and Masonic naturalism. This opposition on the part of Catholics must be mainly positive by acknowledging, not only individually, but socially, the rights of the supernatural Kingship of Christ and His Church, and by striving politically to get these rights acknowledged by States and public life. For this indispensable undertaking… the active and effective union of Catholics… is absolutely necessary.

Space does not allow of lengthy quotations from papal documents to show that, on the one hand, the sovereign pontiffs insist that Catholics must stand unflinchingly for the integral rights of Christ the King as contained in the papal encyclicals, while, on the other hand, keeping their minds and hearts free from hatred of Our Lord’s own nation according to the flesh. On the other hand, they must battle for the rights of Christ the King and the supernatural organization of society as laid down in the encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally proclaiming that the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messias, by His own nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation to Him, are a fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world. On the other hand, as members of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholic should neither hate the members of that nation in which, through our Blessed Mother, the Lily of Israel, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature, nor deny them their legitimate rights as persons. The supernatural elevation of mind and heart and the unshrinking fortitude that are required from members of Christ in our day can be maintained only with the aid of Him who wept over Jerusalem’s rejection of order. It will inevitably mean suffering for Christ’s faithful members as the power of the anti-supernatural forces in the world increases. Even in the midst of their suffering, however, Christ’s members must bear in mind that there will be glorious triumph for Christ the King.

Two reasons can be assigned for the fact that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who should be on the side of Christ the King.

Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term and never even allude to the documents which insist on the rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the Jewish naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord.

Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the naturalistic or anti-supernatural Press and do not distinguish between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense as explained above, and “Anti-Semitism,” as the Jews understand it. For the Jews, “Anti-Semitism” is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messanic domination of their nation over all the others. Quite logically, the leaders of the Jewish nation hold that to stand for the Rights of Christ the King is to be “Anti-Semitic.” The term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, is being extended to include any form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic aims and any exposure of the methods they adopt to achieve these aims.

At the beatification of Joan of Arc (December 13, 1908), the saintly Pope Pius X said:

“In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of those disposed toward evil is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigor of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the Prophet Zachary did in spirit (Zach. 13:6a): ‘What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands?’ The answer would not be doubtful: ‘… With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me’ (Zach. 13:6b). I was wounded by my friends, who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholic of all countries.”

Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.
Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
June 16, 1950

“We are talking not of racial hatred but the justified hatred of a false religion that denies Christ and seeks to take His place, communally, as a secular messiah-state bringing about a world civilization predicated upon the absolute ecliplise of the supernatural and the destruction (or irrelvance) of the Catholic Church. Of course, lapsed, apostate Christendom is in league with this movement, but this does not excuse us from identifying the reality of the organized forces of naturalism led by secular Jews. Why are we allowed to denounce Islam (a heresy) but not anti-Christian Judaism (an apostasy)!?” — TK

TK, I’m Catholic and a pretty tough and experienced guy, and all I can say is your words are frightening. You sound like an anti-semite — the real McCoy, TK. Here I was, reading all these interesting posts the past few days, and had gotten to the point of wondering to myself what anti-semitism was, and if it even existed at all among the educated (which you obviously are), and here comes your post which not only shows me an honest-to-goodness case of the real deal, but actually scares me — I’d hate to think what a Jewish person who reads it must feel. I consider your post more shocking than the interview with the Arab — for one thing it is “closer to home,” and for another, as an American you should know better, and there’s a third reason it was more shocking which I can’t put my finger on yet.

TK, I’m no philosopher, so can’t address your points about religion. But you simply cannot say what you said about “justified hatred of a false religion that denies Christ.” Judaism is not a false religion, and if anyone on the planet’s religion doesn’t lead them to believe in Jesus Christ, that’s none of your or my business. If you cannot understand that now, then you must withhold judgement until you either understand it later or never understand it. You must be told by a fellow Christian — and I’ll do the honors — that there were enough completely unacceptable things in that post to invalidate whatever might have made sense in it — in fact I was shocked enough to not even read the rest very carefully if at all, once I was stopped dead in my tracks by such stuff as “justified hatred of a false religion that denies Christ.”

This is one post which, if I may, I would call upon Christians to fulfill their obligation to denounce, or set straight, whatever you want to call it, so that Jews do not have to. A post such as this is our responsibility to respond to, we Christians.

Unadorned:

First, let me say that your accusations of anti-Semitism are outrageous, and once again Father Fahey’s words are ignored. Hatred of error (like hatred of the Devil and sin) is not only permitted but is a moral obligation. Insofar as Judaism contains error, I hate it, and so should you. Insofar as it contains truths, I love it, of course. But as a whole, Judaism leads its adherents to reject Christ as God. Since this may lead many to Hell, shouldn’t such an error be hated? The bigger problem of course, is with SECULAR, NATURALISTIC Judaism, which is so full of errors that it deserves nothing but contempt. At least Orthodox Judaism accepts the existence of a transcendent God.

Nevertheless, everything you say makes sense in light of your admission in another post that you are a non-practicing Catholic, that is, have engaged in apostasy from the True Church. Such would explain your disordered sympathy for religious error. (We are not talking of persons here; your love for them may very well be genuine), but intellectual errors, of course. Persons have rights and should be loved unconditionally; errors should be fought and eradicated to the best of one’s ability.)

Second, I think I was unclear about “hating” Judaism. Let me say again: We love Judaism in one sense because it was the Old Covenant leading us to Christ—of course! But we hate it insofar as it contains the greatest possible error, the rejection of the God-Man for whom it existed. How simple. Did I really have to make this distinction? Do you really think that I meant a full-blown hatred of that religion which prepared the world for Christ! Did you care to read my citation of Father Fahey. Please put what I said in context of that.

In another post I differentiated between atheistic, secular, naturalistic, state-Messianic Judaism, and conservative or Orthodox Judaism. I have much respect for the latter, people such as Rabbi Lapin and Dennis Prager, as it is still a religion bound up with the transcendent; the former, however, is of the Devil, period.

Thirdly, men are obliged in charity to condemn error, and the errors of Judaism are no exception. Insofar as the Jews continue to doctrinally reject Our Lord and His Church, we must condemn their error, that is, we must hate it, as we must hate all lies. Again, we must love all in Judaism that is true (the Old Testament, the radical otherness and personhood of God, etc.) , but all of this is as nought (salvifically, obectively speaking) for the Jews because they reject that to which these great truths pertain, The Incarnate Word Who would save them from Hell).

Fifthly, as for the Jew who embraces error, we should, you are right, have no judgment one way or the other, but should treat them as we would or own selves, with compassion, love, and understanding. Who are we to judge hearts? to say that they or anyone has rejected Christ after having known Him fully (except, perhaps, Judas)? We should even pity the Jews (like we should Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.)for being born into religious traditions that are predicated on grievous religious errors.

As Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II taught, Jews and all people regardless of belief have the civil right to practice their religion within the dictates of the common good and be treated as equal persons. But they do not have the moral right to do so (error has no rights, as the Popes have taught). To make the distinction between a moral right to error and a civil right to error is not anti-Semitism!

Sixthly, and finally, Unadorned wrote:

“But you simply cannot say what you said about “justified hatred of a false religion that denies Christ.” Judaism is not a false religion, and if anyone on the planet’s religion doesn’t lead them to believe in Jesus Christ, that’s none of your or my business.”

These words constitute a perfect example of what Fahey calls a betrayl of the rights of Christ the King. Allow me to quote Fahey again:

“Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term and never even allude to the documents which insist on the rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the Jewish naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord.

“Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the naturalistic or anti-supernatural Press and do not distinguish between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense as explained above, and “Anti-Semitism,” as the Jews understand it. For the Jews, “Anti-Semitism” is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messanic domination of their nation over all the others. Quite logically, the leaders of the Jewish nation hold that to stand for the Rights of Christ the King is to be “Anti-Semitic.” The term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, is being extended to include any form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic aims and any exposure of the methods they adopt to achieve these aims.”

Unadorned reaction to my post reveals the prescience of Fahey, and the reason he was perscuted. He spoke the truth, in love, and people couldn’t take it.

Unadorned:

Just one correction: I used the term “apostasy” regarding your non-practicing Catholic status. This was mistaken. I just realized that you said you were never confimed in the Catholic Church, and only a confirmed Catholic (post-Incarnation) can committ apostasy. I apologize for the mistake.

I think there is something to what Unadorned said about it being a responsibility of Christians to denounce hatred of Jews or Judaism.

I don’t understand much of what Mr. Fahey said, but that is not unusual because I am not an intellectual. I did catch the word hatred and its use against Judaism. I cannot recall hatred being a part of Catholicism or any Christian religion. Certainly Jesus never said he hated the religion he was raised with. I have heard some Christians speak of hating sin, but I don’t know whether it is a traditional Catholic usage.

I urge TK to let Mr. Fahey rest in what is hopefully peace. Seek another mentor. I suggest the simple step of moving on in your spiritual life. You don’t have to reject immediately what Mr. Fahey said. Being Catholic, you and I are blessed to have an enormous number of authoritative mentors to choose from. I suggest one of the saints so you will have confidence you are hearing fact. Read what the saints say about Judaism if you must pursue Mr. Fahey’s ideas; but avoid reading Mr. Fahey again. You have so many excellent mentors to choose from.

(Mr. Fahey might be the same man that was either excommunicated or publicly censured by the Pope. So until I am sure of my facts, I am reluctant to refer to him as a priest. If I am repeating a slander, then I will apologize.)

Mr. Murgos:

Note: If you read anything, please look at the list of quotes I assembled below regarding the Catholic Church’s (Liturgy, Saints, Doctors, etc.) view of the Jews.

I appreciate the measured and considerate tone of your post. I must disagree with you, however, about Fahey’s validity: Consider this from an article about him:

“It must be noted that Father Fahey sounded these warnings not because he hated the Jews, but because he, along with centuries of Papal practice, recognized the anti-supernatural effect that will result if Jews rise to prominent positions in Catholic countries. In fact, Father Fahey constantly reminded his readers that Catholics are forbidden to indulge in hatred or mistreatment of Jews. [Fahey writes]:

“Our Lord’s Sacred Heart is a human heart and He loves His own nation with a special love. We must never forget that or allow ourselves to fall victims to an attitude of hatred for the Jews as a Nation. We must always bear in mind that He is seeking to draw them on to that supernatural union with Himself, which they reject…. We are bound to work for the return of society to Our Loving Savior, so that social organization may be permeated with the reality of the supernatural life of grace.”

Does that sound like “hate” for Jews?

Again:

“Father Fahey’s love of the Jewish Nation is demonstrated by the special pious practice he performed faithfully:

“For over twenty years, I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, SS Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother, for the acceptance of the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for order.”

I accept this loving view of the Jews, pace Unadorned, but I do not accept his wishywashy, effeminate, hypocritcal “love” for their errors that he bandies about. Consider this:

“The love that Father Fahey bore for the Jewish people, however, was not a sloppy, sentimental love that strove to prove itself by pandering to the latest gripes of the B’nai B’rith. Father Fahey viewed all things by measuring them against Christ and His Divine Plan for order. He thus expressed himself on the Jews establishing the State of Israel in Palestine:

“Have the Jews a right to Palestine as the portion of the earth’s surface in which they may set up a separate State? It is clear they do not. From all that has been said about their rejection of the true supernatural Messiah, they can no longer claim it by Divine right. They were assigned this part of the earth on condition of their being obedient to God. They disobeyed God’s command to hear His Son, by their rejection of Our Divine Lord before Pilate and on Calvary, and they persist in their disobedience. Accordingly, there can be no question of a right based on a Divine Promise. In addition, the Arabs have a natural right to the country they have occupied for the last thirteen hundred years.”

Fahey represents the thinking of the Church on the Jewish question for 2000 years, as is evidenced by the following writings of the Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church. Are these Saints also bad mentors? Consider the following:

“Judaism…since Christ, is a corruption.”

-St. Augustine

“For, if we still live according to Judaism, we must confess that we have not received grace.”

- St. Ignatius of Antioch

“I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law of Moses and who do not believe in Christ before death shall likewise not be saved; and especially shall they
not be saved who curse this very Christ in the synagogues and who curse everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire.”

- St. Justin the Martyr

“Let us pray for the perfidious Jews: that the Lord our God may take away the veil from
their hearts, that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.”

-Prayer of the Catholic Church on Good Friday-

“This kingdom [of Jesus Christ] is indeed rejected by those who had the first claim to its possession [the Jews] and seemingly were the best qualified for entering into it; but all those, both Jews and Gentiles, who earnestly avail themselves of the invitation of the Gospel will be admitted. This is really a new Kingdom of God to be transferred to a new nation and governed by a new set of rulers, although it is no less truly the continuation of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant.”

-from Cath. Ency. article below clearly teaching that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Kingdom of God upon earth and that the true children of Abraham are its members.

“All who do not confess Christ to be the true God shall be cast into eternal flames.”

-St. Martial of Limoges-

Are these bad mentors too Mr. Murgos?

TK

It amazes me that Fr. Fahey’s sixty year old brand of Catholic wrapped anti-semitic swill has been swallowed by a new crop of ignorant lay people.

Fahey was known as a virulent anti semite during his lifetime and repudiated by the American Bishops of the Catholic church during the 1940’s.
He received some small support from parish level New England priests who concurred in the rabble rousing radio sermons he delivered from his home base in Ireland, but he never was a spokesman for the Holy See in Rome or the wider Catholic Church.

Fahey always was, and remained until his death, an aberent throw back to the 1930’s discredited Catholic minority that labeled the jews in latin as: “Jude Morte Christe”, a/k/a Killers of Christ. By that doctrine the jews were accused of being the actual and real killers of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

This view and that label has long since been specifically and particlarly repudiated in writing and by pronouncement from the Holy Roman Pontiff in the 50s-60’s.

Correction: I believe the Pope’s public repudiation of Fr. Fahey’s anti semitism was during the 1970-80 period,not the 50-60’s.

I will not presume to understand the quotations from the saints or other theologians. I am unqualified to argue theology, and I have not studied the writings quoted. I don’t even know whether the author at issue was a theologian.

Sandy:

If you maintain that Father Fahey taught doctrine that did not reflect the mind of the Church, please provide some evidence. Your magisterial dismissal of him based upon a certain historical opinion doesn’t count as evidence, sorry. And to say that we should dismiss him because the American Bishops did-Ha! This is almost proof in itself that he was authetically Catholic! Many American Bishops were well on their way to losing the Faith before the 60s. The American Bishops are not the Catholic Magisterium.

So, please provide some evidence in his writings to show that he was a heretic, or stop the slander campaign. Remember, this is a Catholic Priest your slandering. I gave you quite a bit to work with; in fact, what I quoted was the essence of his teaching. Why don’t you start with that?

By the way, neither the Church nor Father Fahey taught that the Jews alone killed Christ. In truth, He died because of my sins and yours. We crucified Him. Nevertheless, with regard to the proximate crucifiers of Christ, in real histroy, it is simply the case that the Sin of the Jewish rulers at that time was the most grevious. Consider St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject (ST III, 47,6); is he also passe’?

Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?

Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of Christ’s crucifiers was not the most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot be most grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He said: “Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin.

Objection 2. Further, our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): “He that hath delivered Me to thee hath the greater sin.” But it was Pilate who caused Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of Judas the traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified Him.

Objection 3. Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): “No one suffers injustice willingly”; and in the same place he adds: “Where no one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice.” Consequently nobody wreaks injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered willingly, as was shown above (1,2). Therefore those who crucified Christ did Him no injustice; and hence their sin was not the most grievous.

On the contrary, Chrysostom, commenting on the words, “Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers” (Mt. 23:32), says: “In very truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter slew men, but they crucified God.”

I answer that, As stated above (5), the rulers of the Jews knew that He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on Lk. 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” says: “He prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of the Law.

Reply to Objection 1. As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people.

Reply to Objection 2. Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to John 18:35: “Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me.” But the sin of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who slew Christ from fear of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified Him at the governor’s bidding, not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from envy and hate like the chief priests.

Reply to Objection 3. Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently Christ’s slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who “did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord’s anointed,” even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related 2 Kgs. 1:5-14.

TK, I’m sorry if I got you wrong. I don’t know philosophy or religion (sadly, not even my own religion, Catholicism) so can’t do a proper job engaging in debate on these subjects, but I feel I can say there is something the matter with your approach and outlook: your mind is molded along the lines of narrow religious intolerance. You are desperately in need of a broadening of your mind. I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Murgos: you need to put Fahey aside and start reading someone else. I’d suggest St. Paul, my own favorite commentator on Christianity. Or if not St. Paul, ANYBODY else, only NOT FAHEY!

Here’s the letter I’d rather you had written (you did write it, but it needed ferreting out):

“Unadorned: First, let me say that your accusations of anti-Semitism are outrageous … . Insofar as Judaism contains truths, I love it, of course. … Orthodox Judaism accepts the existence of a transcendent God. … I have much respect for [Conservative and Orthodox Judaism], people such as Rabbi Lapin and Dennis Prager, as it is … a religion bound up with the transcendent … Again, we must love all in Judaism that is true (the Old Testament, the radical otherness and personhood of God, etc.) … [A]s for the Jew who [sees no reason to become a Christian], we should … have no judgment one way or the other, but should treat them as we would our own selves, with compassion, love, and understanding. Who are we to judge hearts? As Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II taught, Jews and all people regardless of belief have the civil [and moral] right to practice their religion within the dictates of the common good and be treated as equal persons. … “

That letter, contained within the one you posted, is the one I would like to have read. Can you see the difference? Let’s not worry about “Jews going to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ” — that’s their problem. Let’s not worry about other people’s “error.” Let’s worry about our own problems and not mind other people’s business. “But what seest thou a little mote in the eye of thy brother, and seest not a beam in thine own eye?  Or how sayest thou to thy brother, ‘Brother, suffer I shall do out a mote from thine eye,’ and lo! a beam is in thine own eye?  Hypocrite, do thou out first the beam of thine eye, and then thou shalt see to do out the mote of the eye of thy brother.” St. Matthew 7, 3-5 (John Wycliffe’s translation, from the year 1380)

After this response, I regret I will not be able to engage further on this subject, lacking as I do all expertise in religion and philosophy.

TK, thank you for posting Father Fahey’s commentary. I would have to characterize the bulk of his comments as a version of the traditional Christian theological argument against Judaism rather than anti-Semitism per se. Just to give you a bit of my own background: I am a Calvinist Protestant with what I would characterize as Orthodox leanings and have some (but not much!) familiarity with some of the early Church Fathers cited by Fr. Fahey. The terminology can be very strong at times, so I think it is important to keep mentioning that this is a disagreement of a theological nature, rather than an attack upon an ethnic group. Jews are nearly unique in that their ethnicity and religion are bound up together. I honestly don’t know if Orthodox Jews like Don Feder consider leftists such as Abe Foxman to be Jewish (other than in the ethnic sense).

That said, my real diagreement would be in the description of the movement under scrutinty as “Jewish Naturalism” or “Secular, State-Messianic Judaism.” I view this movement as a (relatively) newly-formed religion in its own right, with plenty of adherents drawn from both Judaism and Christianity. I think it is unfair - especially to Orthodox Jews like Rabbi Lapin and Don Feder - to call this beast a form of Judaism. As Unadorned has mentioned, there are plenty of Gentiles who subscribe to the same set of beliefs. In very many ways, this new religion represents a counterfeit of Christianity - one that is especially seductive to the elites and intellectuals of any race. To top it off, David Horowitz, a man who has done much to fight the leftist hegemon described, is a secular, non-religious Jew!

I would also take issue with his denial of Israel’s right to existence. While I understand the theological argument against a Divine sanction of an Israeli state, I still think there is a fundamental natural human right of all peoples to be able to perpetuate their existence by means of having a land of their own. Supporting Israel’s right to exist is a way of honoring the faithfulness of the “Old Teastament Church” who gave us 2/3 of the holy scriptures and co-operated with God in helping the Divine plan of salvation to unfold as promised.

Lets put an end to this charade by the new wave of anti-semites who have to reach back into the anti semitism of pre world war II to find “legitimacy for their brand of in your face anti semitic Catholicism.

http://www.wquercus.com/sungenis/
from a footnote:

“Fr. Denis Fahey, Irish Spiritan
Sungenis referred often to Fr.Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. (1883-1954), whom he dubbed “the expert on Catholic/Jewish relations.” He was particularly indebted to Fahey’s book, The Kingship of Christ and Conversion of the Jewish Nation. Fr. Fahey was one of the key sources of inspiration for Fr. Charles E. Coughlin (1891-1979). Both priests had a conspiratorial view of Jewish involvement in world history, rooted in their acceptance of the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While Sungenis did not himself cite The Protocols, it is nonetheless a remote source of his beliefs, because of its importance to Fahey. A British extremist, Ivan Fraser, quotes Fahey in an article defending their authenticity: “It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focussing [sic] more public attention on other revealing utterances” [Waters Flowing Eastward].

Of Fahey’s antisemitism, the fringe publication Seattle Catholic says, “the Christian anti-Semite has for his dream the restoration of the state which “had its foundations in theological principles.” If such is the case — as both history and logic demonstrate even to this very day — may we all then have the courage to respond with the words of Fr. Fahey: “In that sense…every sane thinker must be an anti-Semite.”

Today, Fr. Fahey is of great interest to extremists around the world, quoted and sold by such organizations as the SSPX, the British Christian Defence Institute, the Christian Defense League, Stormfront, the National Alliance, and Radio Islam.

SEE ALSO: the pronouncements of the 2nd Vatican council of October 28,1965 especially:

Pope Paul VI October 28,1965 Nostra Aetate
“As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Lastly see one catholic ceremony of repentance for the treatment of the Jews:

.CEREMONY OF CONFESSION OF SINS AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL
Cardinal Edward Cassidy: Let us pray that, in recalling the sufferings endured by the people of Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the Covenant and the blessings, and in this way will purify their hearts. [Silent prayer.]
The Holy Father: God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison.

Now having offered what was demanded I consider the anti emites refuted. I expect them to try try again,but wont waste any more time in discussing old wornout, dead catholic extremists any longer.

To Larry A: Sorry for the length of the post but I really did cut it by 85%- Sandy

I thank everyone for contributing to this debate. My hope is that some of you will study the pre-Vatican teachings of the Popes on religious indifferentism, Masonry, naturalism, and the Jewish question, and the profound writings of Father Fahey on the Divine plan for order. I leave you with Father Fahey’s six points for the reestablishment of Divine Order in the world. This is still the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, by the way. Dignitatis Humane did not change this. Thanks again for a great debate:

These Six Points are an outline of Catholic social order based on traditional Papal teaching. In another one of his books, Father Fahey emphasizes the importance of the Six Points:

“In the Outline of History, which I give almost every year at the beginning of the year, I try for the minds of the Scholastics, to place historical epochs, movements, programmes of politicians, as well as ideas of authors, in the hands of pupils for the study of languages and of history, by reference to the Six Points of Our Lord’s Programme. Whatever is in harmony with the Divine Programme for Order will make for real progress, whatever is opposed to it spells decay and death. Thus I try to train them to make Our Lord the center of their lives in every department.”

The Six Points are as follows:

1) Our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, Supernatural and Supranational, which all States must acknowledge as the only way established by Our Lord for our ordered return to Him.

2) The indirect power of the Church over the State. That is, States and Governments must recognize the Catholic Church as the sole Divinely appointed Guardian of the whole Moral Law, natural and revealed.

3) The unity and indissolubility of Marriage.

4) The education of children as Members of the Mystical Body of Christ

5) The widespread diffusion and ownership of Private Property

6) An economic system that facilitates finance and the production of goods so as to be at the service of members of Christ in happy families.4

Against this Six-Point plan, there is Satan’s plan for disorder and decay. It is a point-by-point antithesis of Our Lord’s Programme. This too is based on Papal teachings that warn Catholics against the evil designs of the enemy. Satan aims at:

1) preventing nations from recognizing the Catholic Church as the one true Church established by Christ,

2) encouraging States to treat the indirect power of the Church with contempt, leaving it up to the State, or to the vote of the people, to decide all moral questions,

3) undermining Christian family life directly by the legalization of divorce, or indirectly, by the widespread promotion of immorality,

4) preventing children from being educated as Members of Christ, especially by giving children a naturalistic formation in schools,

5) promoting the concentration of property into the hands of a few; either nominally in those of the State, that is, in the party in power, or in those of the money manipulators,

6) promoting an economic system wherein human beings are subordinated to the production of material goods, and this production is subordinated to the making of money and the growth of power in the hands of the financiers.

One can easily observe that in our time, in virtually every nation of the world, including the United States, it is Satan’s plan that has triumphed. Further, the Six-Point plan of Satan could pass as a blueprint for the agenda of the United Nations.

This is an issue that I have not really looked at closely; but it seems to have born out Mr. Auster’s thesis that discussion of “anti-semitism” is deeply polarized on the Right (much as discussion of Southern secession and the impending war with Iraq are also polarized).

Some seem to think that anything threatening “separation of Church and State” is anathema; those I believe are lost, until they question that orthodoxy. They have bought into the myth that any political concern about ultimate truths — religion — is an unnacceptable source of conflict. It stands to reason that any Protestant society coming after the wars of religion would think that, because if it is not religion as such that is the problem we might have to consider the possibility that it is something particular to Protestantism, Islam, etc — that is, particular religions rather than religion as such — that is the problem.

Mr. Auster’s discussion with his interlocutors served the purpose of showing that some on the Right simply do not consider anti-semitism a legitimate term at all; the discussion involving TK that followed Mr. Auster’s showed that others will tolerate no discussion, not even a civil one, of inequality of religions. So anti-semitism right now serves as a lighting rod that absorbs all rational discussion; it is not a word with meaning but rather a word with anti-meaning. It might be interesting to try to change that.

Matt:

I saw TKs reverencing of Fahey as a desire to go backward in history to the 1930s in America when Father Fahey’s collar gained him a Catholic audience taught from childhood to uncritically heed the words of their priests. It was a time when priests enjoyed the highest of community reputation and were never disputed in their pronouncements.

On the surface Fahey preached the Catholic church triumphant, but below, his subtext was an intractable hatred for the Jews , the designated Catholic scapegoats of the time.Fahey’s hate filled subtext finally broke to the surface and became too obvious so the church authorities distanced themselves from him.

To do as TK did and genuflect before Fahey’s world view would have required everyone who learned about Fahey since then to turn back our educational clocks to before the time Fahey was discredited as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The world is filled with ideas that appear on the surface to be one thing but underneath are something else. There exist many ideas that are used as vehicles to carry subsets of meanings, many arcane and hidden to all except the initiate.

There are also many ideologies and ideas, like Anti-Semitism, that have been so thoroughly analyzed and historically explored that a short hand label is an accurate portrayal of the condition referred to.
Anti- Semitism is not open to interpretative language to soften or change its plain meaning. And anyone who claims such right is appropriately seen as wanting to resurrect an ancient evil.
.
I agree with you that the phrase anti Semitism has become a lightning rod. This is the result of millions of words and thousands of photos showing all the end products of its ideology. Can you say Pogrom, Inquisition, Auto De Fe’, Dachau, Buchenwald, Warsaw ghetto, The Final solution ?

Ex Poste Facto switches of the label Anti-Semitism to a less lightening rod “Inequality of Religions” is an end around attempt to do the same

Are Judeo-critical persons anti-Semites? Who are the Judeo-critical in this thread? I am not sure I like being a guinea pig.

By the way Sandy, your phrase “end around” is a clue to your sex. (If you find my New Year’s Eve silliness objectionable, please say so.)

Amend my second question to “Who are the Judeo-critical right in this thread”?

P.Murgos:

Enjoying your post.
Of course some judeo-critical people are anti-semites. Some are not. I like Jim Kalb amd Larry Austers definitions; that it applies to morally offensive behavior including some obsessive compulsiveness.

The original post was about a Sheik Gamei’a whose speech was steeped in anti-semitism.Mr. Taylor then said the sheiks arguments were arguably true and without proof not necessarily anti-semitic.

From there it was off to the races.

Carl labelled the sheik as an anti-semite.

Both you and unadorned opined that “why cant we all just get along” (sound familiar?).

E.T. was anti-semitical in his postion.

T.K. was as rabid as you can get but labelled his brand of anti semitism religious preference.

Then the antisems dug up the dead anti-semite Father Fahey and T.K. preached the old guy’s rhetoric all over the place.I went after them.

P.S. -You dont get to choose whether to be a guinea pig on these public forums.Like they say when its inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it.

Al in all it was a helluva year end brawl and I loved every minute of it.

Have a great New Year.

I don’t know Father Fahey’s writing enough to either defend or denounce him, but clearly nothing of his posted _in this discussion by TK_ was anti-semetic by the Auster definition. Sandy posted information about how other people think Father Fahey was antisemetic, and how (surprise) the Vatican has changed since Vatican II, but nobody has posted anything of Father Fahey’s directly that would rise to the level set by Mr. Auster (and clearly crossed by the Sheik). Part of the issue with anti-semitism is to subject it as a concept to reason, so I would think that if Father Fahey is to be thought anti-semetic it ought to be his own words that indict him.

Happy New Year!

Matt I was hoping you would join in. (But of course I don’t insist on a response from you.)

I will pose the same question that I posed in a thread begun by Mr. Kalb: Would it not be more useful to identify the specific immoralities that comprise racism and anti-Semitism?

Employing labels has its place. But it seems the more specific we get, the greater the likelihood of catching the attention of the “anti.”

This question first came to me when I kept seeing the slogan “EEO is the law” and similar slogans plastered on every official calendar, computer screen, and bulletin board in the workplace. I was angered by this slogan because I thought that instead we should see universal truisms such as “honesty is the best policy,” “sloth is the devil’s workshop,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “thou shalt not steal,” “be polite,” and “zero tolerance for violence.”

Here is more justification for avoiding derogatory labels during discussions, at least with laypersons and in the media. During such discussions, it is counterproductive to throw the spectrum of “anti’s” into the same box as Hitler, a murdering monster. There might be a legitimate purpose for intellectuals to use the same box as taxonomists use the same box for humans and apes. Laypersons like me are not aware of the clinical distinctions that intellectuals might have in mind.

You know Sandy the “can’t we just get along” quote crossed my mind before you mentioned it. But I don’t know whether I placed myself within that category when it crossed my mind. I must be communicating poorly.

My idea is that we simply must discuss matters because the alternative is horrific. At the end of it all, maybe we will have to repatriate Muslims to their native countries. So I am not a milk toast (not that Sandy implied as much). Grrr. Arrgh.

Matt, can we all agree the world would be a far worse place if everyone converted to Christianity, leaving no more Shintoism, no more Buddhism, no more Islam, no more Hinduism, no more Judaism (I view Christianity and Judaism as sister religions, by the way — two branches of the same religion which are almost the same as each other), no more Culte des Ancêtres (the religion my Chinese and Vietnamese friends in Belgium said they practiced back home — I don’t know the English term … Ancestor Worship?), no more anything but Christianity? I feel uneasy when I hear that Christianity is slowly making major inroads in Korea, and I say to myself, “Why don’t the missionaries come home already?” I love Christianity FOR US IN THE WEST, while I love the fact that Korea has its own traditions and religion, which I think should stay that way.

Can we all agree that it’s wrong to call someone’s religion a false religion unless it’s something really ghastly, of a sort of ghastliness non-existent in today’s world but found for example in the Hindu Thuggee cult of over a century ago (the ones Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., were up against in the old movie, “Gunga Din”)?

Can we agree it’s wrong to criticize someone’s religion unless that religion calls for things that are clearly immoral (such as the Hindu practice of Suttee, or the practice among U.S. adherents of Christian Science of not going to the doctor — which is OK for adults if they want that, but when imposed on young children makes one die horribly, every decade or so, of easily-treatable things like appendicitis and bowel obstruction)?

My love of MY culture, and of its religion, Christianity (actually, Judæo-Christianity, though many Jews strongly oppose that concept and many Christians think it is erroneous), makes me respect all the more the love others have for THEIR culture, and THEIR culture’s religion. Is that not proper?

Hello Unadorned, you said: “ET, don’t bet on it. In fact, you’re wrong. Just as do Christian Americans, every Jewish American sees himself as being in competition with every other American, Jew and Christian alike, and expects to get nothing in life except as the result of hard work.”

You have to understand that the Jewish Old Testament is specifically a tribal religion, and has therefore allowed Jews to adopt a distinct biological identity and character. In the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua, you’ll notice the Jews prefer to commit genocide rather than permit intermarriage and genetic mixture with the host population. And the Jewish god is a specifically tribal god — rather than the universal deity of the Christians — designed first and foremost to maintain and promote Jewish racial integrity. The Hebrew history of the Old Testament dictates, in fact, that all of Israel’s misfortunes arose from rejecting Yahweh (Jehovah) through racial mixing.

BTW, I enjoyed reading your posts at Richard Poe’s forum.

Exposing Truth, Jews are no more tribal than other groups (such as religious Catholics in general, to cite just one example) and almost certainly less tribal than some I can think of, such as Greeks, Armenians, Chinese, and probably even Italians on a certain level. But even if I’m wrong, and some Sociology 101 textbook contains some proof that they ARE more tribal — so what? I honestly can’t see why that’s worth pointing out. The problems that get blamed on Jews, and which I also blame in part on the bad influence of certain Jewish-Americans and their groups, such as Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, are the result of general societal forces more than of Jewish influence. To combat those general societal forces we must target our own white Euro Christian élites for change, rather than devoting all our ammunition to individuals or groups which — though players — are but secondary players in the overall scheme of things. I don’t see where the Catholic Church or the Mainline Protestant churches have done less damage than organized Jewish-American groups. Let’s target them all equally. Did you see that article recently about Anglican Bishop Spong’s el-bizarro ideas, in a recent issue of FrontPageMag.com? Spong is not a Jewish-American, nor is he “tribal” — but WHAT A BLITHERING MORON!

(Thanks for the kind words about the RichardPoe.com Forum.)

Unadorned asks:

“Matt, can we all agree the world would be a far worse place if everyone converted to Christianity…?”

Certainly not. Truth is truth, and error is error. How we compromise with the fact that the world is fallen and we are not omnipotent nor omniscient is one thing, but I would not agree that _in principle_ the world would be a worse place if everyone stopped living lies.

Mr. Murgos, I took Mr. Auster’s recent theme as an attempt to get at the possible objective content of the word “anti-semitism” independent of its use as a slur (or at least as speculation about that possibility). One possible point of view is that “anti-semite” is simply a slur, with no objective moral content. I am not utterly convinced that that is wrong, but on balance it seems wrong; though I may be misreading you as well. In any case the point of my previous post is that while it may possibly be correct to objectively say that Father Fahey was an anti-semite, those who claim so (e.g. Sandy) ought, in the spirit of this discussion, to cite his own actual words in order to make that case. The simple fact that nobody has done so while TK has provided the opposite casts the categorization in doubt, acknowledging the general vacuum of actual information on the subject in this thread of course.

On Matt’s doubts as to whether Fahey was anti-Semitic, the way Fahey writes about the Jews, as the source of this monstrous naturalistic religion which is the enemy of the truth, amounts to a call for hatred against Jews as Jews which to my mind is anti-Semitic. In other words, he’s not just saying the Jewish religion is false. He’s saying that the Jewish religion is the cosmic enemy of truth, that it has taken over the modern world and is destroying everything that is good and true, and that Jews, as the source of this monstrosity, are to be seen as the cosmic enemy. There is a visceral element of hatred in his writings, directed against the Jews as people, which to me fits the definition of anti-Semitic.

For Matt 8:31pm & 4:24am

Matt:

Thanks for your posts.
You correctly noted in that I did not use Fahey’s own words in my refutation of his Anti Semitism.I assumed my knowledge to be ubiquitous and of course it was solely experiential.

Below the waterline of the slick Fahey superstructure lays a hidden hull, rotten to the core and riddled with the age old virus of anti-semitism.

Here it is in his words. Sometimes quoting old anti-semitic language from long dead Popes, but always from his books and publiccations:

Denis Fahey:

“Having made it clear that, when I am speaking of the disordered domination of money, I am simply using the language of the sovereign pontiffs, I now pass on to the papal pronouncements about the Jewish nation and freemasonry.”

“Our way of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and the Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief, if such folk are living in continual and intimate converse with them.”

“…protecting the supernatural life of Catholics from the contamination of Jewish naturalism and try to prevent the Jews from gaining control over Catholics.”

As for us in this matter ,we follow the line of conduct adopted by Our Venerable Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs. Alexander III (1159-1181) forbade Christians, under severe penalties, to enter the service of Jews for any lengthy period or to become domestic servants in their households. “Thee ought not,” he wrote, “to serve the Jews for pay in the permanent way.”

….” In like manner, in another decretal, Cum Sit Nimis, he forbids public positions to be bestowed on the Jews: “We forbid the giving of public appointments to Jews, because they profit by the opportunities thus afforded them to show themselves bitterly hostile to Christians.”
Pope Gregory XIII warned Catholics in 1581 that the Jewish attitude towards Our Lord had not changed.

The Jews, however, in no way softened by these benefits, and with their ancient anti-Christian attitude unchanged, do not cease, in their synagogues and everywhere, to rage against Our LordJesus Christ now gloriously reigning in Heaven.

Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity ….

….unequivocally proclaiming that the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messias, by His own (the jews*) nation, and the unyielding opposition of that patio to Him, are a fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world.
*(my insertion)

…Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord”

Happy New Year to all VFR’s

Lawrence, thanks for making a point I was trying to get at in my earlier post about Fr. Fahey. The monstrous worldview or naturalistic, materialistic religion which Fahey describes is very much out there and is every bit as destructive as he says it is. He crosses the line in calling it a form of Judaism, though - for this new religion is just as hostile to traditional Judaism as it is to traditional Christianity. The fact that there are adherents of Jewish background (among others) doesn’t make it a form of Judaism. Happy New Year to all here at VFR!

Matt, I don’t mean to be a niggler on this subject, especially since I don’t know zip about Religion and not much more than zip about philosophy — but what was your reaction when the Taliban government in Afghanistan blew up those giant Buddhist statues, which were out in the desert somewhere where no Muslim had to even look at them, and where they were bothering strictly nobody? As we all know, they were not only religious objects, but were considered to be among the world’s greatest archæological and cultural treasures. But completely apart from their inestimable value — utterly priceless, in fact — as archæological and cultural objects, what should our reaction have been at their destruction qua “purely religious” objects (which was the basis on which the Taliban felt they had to go)? If it was appropriate to be horrified at it (those who were horrified), then WHY was it appropriate? Or, is there a way their destruction can be justified in Western or Christian terms, not just in certain Muslim fundamentalist ones?

I once heard the Rev. Pat Robertson, on his TV show, call the pantheon of (I think it was) Hindu gods mere “demons,” implying in the same comment by his words and his tone that we ought not to have any respect for them. Of course I don’t believe in the pantheon of Hindu gods and have no intention of converting any time soon. And I like Pat Robertson quite a bit. But I objected strongly to what he said there. They are another culture’s gods, with — for them — a capital G.

Isn’t it true that respect for one’s own culture engenders respect for other cultures, that inability to respect one’s own makes one unable to respect those of others, and that inability to respect those of others likely makes one unable to truly respect one’s own?

In other words, don’t respect of one’s own and those of others go hand-in-hand?

I’ll take these in reverse order :-)

Unadorned: the destruction of those Buddhas by the Taliban was tragic, unnecessary, counterproductive, and wrong in my view. A Catholic has to uphold truth, charity (Agape-love), and humility among other virtues. Fundamental faith cannot be spread by the sword, although there are times when it has to be defended by the sword. So the Taliban’s actions fail not only a test of truth (Islam being no more true than Buddhism and in may ways more virulent), but also a test of charity and a test of humility.

The core question underneath is how to act towards others when others are, as a matter of objective fact, living a lie. To the extent that Vatican II and the current Pope are making the point that no amount of distance between another and the truth excuses us from the obligation to be charitable, I agree. To the extent that VII is interpreted as indifferentism it (the interpretation) is unequivocally false. Liberalism to a large extent involves the failure to distinguish between charity and indifferentism.

Sandy, the Fahey quotes are troubling and certainly seem to come close to the line; on the other hand, if one substituted the false religion of Islam into the quotes they suddenly seem more palatable; less a matter of lack of charity and more a matter of speaking the truth against political correctness. (As an aside I like Carl’s solution, but maybe that is just out of my innate desire to be nice to everyone :-).

There seems to be two separate questions (and of course from my perspective — that of utter ignorance of Fahey — mostly what there are, are questions).

One question is whether Fahey’s assertions are, as a matter of objective content, true.

The other is whether, in the context of their utterance, they are charitable. Mr. Auster clearly believes they are not, and he no doubt has read more by Fahey than me (he has certainly read _as much_, because all I have read is in this thread as far as I recall).

If I attempt to strip away everything but what I believe to be objectively true in a forum like VFR it is possible that what I say might cross the line into the uncharitable. On the other hand, in this context a significant part of showing respect is saying what I actually think.

For example, I actually believe, as an evaluation of objective truth, that Islam was founded specifically as a blasphemy of Catholicism that deified text as a substitute for living _logos_; and particularly that Koranic recitation replaced the Eucharist just as Koranic content replaced the Scriptures. I believe that the Islamic king - I don’t have a name handy - in the 700’s in what is now Argyll in Scotland began hundreds of years of cultural and other sorts of intercourse between Moorish Spain and the U.K. I believe that the Islamic trading post in Oxford down the street from where John Wyclif taught was enough of an influence on Wyclif that he is recorded as the first known person, in the Oxford English Dictionary, to use the word “trialogue”: and that he used it specifically to refer to philosophical and religious discussion among Jews, Moslems, and Christians. I believe that Huss transferred Wyclif’s Islamicization of Christianity to Bohemia, and once in Prague it got the attention of Luther (partially through the vehicle of the outrage of Huss being burned as a heretic). So on a net basis, what I believe is that Protestant _sola scriptura_ is derived from an Islamic blasphemy of the Eucharist, and that liberalism (including text-obsessive postmodernism) with all of its murders and self-created enemies (e.g. Naziism and Communism) derive directly from Protestantism, which derives directly from Islam. I also believe that this was catalyzed by corrupt behaviors on the part of churchmen, at least to the extent that corrupt churchmen handed the rebels the pretext they needed on a silver platter.

There is the question of what one does, charitably, with all of that though. Clearly my views of Islam and Protestantism are not dissimilar to what Mr. Auster characterizes as Fr. Fahey’s view of the Jews. What matters is making an objective evaluation of the veracity of the view and deciding what one does, charitably without falling into phenomenological religious indifferentism (which is its own form of disrespect), with that understanding.

I think the question of what is anti-semetic and what is not should have something to do with whether or not there is a moral transgression involved. If I were to advocate the extermination of all Moslems that would clearly be anti-Moslemism in the sense of being a moral transgression. If I were to advocate containing and pushing back (in as charitable a way as possible) Islam as a virulent and dangerous force, that might not be “anti-Islamism”. I would be dead set against rounding up and reeducating Protestants.

So in my opinion the question of anti-semitism ought to have something to do with a person’s charitable disposition and intentions, in addition to one’s view of the objective facts. Sandy seems to think that beneath what we’ve seen of Father Fahey in this thread, in the subtext, there lies an uncharitable disposition and evil intent. If that is true he is an anti-semite. If that is not then he is not; all in my own opinion of course.

Matt: Your post is mainstream anti-semitic apologetics.

I find myself, finally, becoming increasingly suspicious of your motives and pretended innocence. Have you been withholding from our view on VFR your allegance to a hidden but objectionable religious political philosophy that invests your language, your thoughts and your beliefs?.

Can it be, I ask, that a person of your erudition and philosophical bent has never before these VFR posts heard of either the person or the anti-semitic sentiments of Fr. Denis Fahey?

Or is it more likely, I ask myself, that you’ve known about him or those like him all along? Could it be that you and he agree in most things because he lived for the extremist and anti-semitic traditional practices of the early Roman Catholic and you do too?

Was the reason you alleged Islamic historical connections to the Protesant Reformation in your weeks ago posts about Luther’s Sola Scriptura, just an oblique way making them appear equally inferior, and to quantify your hidden brand of historical anti-semitic Catholicism as greater than both and the only true Christian way?

Are you a closet nazi and anti-semite, who for purposes of public acceptability and VFR access travels under the more acceptable label of traditional and conservative Roman Catholic apologetics?

Let’s not go overboard, Sandy.

Look, everybody believes that his religion is the truth and that people who follow other religions are in error. Orthodox Catholics believe that, no more and no less than do Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Muslims, Orthodox Hindus, Orthodox Lutherans, Orthodox Orthodox (bad attempt at a joke … ), etc.

And that’s fair. When one thinks about it, it HAS to be that way, otherwise THERE’D BE NO RELIGION — because it won’t be people like me who’ll keep it alive … though once it’s gone, people like me will join everyone else in sorely regretting its absence.

It occurs to me now that at bottom, staunch believers who are “the backbones” of their religion are what “ground” that religion deeply, so that others like me, who take religion somewhat more lightly, and are a bit muddled as to what the philosophy of it is all about, can reap the benefits without doing any of the “heavy lifting.”

It goes back to the Kalbian insight that liberals are parasites. In a way, people like me are parasites — parasites on the backs of those who do the heavy pulling where religion is concerned. We benefit, but without helping to pull.

In light of that, I now realize that a couple of the questions I put implicitly to Matt didn’t make sense and I shouldn’t have put them. What was he supposed to say? That he DIDN’T think his belief was the right one? That members of other religions WEREN’T in error?

So, steady, Sandy. Again, let’s not go overboard.

Sandy, I have in fact never before heard of or read anything by Fr. Fahey; and I only say on VFR what I actually think. I’ve been told that in person I come across less confrontational, etc. by some who have both met me personally and read my comments here (although they may not have had the benefit of an overtly adversarial confrontation in person to provide perspective). I can believe that. But whatever the case, and whatever all of that makes me, what you see is what you get.

Unadorned, thanks for the acknowledgement. I have been trying to take your questions seriously: there is no harm in you asking them or in me answering, it seems to me, except for the occasional danger of being accused lying or of being a closet Nazi.

How about this as a straw-proposal characterization of the abstract boundary between (morally wrong) anti-Xism and non-anti-Xism:

Anti-Xism:
* Desires the destruction of the X’s

Not-anti-Xism:

* Can be willing to defend itself internally from corruption by error, through force of law if necessary; (obviously indifferentism would also not be anti-Xic, but the point is to define a boundary that does not require one to be either religiously indifferentist or anti-Xic, with no middle possibility)
* Desires the non-coerced _conversion_ of the X’s, and all others, to what is true: importantly motivated by _agape_. May be willing to “stack the deck” politically in that regard since all political decks are either stacked for the truth or against it.
* Would never treat another human being as less than human
* Treats charity as at least as important as truth

This translates to a lot of different domains. I love America dearly, but many who first encounter me take me for an anti-American because I openly recognize flaws in America that go all the way to the founders and other roots. It is as if in order to love America one has to deny the Fall. But I love America dearly, actually; I fervently wish for its enlightenment and repentance, just as I wish for the enlightenment and repentance of many dear friends and relatives. I have and will defend them all from outside attack. This is all part of reconciling the Fall with “God saw that it was Good;” and one of the many things liberalism denies is the Fall.

Lets none of us lose sight of the content and sequence of whats happening here.

After fifty posts Matt enters echoing the primary supporter of Fr. Fahey,TK,and says my burden of proof of Fahey’s anti-Semitism is incomplete without Fahey’s actual words.Matt says that my proof doesn’t rise to the level of what’s acceptable in his courtroom. O.K, as a reasonable person I’m willing, although I think the anti semitic bias of those who brought up and extensively quoted Fr. Fahey was clear through the entire thread.

After I quote a little of the evidence in Fahey’s own anti-semitic words, Matt then waffles into an opinion that these words are not anti-semitic based on his understanding of the theoretical meaning of the phrase anti-Semitism.He is very careful not to oppose the possibility of Fahey’s anti-semitism , you understand,, but in the interest of justice and fair play for all concerned, Matt just needs a little more information.

Matt : “So in my opinion the question of anti-semitism ought to have something to do with a person’s charitable disposition and intentions”.

Matt now needs “proof of uncharitable disposition or an evil intent” before he’ll accept that any act or statement of Fahey’s rises to the level of anti-Semitism.By this device he disassociates himself from objective, real world criteria and by personal choice ignores the plain text of Fahey’s anti-semitic blood libels against the jews.Then, by assigning two or more possible (theoretical) meanings and intentions to every act or statement,thus providing a convenient escape hatch for all anti-semitic language.Note carefully here how he uses the theoretical to side step being pinned down in the real world of debate.

Psychopaths can think themselves to be charitable and without evil intent while effecting the worst evils imaginable by men.
By Matts subjective conditions Hitler could not be “proved” an anti semite until the first jew went into the ovens.
By Matt’s subjective, theoretical limitations on the definition of anti-semitism, no proof can ever be offered to satisfy Matt, and ipso facto and ex post facto, Matt wins the argument by deftly turning away all rational, external evidences of anti Semitic language..
Matt wants control of the terms of the argument and to shift the definition of anti-Semitism to avoid real world judgments hes not prepared to make. Its precisely what anti-semites do to avoid any criticism of themselves.
So to me Matt is just like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, to whom words meant exactly what she said they do,no more and no less.

Finally in his last post to me, Matt,assigns his subjective meaning to my actions in opposing blatant anti-Semitism.

Matt: “Sandy seems to think that beneath what we’ve seen of Father Fahey in this thread, in the subtext, there lies an uncharitable disposition and evil intent”.

Fahey: “Their (jews) wickedness, which has been developed by every evil art, has now reached such a point that, in view of our common safety, We feel it expedient to check the spread of such a disease by applying a speedy remedy ….We have clear and definite proof how this perverse race hates the name of Christ, how hostile they are to all who bear His name and by what tricks and frauds they plot against the lives of Christians”.

Fahey: Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity

Fahey: “Our way of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and the Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief, if such folk are living closely…”

Yeah Matt, you could say I sense a little lack of charity in Fahey. But that’s only because I don’t know for sure if he was a real psychopath or just an educated and erudite Roman Catholic priest in in the mainstream of a psychopathic Catholic Christianity.. Until everyone on VFR finds out which, I’ll settle for the plain meaning of his words.

See what Matt says and compare it to Fahey’s own anti semitic language..

Matt: so I would think that if Father Fahey is to be thought anti-semetic it ought to be his own words that indict him.
Matt: One question is whether Fahey’s assertions are, as a matter of objective context, true

Matt: I think the question of what is anti-semetic and what is not should have something to do with whether or not there is a moral transgression involved.
The other is whether, in the context of their utterance, they are charitable.”

Well, I think Sandy has provided us (or me at least) with the opposite extreme to “Exposing Truth”. She is not interested in having a discussion about possible ways of using the term “anti-semite” and non-indifferentist ways of avoiding the label (and perhaps in the process has unwittingly provided proof of Mr. Murgos’ notion that the term may have meaning but simply cannot be discussed objectively). Sandy also misses the standard meaning of intent: by intent I meant objectively what someone plans to or would choose to do, not whether or not one would do so out of evil motives.

Also, Sandy failed to note the seguey from Jew to Moslem. If someone said of Moslems “Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity” it would be more difficult to disagree. In either case the view is extreme, but if we are to use the construct “anti-X” in an objective way rather than as a slur I think that it would be useful if it in fact incorporated what someone intends to DO (or advocates DOING) about their assessment of the facts. So if Father Fahey for example said “so we should round up Jews and exterminate them” that would clearly be anti-semitism in a morally reprobative sense; if he said “so we need to have laws that protect public morality from this turpitide” then perhaps it would not — all under ONE POSSIBLE way of using the construct (and I did say “straw proposal”).

Perhaps Sandy might find it more productive if she were to propose a useful abstraction as an alternative to mine. For example she might say that any perspective that involves looking at Judaism as inherently false and dangerous to souls is anti-semitism (in which case she will have embraced the indifferentist position). Instead Sandy would rather just call me a closet Nazi and accuse me of lying, all for simply attempting to have a dispassionate discussion.

And by the way, I don’t personally AGREE with the extreme position on Moslems, let alone on Jews. In the spirit of the question asked at the top of the thread, I am attempting to figure out *where the line should be drawn* not *where I might personally stand with respect to it*. The important question is what, if anything, lies between the heresy of religious indifferentism and morally reprobative anti-semitism. Talking about extreme views like those of the Sheikh and Fahey is useful because it provides particulars that can be used to determine where exactly the proper categorical line lies.

Possible answers include:

1) There is no middle ground. Either one is a religious indifferentist or an anti-semite, in which case every Catholic who is NOT an anti-semite is a heretic;

2) There is an abstract middle ground that we can define in some way, however imperfectly, and we can assess concretely expressed views objectively to see where they lie.

3) The term “anti-semite” is a meaningless slur.

Right now I am operating under the assumption that #2 is correct. If Sandy thinks so too but thinks my abstraction is wrong she is welcome to provide a better one. If Sandy thinks #1 is true then she thinks Catholicism is self-contradictory, and obviously we simply disagree. Clearly Sandy does not stand with “Exposing Truth” in thinking that #3 is the case, and frankly neither do I.

In my previous post one could replace “Catholic” with the more general “Christian” without loss of general applicability. Either #2 is the case, or #3 is the case, or Christianity as such is false.

The three devastating Fahey quotes provided by Sandy in her last comment (11:29 p.m.) clearly have the quality of invoking hatred against Jews as a people, of defining Jews as such as the Enemy, of placing the Jews outside the law, and thus of unleashing every manner of evil against them. A society informed by these sentiments and thoughts would have gotten the message that it’s open season on Jews. If such statements are not well over on one side of any reasonable definitional line that separates anti-Semitism from non-anti-Semitism, then there’s little point in going on with this discussion.

Furthermore, Matt’s notion that an act is only clearly anti-Semitic if it involves actually proposing murder and violence against Jews is idiosyncratic, to say the least.

Also, I don’t understand Matt’s comment that Sandy’s position implies that anyone who is not a religious indifferentist is an anti-Semite.

My problem with it is not that I think the Fahey quotes about Jews are true. What troubles me is that if those same quotes were applied to Moslems they would be quite a lot closer to the truth, if still more extreme that what I actually think myself.

Mr Auster says that Sandy’s Fahey quotes show that Fahey is guilty of “placing the Jews outside the law, and thus of unleashing every manner of evil against them” and that because of that the actual Fahey quotes Sandy provided demonstrate Fahey’s anti-semitism. Leaving aside whether or not the quotes are anti-semetic, they plainly do not say what Mr. Auster claims that they say.

The most ominous thing in Sandy’s quotes that might be interpreted that way is when Fahey says “We feel it expedient to check the spread of such a disease by applying a speedy remedy..”

The quote doesn’t make a specific recommendation, but I might view this as a call to (for example) deport Jews as incompatible with Christian society. Mr. Auster has suggested a quite similar remedy for Moslem incompatibility with Christian society, and I don’t find his position morally abhorrent. If Fahey meant the same thing w.r.t Jews that Mr. Auster means w.r.t. Moslems then why should I find intrinsic fault with the one rather than the other? I might find fault with _how the position is expressed_, but why should I find fault with the intrinsic position itself?

Mr Auster also says:
“Also, I don’t understand Matt’s comment that Sandy’s position implies that anyone who is not a religious indifferentist is an anti-Semite.”

If Sandy would agree to the proposition that someone can find the Jewish religion false and dangerous to Christian souls without being an anti-semite she could clear that right up.

By the way, I never said what Mr. Auster claimed that I said. Mr Auster says:

“Furthermore, Matt’s notion that an act is only clearly anti-Semitic if it involves actually proposing murder and violence against Jews is idiosyncratic, to say the least.”

That notion does not reflect anything that I actually think, although it is certainly possible that someone got that notion from something I said. Maybe Mr. Auster can point out specifically where I led things astray and I can clarify.

Unlike seemingly everyone else, I did not come to this discussion with a bunch of pre-drawn lines. I think the question of where religious indifferentism leaves off into religious particularism, and where religious particularism breaks through into anti-semitism, is an interesting one; but not for me a solved one.

My only knowledge of Father Fahey comes from the quotes which have been posted on this thread by TK and Sandy. My own impression in reading them is that Fr. Fahey - out of anger and outrage over the unending attack on traditional Christianity (Roman Catholicism in his case), Christian people (his flock), and Christian society - has crossed into the mistaken idea that the enemy responsible for all of this misery is the Jewish nation. I think a similar impulse has driven Pat Buchanan to leave a horrific terrorist attack on Israel unmentioned in the course of criticizing the Israeli response, for example. I think the fundamental moral error lies in holding Judaism itself responsible for the evil actions of another, malevolent force at work, which draws individual allies from amongst Jew and Gentile alike.

I continue to appreciate Carl’s perspective. Fahey sounds similar in many respects to an isolated, alienated paleo looking for focused easy explanations (always containing some truth) rather than facing the brisk terror of seeing the whole forest in all its glory and dispair.

I will try to post a reply to Matt’s challenge tomorrow, but for the present I like Carl’s comment, especially the idea that the hater makes one party responsible for all his misery. This is another key element (though, once again, not an exclusive element) in what makes a racist, an anti-Semite and so on. The psychology is similar to that of Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, of whom Melville writes in a key passage of the book:

“All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”

In another parallel to our subject of anti-Semitism, let us remember that the white whale is just a dumb animal, and that when he gave Ahab his terrible injury, Ahab in fact was trying to kill him. But Ahab makes the whale exclusively and maliciously responsible, not just for his own injury, but for all the evil everywhere. And that is exactly what the true hater does. He may have some genuine grievances against the hated party, but what makes him a hater is that he carries his grievance to the point of casting that party as the conscious and demonic source of everything in the universe that bugs him. Clearly one sees this sort of psychology in a Fahey, in a Hitler, in the Muslim terrorists, and so on.

Well, I should state for the record that I think Mr. Auster is right on the *facts* of the Moslem threat and how it must be dealt with, etc. whereas Fahey certainly appears to be wrong, if not about the threat he saw, about its narrow attribution to Jews. So there are substantive differences between Auster-Moslem and Fahey-Jew, not least in terms of correspondence of the evaluation of the group to the objective facts, but not in terms of an abstract moral evaluation. IF Fahey is PRESUMED to be right about Jewish incompatibility with Christian society THEN the notion e.g. that all Jews should be deported from a Christian society — for everyone’s greater good — would not automatically be MORALLY wrong.

I know nothing of Fahey, but if the quotes here represent *all he ever talked about* then the obsessiveness criteria would surely apply. It isn’t hard to make the case that someone obsessed about something if he wrote any great volume on it though; and in my role of devil’s advocate (the most perplexed guy always ends up the Devil’s advocate, no?) in this discussion the fact that someone had strong words to say about something doesn’t ipso facto mean he was obsessed with it. If it did then Murray and Hernstein were obsessed with race and well on their way to being racists.

Maybe if we can settle on criteria for anti-semitism Fahey is an anti-semite; I have no trouble with that possibility in principle. I am still feeling around on the floor for the answer to the article’s title question.

In the early posts, a catholic priest, Fr. Fahey’s doctrines were put in debate as argument to support one side’s position on this anti-Semitism thread. Only after they brought up Fahey did I place his anti-semitic background and orientation in issue. The other side now refuses to accept responsibility for the basic and thorough Jew hating doctrines of the person they relied on for their argument.

They do this by rhetorical trickery as outlined in my last, too lengthy, post.

Matt, in his new volunteer role as anti-semite flag bearer, now shifts from his earlier demand for proof in Fr. Fahey’s own anti-semitic words, to the anti-semites newest, more elusive position: the demand for a new definition of anti-Semitism. One that HE can agree with.

He holds out a withered and stunted olive branch of hope and implies that he might, just might, possibly might, at some time in the future, see our positional merit, if we can all just agree on a definition of anti-Semitism that is “fair and just to all sides”. This comes after he refused to address the plain meaning of Fahey’s word which he requested as a proof.

His latest demand is just another avoidance technique to evade the justified label he has inherited, and an insulting attempt to co-opt every single prior post by implying that non of us here knew what we were talking about from the very beginning until he brought his special brand of clear thinking into the debate.

I find the tactic it personally insulting and evasive.Until Matt entered the picture, the participants in this lively and spirited debate have proceeded from the common sense understanding that the plain text language of Fr. Fahey and the Popes he quotes needs no interpretation.

I utilized no ambiguous Fahey quotes, quite the contrary I went to great lengths not to use any that were of double meanings. Only Matt’s sophistry when cornered remains standing here. Refusal to accept the plain meaning of the words of his chief witness is morally equivalent to agreement with that witness.

You offered him, you get to go down with him.

I was going to send this directly to Sandy instead of posting it, because it’s too simplistic for posting. I’m sorry to see this debate still going on because clearly Matt, the guy who has been posting intelligently and sensitively here since I discovered VFR some months ago, is no anti-semite, yet is being skewered because he is an infinite hair-splitter, something he has always been. Why did anyone expect him to stop being that way for a discussion of anti-semitism when he is that way for every single other topic that has come up? He splits hairs so finely that I admit he almost always loses me somewhere around half-way through his posts.

Look, we can all agree that if the word anti-semitism has any legitimate meaning at all, then Father Fahey was it. (Assuming the guy CAN be called a “Father” — Mr. Murgos said he might have been defrocked or excommunicated?) But we’ll have to do a lot of slogging through abstruse philosophical terminology like “ontos” and “imanentizing the eschaton” before we’ll get Matt to admit that “The sun will rise tomorrow,” let alone “Fahey was anti-semitic.”

The sticking point is Matt’s philosophical bent — as Mr. Auster called it, Matt’s “idiosyncrasy” — and not what Father Fahey was. (Sandy, could you please get a little hip to Matt’s idiosyncrasy, instead of being so tone-deaf?)

Priests can be child molesters, they can be Communists, they can even be … DEMOCRATS, for crying out loud!! Well, they can also be anti-semites, and father Fahey was certainly that, or if not that, he was some kind of weird wacko who didn’t deserve to wear the cloth and collar and probably needed medication. If a Pope can get Parkinson’s disease, a priest can get anti-semitism disease.

I wish a liberal would walk into the room round about now, so all the gun barrels we’re pointing at each other would instantly swing round in unison and point at the door. (Mr. Gil, please call your office … )

(For the record, I do not think Pat Buchanan is even remotely an anti-semite and anyone who thinks the opposite is sadly mistaken, IMHO. Buchanan has acted irrationally in criticizing the Sharon government, and I’m not sure why. BUT … there’s not a person who breathes on this planet who would be a more staunch defender of the rights of Jews in this country, if ever any sort of a crunch came, than Buchanan. That to me is absolutely crystal-clear.)

To unadorned
Here’s a longish recap of the thread, using the actual posts including some of yours..Read it and then tell me again why I should give Matt, the hair splitter, a pass on a topic we all took very seriously just because he sees no anti-semitism?

Your dismissive and hostile attitude towards Sheikh’s comments shows that you…are not capable of seeing…. There is…much evidence to show he is on to something. You can find this in the books of Father Dennis Fahey.
Posted by: TK on December 28, 2002 01:27 PM

Do you think someone who says that Jewish doctors in this country are killing Arab-American children, or that four thousand Jewish office workers were told by the Mossad not to report for work at the WTC on the morning of 9-11, might be onto something?….if he mixes el-bizarro fantasy with the points he is trying to make, he has only himself to blame if he gets dismissed as a crank.
Posted by: Unadorned on December 28, 2002 02:21 PM

Lawrence Auster.. holds .there is this irrational and prejudicial force, without any roots in the reality of conflicting interests and agendas, that appear, without reason, in the minds of non-Jews, concerning their perception of Jews, which is defined as a pathological condition known as “Anti-Semitism”
Posted by: Freddie Taylor on December 29, 2002 06:45 AM
My reaction to Sheikh Al-Gameia’s exchange is that it is completely paranoid, whining, and yes, blatantly anti-Semitic. He paints every single Jew on earth with the same brush. The outlandish charge is made that…
Posted by: Carl on December 29, 2002 11:55 AM

The reason I quoted the Sheikh at such length… was… that his statements were such a pure expression of Jew-hatred, to find out if there was any limit to Freddie Taylor’s position that nothing should ever be called anti-Semitic. We found out that there isn’t.
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 30, 2002 01:33 AM

Jews control most of the major media outlets, which has enabled them to mold the opinions and beliefs of American society
Posted by: Exposing Truth on December 30, 2002 07:53

Think for a moment what it would be like to see the world the way “Exposing Truth” (or the Sheikh) sees it. Think what it would be like to be in possession of the “hidden truth” that every bad thing that happens is really being controlled from behind the scenes by the Jews. Think of the seething frustration and fury a person must experience to be in possession of such an important truth about the world, and to see that truth being continually suppressed because if anyone dares expose that truth, those all-powerful Jews will call him an anti-Semite!
Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 30, 2002 10:04 AM

I should emphasize also that Jews comprise 3 percent of the US populace, whereas Christians comprise well over 70 percent…. Does it seem coincidental to you that this small group has been at the forefront of every negative cultural trend of the past century (communism, group rights and racial egalitarianism)? If it does, it shouldn’t.
Posted by: Exposing Truth on December 30, 2002 04:16 PM

ET, don’t bet on it. In fact, you’re wrong. Just as do Christian Americans, every Jewish American sees himself as being in competition with every other American, Jew and Christian alike, and expects to get nothing in life except as the result of hard work. If he’s in a high school or college or corporation which is ninety percent Jewish he considers that he has to work his butt off no less than if he were in a high school or college or corporation that was ninety percent Christian. He expects — and gets — no free ride from his co-religionists
Posted by: Unadorned on December 30, 2002 07:41 PM

The ignorance of traditionalists of the forces of organized naturalism led by secular, messianic Jews would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. I was once ignorant until I read the works of Father Fahey. Read them, please…full of uncontrovertible facts, including the fact that Jews financed….
Posted by: TK on December 30, 2002 07:45 PM

Here is a brief commentary by the great Father Fahey about anti-Semitism. Could those who have the nerve to slander his reputation and denounce his ideas please refer to this or other ACTUAL words of his before you type another harmful letter!
Posted by: TK on December 30, 2002 08:13 PM

TK, I’m Catholic and a pretty tough and experienced guy, and all I can say is your words are frightening. You sound like an anti-semite — the real McCoy, TK. Here I was, reading all these interesting posts the past few days, and had gotten to the point of wondering to myself what anti-semitism was, and if it even existed at all among the educated (which you obviously are), and here comes your post which not only shows me an honest-to-goodness case of the real deal, but actually scares me –
I consider your post more shocking than the interview with the Arab — for one thing it is “closer to home,” and for another, as an American you should know better,
Posted by: Unadorned on December 30, 2002 08:22 PM

… Jews and all people regardless of belief have the civil right to practice their religion within the dictates of the common good and be treated as equal persons. But they do not have the moral right to do so (error has no rights, as the Popes have taught). To make the distinction between a moral right to error and a civil right to error is not anti-Semitism!Fahey….spoke the truth, in love, and people couldn’t take it.
Posted by: TK on December 30, 2002 09:25 PM

I don’t understand much of what Mr. Fahey said, but that is not unusual because I am not an intellectual. I did catch the word hatred and its use against Judaism. I cannot recall hatred being a part of Catholicism or any Christian religion. Certainly Jesus never said he hated the religion he was raised with….
Posted by: P Murgos on December 30, 2002 09:44 PM

Fahey represents the thinking of the Church on the Jewish question for 2000 years, as is evidenced by the..writings of the Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church. Are these Saints also bad mentors?
Posted by: TK on December 30, 2002 10:07 PM

It amazes me that Fr. Fahey’s sixty year old brand of Catholic wrapped anti-semitic swill has been swallowed by a new crop of ignorant lay people. Fahey always was, and remained until his death, an aberent throw back to the 1930’s discredited Catholic minority that labeled the jews in latin as: “Jude Morte Christe”, a/k/a Killers of Christ. By that doctrine the jews were accused of being the actual and real killers of the Son of God, Jesus Christ
Posted by: sandy on December 30, 2002 10:17 PM

So I say to friend unadorned:
Should we all wait for the publication of the new Mein Kampf that was being written here before we voice criticism of its authors and supporters?

On one hand, like Sandy, I am disturbed by Matt’s hesitancy to agree that Fahey’s quoted statements are anti-Semitic. On the the other hand, like Unadorned, I feel we ought to understand that Matt is indeed an “infinite hairsplitter” and that he is looking for a absolutely, mathematically fool-proof definition of anti-Semitism that he can be comfortable with. In particular, he wants a criterion by which a person seeking to exclude Muslims is acting within the moral law while a person seeiking to do the same to Jews is not. The problem with his question is that it assumes an equivalence between the two cases which is not in fact the case. I intend tonight (which I can’t do now) to provide the kind of answer that Matt will find satisfactory. For the time being, let us see Matt’s apparent obduracy on this issue not as a reason for labelling him but as an opportunity for us to articulate the problem of anti-Semitism more clearly than we have so far. This will strengthen us all in the future in dealing with this issue.

I am not looking for a foolproof definition of anti-semitism. I am looking for a definition that can be used in discussion productively by right wingers *at all*, which is what the title of the thread asks for. Such a definition obviously cannot be religiously indifferentist on the one hand and obviously cannot entail treating a group as subhuman on the other. A definition is not merely an example. Whatever Father Fahey may be, he is clearly a concrete example of the kind of thing that hovers around the definition — the line to be drawn. The deport-Moslems-from-America case is another concrete example that obviously encroaches the line and can therefore help to define it. So the notion is that by splitting hairs around those concrete examples infinitely we might come up with an abstraction that is workable, which would answer the question asked at the top of the thread.

The fact that Sandy chooses to take such discussion and label me a nazi says more about Sandy than about me, of course. I think Sandy finds it impossible to believe that anyone of good will might advocate anything other than (political) religious indifferentism. For Sandy the line IS at religious indifferentism, so merely having an abstract discussion about the possibility that it is not makes one a Nazi. Sandy’s alternatives are the nazis on the one hand or liberalism on the other as an either/or proposition (we’ve observed this about liberalism/naziism before). Sandy treats the definition as long-settled (and as the standard liberal one) when the whole point of the original article was to open it up for discussion. This is just one more example of Sandy’s political correctness, which she has demonstrated since she first started posting here a while back. Mr. Murgos originally foresaw all this of course; his response was to attempt to preempt it by asking that we just use more precise terminology than the term “anti-semite”. His instincts were good; but I pressed on anyway, because frankly I don’t care if the discussion gets Sandy into a politically correct dither and I still think it may be possible to make progress on the original question.

I think the real dividing line between traditionalists is not on the issue of anti-Semitism but on the social reign of Christ the King, that is, whether one agrees or disagrees with the assertion that the below six points are the sine qua non for the salvation of men, the incarnation of which being necessary for any society to win the approval of God and to be truly good. The questions of anti-Semitism, religious indifferentism, secularization, religious freedom, pluralism, etc. are mere subissues whose resolution and intelligibility depend upon whether one accepts or rejects the six points below. The subissues are hard questions, yes, but one can not hope to answer them if one does not first accept in obedience what the Church teaches regarding the proper ordering of Church and State, the supernatural and the natural.

These points summarize the Roman Catholic teaching on the proper ordering of the state and society as taught by the Popes, especially the Popes from Leo XIII to Pius XI (the essential teaching hasn’t changed, but that’s a whole other subject); if you do not accept them, then you also reject the Church, whose teaching authority can not be morally rejected, objectively speaking.

1) Our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, Supernatural and Supranational, which all States must acknowledge as the only way established by Our Lord for our ordered return to Him.

2) The indirect power of the Church over the State. That is, States and Governments must recognize the Catholic Church as the sole Divinely appointed Guardian of the whole Moral Law, natural and revealed.

3) The unity and indissolubility of Marriage.

4) The education of children as Members of the Mystical Body of Christ

5) The widespread diffusion and ownership of Private Property

6) An economic system that facilitates finance and the production of goods so as to be at the service of members of Christ in happy families.4

Against this Six-Point plan, there is Satan’s plan for disorder and decay. It is a point-by-point antithesis of Our Lord’s Programme. This too is based on Papal teachings that warn Catholics against the evil designs of the enemy. Satan aims at:

1) preventing nations from recognizing the Catholic Church as the one true Church established by Christ,

2) encouraging States to treat the indirect power of the Church with contempt, leaving it up to the State, or to the vote of the people, to decide all moral questions,

3) undermining Christian family life directly by the legalization of divorce, or indirectly, by the widespread promotion of immorality,

4) preventing children from being educated as Members of Christ, especially by giving children a naturalistic formation in schools,

5) promoting the concentration of property into the hands of a few; either nominally in those of the State, that is, in the party in power, or in those of the money manipulators,

6) promoting an economic system wherein human beings are subordinated to the production of material goods, and this production is subordinated to the making of money and the growth of power in the hands of the financiers.

One can easily observe that in our time, in virtually every nation of the world, including the United States, it is Satan’s plan that has triumphed. Further, the Six-Point plan of Satan could pass as a blueprint for the agenda of the United Nations.

Placing one of this site’s most valuable assets in a box of monsters is unjustified. I won’t even repeat his name in the hope that I can somehow reduce the connection with monsters. Unadorned’s defense was pretty comprehensive and deserves commendation, though I am unqualified to judge the hair-splitting defense. I did not see the controversy until early this morning at work, from which I was powerless to respond because of some chronic technical problem between my workplace computer and this Website.

I can’t speak with authority as to how intellectuals should define anti-Semitism in the long run, but I can observe that because of its connotations and misuse, it appears as nearly dysfunctional among intellectuals as it does among laypersons. If a good definition is ever devised, it would probably be better if a new word were coined so as to avoid laypersons misusing it. Nihilist and anti-essentialist, for example, don’t have derogatory connotations to laypersons.

(It is amazing how the word liberal has avoided being an equivalent slur after all the horrors associated with it: French Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Vietnam, Red China, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Castro, abortion, tolerance of violent crime, silence over the Wichita Massacre, Muslim terrorism, Harvard professors calling for the genocide of the white race, maybe National SOCIALISM etc.)

I’m sorry I haven’t yet replied to Matt’s questions. It will require virtually an entire essay that, first, defines anti-Semitism and, second, shows the moral difference between saying that Muslims in large numbers are incompatible with Western society, and saying the kinds of things about Jews that Fahey said. These are matters well worth articulating and I think they will help create greater clarity on this issue. I will try to get to it in the near future.

I don’t think there is a rush on it, and I think it is worth doing well. In the meantime I am looking at/thinking about applying Mr. Auster’s chapter on racism from _The Path to National Suicide_ to the current problem. Race and religion are different things so it may take some work to get it right. At worst though it is a wasted effort and anti-semitism remains a polarizing divisive issue for the Right; at best we can reverse some of the polarization with some Auster-esque clarity of thought.

Here is a definition and clarification of anti-Semitism. It is not complicated. It is only complicated it you deny the first three points of the six-point plan I laid out in my last post. I challenge anyone here to debate these points with me. So far they have been coneviently ignored.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews as a race, the willing of their evil, not their good. It is a mortal sin, as the Church teaches.

To will the good of the Jews is to seek their conversion to Christ, and to protect Christian civilization from the harm that they inevitably do to it (and thus to themselves) because of their persistent and organized rejection of Christ (this would go also for the members of all those religions and philosophies that reject Christ. Fahey never implied that the Jews were the only bane on society, pace Mr. Auster. One should read one of his many books cover to cover before any more judgments are made as to his character.) Love is also to protect the Jews’ individual persons from the harm others may do to them for whatever reason, espcially in the name of “perserving Christendom.” These three are all equally obligatory on Catholics in the name of Holy Charity.

But NOT to will their good (to hate them) is to remain indifferent to their grave religous errors and consent to their rejection of Christ by silence or flattery or the like, and thus to support their project to secularize and naturalize Chrisetendom (with the help of lapsed Catholics, Protestants, Masons, new-agers, etc., of course,. The Jewish leaders of the Jewish nation, however, have a large part in this seculariztion campaign, as Fahey shows, because they are a visible and non-secret (as opposed to the Masons who are visible and secret), at least the leaders of the Jews are, whose plan to deChristianize states has never been a secret and flows logically from their rejection of Christ (it is all in the Talmud, by the way, a book ripe with blasphemies against Christ). Their plan is to rid the public sphere of all supernatural vestiges, especially the name of Christ and the authority of His Church . You can read their own words in the Talmud, and in Fahey’s books, cited with abundant documentaion from public scources).

What the Muslims are trying to do and have been doing for centuries by force are what the Jewish nation and the Masons (and others, of course, the philosophes—the entire Enlightenment coterie) have been doing by menas more insidious and pyschological. The process began in earnest since the French Revolution, where Jews were given equal citizenship and thus “liberated” to join with the Masons, Protestants, philosophes, and others in their campaign to deChristianize society.

Just one example of a proper love for the Jews qua political: In a Christain society, where Sunday is held sacred, should Jews have the right to tempt Christains by opening their stores on Sundays? This is an open-question. They should be prohibitted from doing so if it would be for the common good to prohibity them. It is not anti-Semitism just to ask this question, pace Sandy et. al. Sorry, economics is not sacred and autonomous; it must serve the common good, whose regulation is in the charge of the state acting in light of the Church’s teachings.

A few more quotes to chew on. I hope a persual of these will lead to a manly discussion of the pertinent principles upon which this discussion of anti-Semitism can be truly made intelligible. The ad hominums, innuendos, pontifications, and opinions-paraded-around-as-knowledge- would cease if we all looked squarely at the question of religious truth and its relation to political conduct, that is, what are we to do in society as an organized people if Catholicism is the exclusive fundamental Truth the obedience to which is demanded by God himself? Yes, we must tolerate error, even religous error, and sin to some extent, but do we have to reject the possibility of the Catholic state and the union of Church and State? According to the Popes, such a rejection, in principle, is madness.

“We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. “

—Pius XI, Quas Primas, 1935.

“The Church professes to be infallible in her teaching of morals no less than of faith. If, then, Catholicism be true, and if Catholics have the fullest ground for knowing it to be true, the one healthy, desirable, and legitimate state of civil society is that the Church’s doctrines, principles, and laws should be recognized without question as its one basis of legislation and administration; and that the civil ruler, in all his highest and most admirable functions should be profoundly submissive to the Church’s authority. ”

—William Ward, 19th Century

“When we consider the forces, knowledge and supernatural virtues which were necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church… the whole having been built up, bound together and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man, when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virutes. What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality and human exaltation, all resting on an ill-understood human dignity”

—Pius X, Letter to the Sillon

And Finally,

“Towards the prevailing national spirit, on the contrary, our only reasonable attitude is one of deep jealously and suspicion; because it is charged with principles which, for the corruption of human nature, are sure to be more false than true, and from which we should keep ourselves entirely free, until we have measured them by their only true standard, the Church’s voice.”

—William Ward

“This is an open question.” — TK

Alright, TK, I’ll answer your questions. But no one has the time or the inclination to refute point-by-point your brand of the worst sort of benighted Catholic intolerance and bigotry since the Dark Ages. I also don’t have the vocabulary or education to do it properly, as I lack all formal education on the Catholic religion or on the philosophy of religion in general. But I know bigotry when I see it. And you’re it … in spades, TK. Here’s the answer you’re looking for: I dare say the answer to every single one of your questions that you think is yes is no and to every single one that you think is no is yes. That’s the best I can do and likely a pretty good approximation of the truth, judging from the little fraction of your screed that I was able to actually slog through, foregoing the rest due to the sheer exhaustion of saying to myself every sentence, “I can’t BELIEVE this!!! This guy needs a psychiatrist.” You are mentally unbalanced. Your posts here lack all discretion and are uncivilized. Finally, you are an anti-semite. I think this is the first time in my life I’ve called someone an anti-semite. It definitely is the first time in my life I’ve met a religious bigot like you, though I’ve met and liked many religious people belonging to many religions. Your bigotry is shocking, and I am someone who doesn’t shock easily, let me assure you. If the world you want ever came into being I’d commit suicide in two seconds rather than live in it. Your posts are raving nonsense from beginning to end. There. Does that answer your questions?

Calling the six points of Catholic order I laid out nonsense, or saying that you would rather die than live according to them is not a very helpful response to my challenge. The points could still be true, even if you hate them. Are your emotions infallible? Perhaps you are the one who is bigoted?

It is interesting to note that Jim Kalb also calls for an established religion as the sine qua non for the restoration of societal order. Is it just because I denote that religion as Catholicism that I am worthy of attack?

What is most important to say, Unadorned, is that your hostile response my articulation of Catholicism is expected since you were baptised a Catholic but chose not to practice it, that is, you are not Catholic. Many Catholics also don’t like to be told what their religion actually teaches them (notice, my political philosophy comes directly from the Popes). They like better a teaching that makes them comfortable.

When you say “I can’t believe this,” it is an expression of the truth. You can’t. No one can believe the revealed truths of the Church unless the Father reveals them to him and he is open to them. Your anger is a sign that you are closed. If you were open, you would at least have the manliness to take me on in a rational argument.

I still await someone with the courage to discuss the real issue here. Are the quotations of Ward and the Popes really pyschopathic—or are they true? Dismissal and ad hominum attacks only reveal the cowardice of the interlocutor.

“The American spirit has been taken over by evil forces, forces that can not be exorcised by anything other than an unadulterated, vigorous, politically-relevant and publicly-authoritative faith in Jesus Christ and the Church that He founded, a Church that must be, for the sake of both the rights of God and the rights of man, the publicly recognized guide for men in both individual and social life. And for the latter to occur, we need to work for a nationwide conversion to the Catholic faith.”

How many of you Catholics on this web site would have the courage to admit publicly that you agree with the above quote? It may mean getting attacked by lapsed Catholics and Jews, but Our Lord, at least, would be pleased!

TK writes: “I still await someone with the courage to discuss the real issue here.”

Though it shouldn’t be necessary, I’ll explain once again why I don’t wish to engage in any discussion with TK, and it has nothing to do with a lack of courage.

TK first entered this discussion with the following comment directed at me:

“Your dismissive and hostile attitude towards Sheikh’s comments shows that you, like the liberals, are not capable of seeing outside the box of the contmporary zeitgeist. It is tragic to see such willful blindness on the right, and the using of the same tactics of the politcally correct left to demonize your opponents. Just because you think that the Zionist influence is not as evil and powerful as Sheikh thinks it is, doesn’t mean he is simply wrong and to be dismissed!… Do you have any evidence that what he says is false? There is, on the other hand, much evidence to show he is on to something. You can find this in the books of Father Dennis Fahey.”

Thus everything TK has said since then, all his apologies for Fahey, all his quotes and statements about traditionalist Catholic orthodoxy, have had as their motivating impulse the justification of the Sheikh who is a raving Jew-hater. Anything TK may have to say about Catholicism, even if some it is true, is colored by his underlying agenda which is to legitimize the lowest kind of Jew-hatred and insane conspiracy mongering; and which also, by the way, makes TK the worst possible spokesman for any traditional Christian or Catholic point of view. These haters have no conception of how they discredit everything they touch.

And that’s why I have no interest in any discussion with TK.

TK asks if anyone can agree to the following quote:

“The American spirit has been taken over by evil forces, forces that can not be exorcised by anything other than an unadulterated, vigorous, politically-relevant and publicly-authoritative faith in Jesus Christ and the Church that He founded, a Church that must be, for the sake of both the rights of God and the rights of man, the publicly recognized guide for men in both individual and social life. And for the latter to occur, we need to work for a nationwide conversion to the Catholic faith.”

I have no problem agreeing with this quote specifically, nor do I think it particularly takes courage to do so as an expression of lofty goal. I respect Unadorned. Unadorned has added a great deal of useful commentary, references, etc. to this web site; but it is clear all along that we have differing opinions on the proper relation between religion and the State. As I tried to bubble up in the discussion of anti-semitism, though, it is important to draw out what someone would have us ACTUALLY DO in response to an assessment of our objective situation. If someone plans to take Unadorned off to the Great American Catholic Reeducation Camp I will stand there with him, with my own rifle, to prevent them. Agreement as to lofty principle is all well and good, but people immediately draw conclusions as to what sort of ACTIONS that implies, and it is these ACTIONS that we have studiously avoided discussing.

Since “anti-semite” is a specific form of “extreme bigot”, the effort to carefully define “extreme bigot” is, I think, very worthwhile. TK thinks that his manifesto precedes religious indifferentism; I think that religious indifferentism is that to which his manifesto responds.

I don’t have a complete theory as yet but, drawing upon Mr. Auster’s chapter on racism in The Path to National Suicide and other discussions, I think I can bubble up some important elements of any understanding of “extreme bigotry”.

“Extreme bigotry” must involve a trangression against justice, and as a transgression against justice it must therefore involve ERRORS. I don’t think that fiery rhetoric, “stirring up hate”, etc are helpful objective measures. Some of the objective ERRORS implicated include:

1) Untruth/disproportion with respect to FACT (e.g. holocaust denial, 9-11 as a Jewish conspiracy, etc).

2) Untruth/disproportion with respect to SCOPE (e.g. saying that the Jews are responsible for all of Western decadence, etc). The SCOPE of a group’s involvement may be as a sole cause, as a leader in a coalition, as complicit, or as completely innocent of involvement.

3) Untruth/disproportion with respect to REMEDY (ranging from e.g. laws against working on Sunday, deportation, The Final Solution)

4) The CHARITABLE RESPONSE of the group in question (e.g. “mainstream Islam” failing to unequivocally condemn 9-11 and terrorism against Israel, black riots in response to the Rodney King verdict, Jews keeping their stores closed on Sunday when living in Christian nations, etc.)

This is not worked out to my satisfaction. Religion for example involves our will even ontically (e.g. I AM a Catholic in part because I CHOOSE to be Catholic, whereas I AM white because I was born white). A given religion is either RIGHT or WRONG, in general and on specific questions; a give, race simply is what it is. So there are plenty of issues to discuss. But I think discussion of bigotry will always be unhelpful specifically when it focuses on things like “stirring up hate” rather than what one actually intends to DO.

Matt’s points are excllent. Just one clarification. It would only be just for a Catholic state and Church union to exist if 99% (or nearly that) of the citizens were already Catholic. Such a conversion would, of course, have to come about without the slightest bit of force used by the state or individuals, pace Islam. Did I really have to say that? The Church teaches that conversion can never be coerced, such would be a sin.

Minority religions in a Catholic state always have the right to practice their religion in private and in public if the common good is not damaged. The father of a family is a domestic king whose rights to teach his family religious error is absolute (unless he teaches them human sacrifice).

My fourth criteria above, the group’s CHARITABLE RESPONSE, is really a modifier on the previous three. That is, if a group’s CHARITABLE RESPONSE is strong then nearly any REMEDY would be disproportionate. A group with a strong CHARITABLE RESPONSE is self-governing.

I suppose now I can make my own assessment of the Shiekh’s comments and Fahey’s (just the comments published here, not some comprehensive evaluation of the man using information I do not have), using my own incomplete straw-model. The Shiekh’s comments in meeting all three main criteria clearly entail extreme bigotry (specifically anti-semitism in this case). Although I know little about the Jews in America before WWII — I was born in the 1960’s and have never really taken an interest in the topic — Fahey’s comments seem to fail two out of three, leaving the third (REMEDY) as an unknown. So at best Fahey’s specific comments as published in this thread are those of a useful idiot — ultimately an unwitting servant of liberalism, providing a necessary foil. It is certainly true that a few carefully selected comments from anyone who has written extensively in public and private can often be used to make someone appear an idiot; but again, evaluating the specific comments here in their own right, against the criteria I laid out above, that is about where I come out. Fahey’s comments are not so much extremely bigoted as they are those of a dupe, a useful idiot of liberalism.

TK it is time to back off, return another day, and make a new beginning on another issue. No one here is prepared to debate whether or not to hate Jews, certain Jews, Judaism, or sects of Judaism. Based on your quotations, it appears one or more of these issues is a theological issue in the Catholic Church. You have raised our consciousness of this theological issue. Now it is time to let us alone on this point. We are not equipped to rely heavily on Catholic teachings. We haven’t been reading Catholic theology about Jews. We have no context to judge the quotations, the authors of the quotations, or Mr. Fahey. It is like citing what various Buddhists think of anti-Semitism.

Your taunts about the courage of the commentators and your angry tone are poor ways to win our religion credibility or to win yourself credibility.

Mr. Murgos:

My whole reason to enter this discussion was to uphold the reputation of Father Fahey and his teachings, who was a holy Priest full of nothing but love for all people, especially the Jews. He has been terribly slandered by many on this site. These detractors should know that insofar as they detract Fr. Fahey’s teachings they detract the Catholic Church, Christ’s mystical body; for this good Priest did nothing but articulate and defend Her teachings, as I have shown by citing those wiritngs on the Popes analagous to his teachings. Every book he wrote received a nihil obstat and an imprimateur by the Church. Shame on all you detractors.

Mr. Auster:

I wrote: “Just because you think that the Zionist influence is not as evil and powerful as Sheikh thinks it is, doesn’t mean he is simply wrong and to be dismissed!… Do you have any evidence that what he says is false? There is, on the other hand, much evidence to show he is on to something. “

I made two points in this quote: 1) Yes, there is a very powerful influence called Jewish naturalism or Zionism, and it is evil. Sheikh mentions it, but exaggerates it to paranoic proportions. But that is not a reason to dismiss entirely the existence of this influence, as you do so naively.

2) Sheikh is onto something, yes. Both radical Islam and Jewish naturalism have hurt this country; the former in the form of physical violence, the latter in the form of spiritual violence. Naturalistic, anti-Christian Jews have been using the same deChristianizing tactics the Masons have used (using their organized power to separate religion from the public square, creating blasphemous and titilating movies, etc.)

Now, do I hate the Jews or any Jew? No, and how dare you imply it! I hate what many leaders of the Jewish nation have done to undermine Chirstendom in virtue of the false, non-religion they have inherited in virtue of their race (Judaism has been over and done ever since the coming of Christ). They have worked to deChristianize states. And they do so openly.

Now, you and I hate what the Muslims do in virtue of their false religion (blow up buildings of once-Christain civilizations). So if I am anti-Semitic, then you are Anti-Muslim, because you hate when they blow up buildings. There is no difference.

Therefore, this quote:

“Thus everything TK has said since then, all his apologies for Fahey, all his quotes and statements about traditionalist Catholic orthodoxy, have had as their motivating impulse the justification of the Sheikh who is a raving Jew-hater. Anything TK may have to say about Catholicism, even if some it is true, is colored by his underlying agenda which is to legitimize the lowest kind of Jew-hatred and insane conspiracy mongering”

is simply ridiculous. If I am a raving Jew hater, then you are a raving-Muslim hater. You must accept the parallel. And don’t tell me that Islam isn’t responsible for their actions! You know it is. You know history. Islam has been waging war on the West ever since its inception.

Mr. Auster: Retract your failed attempt at an ad hominum, dismissive attack on me or be known from now one as a raving-Muslim hater and anti-Muslim.

I stand by my evaluation of the Fahey quotes Sandy provided. I don’t know in what context they were uttered, but spoken in a public forum they both undermine Fahey’s intellectual position and appear to be an exagerrated attempt to blame the abstract and pervasive perfidy of modernism on, in particular, the Jews as a particular people. It is this (presumable) error-in-scope that makes those comments specifically an example of useful idiocy:

Fahey: “Their (jews) wickedness, which has been developed by every evil art, has now reached such a point that, in view of our common safety, We feel it expedient to check the spread of such a disease by applying a speedy remedy ….We have clear and definite proof how this perverse race hates the name of Christ, how hostile they are to all who bear His name and by what tricks and frauds they plot against the lives of Christians.”

Fahey: “Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity.”

Fahey: “Our way of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and the Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief, if such folk are living closely…”

I believe this represents an error in SCOPE and in FACT as I defined above. As Carl mentioned in his post it is not that the attacks on Christendom aren’t/didn’t happen, it is that the attribution is too narrow and out of focus. The thing that is bothering Fahey isn’t some specific conspiracy of the Jews, it is the aftermath of the “reformation” and counter-reformation, that peculiar mixture of Islam and Catholicism called Protestantism catalyzed at least in major part by the corruption of the Rennaisance clergy and its bastard child liberalism. The implied remedy is repentence.

The Jewish people are practically bystanders in all this. What weight does a Jewish shop staying open on Sunday have when compared to Renaissance Popes out womanizing and condoning the burning of heretics, or Luther inciting the nobles to murder 100,000 peasants?

In this phrase:
“…that peculiar mixture of Islam and Catholicism called Protestantism catalyzed at least in major part by the corruption of the Rennaisance clergy and its bastard child liberalism.”

the “it” that fathered liberalism is Protestantism.

Of course nobody wants to face all of this because of what it says about _us_, and because the implied remedy to save our culture and our souls is not war against another particular people but, again, repentence.

Mr. Murgos, just as an observation, TK’s motivation to enter the discussion can’t have been to defend Father Fahey since TK brought Father Fahey up in the first place. TK entered the discussion to defend the Sheikh: scroll up to see how it unfolded. So I can hardly blame Mr. Auster for refusing to indulge him in further conversation. My own decision to continue at this point is mostly of the “when life gives you lemons make lemonaid” variety. The thorniest bush sometimes contains a few berries. (I think I’ll go have a smoothie).

“So I can hardly blame Mr. Auster for refusing to indulge [TK] in further conversation. My own decision to continue at this point is mostly of the ‘when life gives you lemons make lemonaid’ variety.” — Matt

When life gives you lemons in a state of putrefaction you can’t make lemonade. You can only throw the rot onto the compost heap where it can decompose. I refuse to debate TK — the man’s a nutcase who has no morals, no sense, no understanding of humanity, and especially, no tact, this last being more important than it may sound, the definition of “psycho” having to do with people losing contact with the most elementary reality, including tact.

Sandy wrote: “E.T. was anti-semitical in his postion.”

How so?

With regard to Matt’s comment of January 4 at 12:17 AM, and his analysis of Fahey’s freaky quotes that literally demonize the entire Jewish people as people, is he ready to finally say (which will make us all breathe a sigh of relief) that Fahey’s statements are, indeed, anti-Semitic?

Unadorned wrote: “Jews are no more tribal than other groups (such as religious Catholics in general, to cite just one example) and almost certainly less tribal than some I can think of, such as Greeks, Armenians, Chinese, and probably even Italians on a certain level.”

What you have to understand is that the Jewish religion, unlike Catholicism or Islam, is an explicitly ethnocentric religion. The Jews have a long, tribal history that spans nearly 6,000 years. To many Jews, this is not the year 2003 — it’s the year 5763; in fact, Jewish religious books are actually being printed now with this date in them. In any case, the Jewish religion is an intensely ethnocentric religion — a religion for Jews only. Compare that with the two other major Western religions, Islam and Christianity. Both Islam and Christianity are universalist religions. That is, Muslims and Christians believe that their religion is for everyone, regardless of ethnic backround. When the Jews send out missionaries, it’s to bring inactive Jews back into the fold, NEVER to convert those who are not already members of the “chosen” race.

Beyond that, I don’t really know what else to tell you, other than the works of Kevin MacDonald, especially his “Culture of Critique,” which has recently been published in paperback, lend alot of credence to my arguments. If MacDonald’s book doesn’t convince you that most Jews see themselves as a distinct group among their Western hosts, I’m afraid nothing will.

Fahey’s words say harsh things about Jews as a group, and although I would say similar things about Islam I would say it differently. For example I would say:

“Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, Islam continues to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity.”

Note the change from “they” to “Islam”: I would treat Islam as the objective transcendent thing that it is rather than identifying it with individuals who grant it their alliegence. But that is because I am an infinite hair-splitter and the Fahey sentence is sloppy.

That may add something to the definition of bigotry though. A bigot will identify a transcendent entity and its human slaves as the same thing, so to the bigot an evil transcendent entity automatically dehumanizes the persons who pledge their alliegence to it.

Fahey’s words (the small sample that I have to work with) are sloppy, wrong about basic facts, and stated in the language of someone who is obviously angry and alienated. I don’t think the Right should bother with any concept of bigotry though unless that concept entails a wish/intent/advocacy of OBJECTIVE harm to the individual members of a group. I can have a desire for Islam to disappear from the face of the earth, and an opinion that the earth would be a better place without it, without wishing to harm a hair on the head of any Moslem. So the answer is no; the small sample of quotes here are those of a useful idiot, but they do not show that Fahey wishes OBJECTIVE HARM.

I suppose what it comes down to is that I am, unfortunately, coming to the conclusion that Mr. Murgos was right; and there is no productive way for the Right to use the term. If the Right were willing to say that a bigot is only objectively a bigot if he wishes OBJECTIVE HARM to THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS of a group, then I might be able to sign on. But I can wish for all Moslems to convert to Christianity without wishing them any objective harm, and in fact such a wish is a wish for a great good. If that makes me a bigot then everyone should be one.

I came to the defense of Fahey after I first cited his name, yes. What I meant to say before is that the whole reason I became so involved in this discussion was to defend Fahey. My first intention was, I admit, not to defend Father Fahey but to try to do something about Mr. Auster’s blindness to reality. I apologize for my misstatement.

The Church in Her Good Friday prayer before Vatican II called for the conversion of the “perfidious Jews.” No doubt that Unadorned, Auster, and even Matt might call this bigoted or anti-semitic, or at least exaggerated because it makes a big lump of all Jews (Matt). But this is the Church speaking. So, I maintain that Father Fahey’s position and the Church’s on the grave danger of the Jewish Nation to society is the correct one, and I have the backing of the Church (I cited many quotes already from Popes and Saints). You don’t. You may have the backing of the post-conciliar “Church,” but as Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods have pointed out in their great book “The Great Facade,” this is not a movement to be trusted. (By the way, Christopher Ferrara defends Father Fahey in much the same way I have done—I am in good company).

Whatever arguments you have against the six points of Fahey and the corollary teaching on Jewish naturalism, you will always be in the shadow of the Church. I would rather be safe under her tutelage than all alone with possibly media-conditioned and brainwashed thoughts stemming from the Jewish/Masonic/Atheist/Humanist/Materialist/ etc. control of the great stereopticon, the media, law, education, etc establishment. The only way out of this conditioning is to submerge yourself in the teaching of the Popes (Gregory XVI to Pius XII especially) on the social questions.

I leave you with Fahey’s incredibly accurate assessment of why people would oppose his and the Church’s teachings. It is a perfect indictment of Auster, Unadorned, and Sandy, et. al. The last quote is by William Ward and I hope you will see its relevance to this discussion. We are dealing with spiritual warfare here (hence the hostility), and only one spirit is right. Are you sure you are on the right side if you have not embraced the sweet yoke of the Catholic Church?

“Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term and never even allude to the documents which insist on the rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the Jewish naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord.

“Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the naturalistic or anti-supernatural Press and do not distinguish between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense as explained above, and “Anti-Semitism,” as the Jews understand it. For the Jews, “Anti-Semitism” is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messanic domination of their nation over all the others. Quite logically, the leaders of the Jewish nation hold that to stand for the Rights of Christ the King is to be “Anti-Semitic.” The term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, is being extended to include any form of opposition to the Jewish nation’s naturalistic aims and any exposure of the methods they adopt to achieve these aims.”

“In every nation there is a certain subtle, yet most powerful influence, which we call the national spirit; it is produced partly by national character and partly by long-continued habits of legislation and administration; and it imbues unconsciously the mind of each individual citizen with an indefinite number of notions, regarded by him as self-evident first principles, and as beyond the province of criticism or examination. In like manner, on the Church’s side, there is a Catholic spirit, and there are Catholic instincts, produced partly by the working of Catholic truth on those pious and simple souls who faithfully receive it, and partly by the more direct agency of the Ecclesia Docens; and this circumambient Catholic atmosphere is one of her principal instruments in bringing home to each individual the great truths with which she is entrusted. But these two spirits—the Catholic and the national respectively—are very far more antagonistic than harmonious. To the former we cannot resign ourselves too unreservedly, for it is the very effluence of God the Holy Ghost. Towards the prevailing national spirit, on the contrary, our only reasonable attitude is one of deep jealously and suspicion; because it is charged with principles which, for the corruption of human nature, are sure to be more false than true, and from which we should keep ourselves entirely free, until we have measured them by their only true standard, the Church’s voice.”

In the midst of hostility, it is hard to say this, but thanks for the discussion. God bless you and goodbye. I never meant to hurt anyone and I apologize if I have said hurtful things or tactless things. I am human and it is hard to state these truths i believe in charity sometimes. I forgive anything you might have wanted to take back too. I hope all will be better off in some way because of this discussion. We fought a manly fight, so I am grateful for that. No hard feeelings.

Viva Christo Rey!

” … [T]he Jewish religion, unlike Catholicism or Islam, is an explicitly ethnocentric religion.” — Arthur Kalinowski

This gets pointed out from time to time. It’s true to a large extent that Jews traditionally want to marry each other, Jewish-American parents want their children to marry within the Jewish Community, and authority figures within the Jewish Community such as rabbis, and lay leaders like Elliott Abrams and many others, openly recommend “marriage only within the group” for American Jews.

I don’t see what’s wrong with that, except when Jews who want it for themselves reject its legitimacy for others. As I think you may be trying to say, it’s not consistent for individual Jewish-Americans to favor “marriage only within the group” for Jews, and at the same time to harp on the “racism” or “prejudice” of other groups if they try to do the same thing. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The United States of America is not and never was a “Universal Nation” in the Ben Wattenberg sense, and doesn’t want to become one but our élites (including the fool Wattenberg) are trying to ram that down our throats, and it is not and never was a “Non-ethnic Proposition Nation” in the William Kristol sense, though we’re getting that rammed down our throats too. It is and always was — and may it ever remain — an ethnic nation having the proportions more or less which prevailed until 1965, primarily an offshoot of the Anglo-Saxons culturally, and a predominantly Christian nation.

As everyone also knows, the American Jewish Community is not “marrying within the group” enough, but is intermarrying too much and facing demographic decline as a result. This is alarming for a group that numbers only some five million and has dropped by half-a-million within the past few years. How this decline is going to be reversed remains to be seen. My suggestion would be to replace anachronistic dinosaurs like Abe Foxman who are relics of a bygone age, an age when, for understandable reasons, a narrow-minded ghetto mentality was not uncommon among Jewish-Americans. That mentality served its purpose then, but times have changed, and unless new Jewish leaders gain influence who are appropriate to the times, young Jews are going to continue to vote with their feet, in effect looking at what Foxman represents and saying, “I’m not certain of everything I want in life, but I can say for sure I want ANYTHING BUT THAT.” The beauty of Jewish tradition and culture has to be emphasized, and in addition, over time (if tradition is taught and valued instead of torn down constantly by some) there will be spontaneous creation of new and ever more beautiful ways to celebrate that same tradition and culture — just as Christians created the ways in which we now celebrate Christmas, which almost all Christians (and many non-Christians) find so fulfilling. Santa and his eight reindeer were invented in a poem written in the 1840s and have enriched Christmas tremendously. Foxman won’t get where he wants to be by devoting himself to tearing down white Euro Christianity in this country, but rather by strengthening and embellishing his own traditions as men like Rabbi Lapin advise. If being paranoid about white Christians is all Foxman can offer young Jews of marriage age, they’ll only vote with their feet all the more quickly.

As for your saying that “the Jewish religion … is an explicitly ethnocentric religion,” note that the solution Prof. Dershowitz has proposed to reverse Jewish demographic decline is the opposite of a genetic-ethnic one. To keep Jewish numbers up, he proposes simply considering any person who calls himself a Jew to be one, regardless of what religion or ethnicity he was born with or what his parents were. I oppose this solution because I think genetics are a decisive influence on ethnoculture — lose the genetic heritage, and the traditional ethnoculture cannot continue the same (though its replacement may be a perfectly fine one). Otherwise, what’s the point, and let’s just all throw in the towel and become Chinese. (Again, the Chinese are fine people with a fine culture — but I’m me, and I want to be me, and I’m not a Chinaman.)

These seem self-evident: We should all marry the one we love (as Steve Sailer emphasizes) regardless of other considerations including racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural ones; populations which express no wish to maintain their ethnic identity are free not to; ones that do express such a preference have a right to act on it without being called bigots or racists as long as the rights of others in their midst are respected and their welfare absolutely guaranteed.

“The Jews have a long, tribal history that spans nearly 6,000 years. To many Jews, this is not the year 2003 — it’s the year 5763; in fact, Jewish religious books are actually being printed now with this date in them.” — Arthur Kalinowski

I’m not sure what point is being made here. If it’s to question their fitness for Western society on the gounds that they are too distinct, I don’t agree. Why have they and the West thriven together these two thousand years, then? Why should Jewish religious books be printed with a Christian date in them, when a Jewish date is available? At the same time, I personally do not intend to start saying BCE and CE, and maybe neither should you, if that’s your preference too. There. Was that hard?

“In any case, the Jewish religion is an intensely ethnocentric religion — a religion for Jews only.” — Arthur Kalinowski

Every religion and ethnic group from the Old-order Pennsylvania Amish to the Vietnamese wants its members to stay within it, marry within it, and raise its kids within it. There does happen to be a procedure by which gentiles can convert and become Jews. The existence of this procedure by itself disproves that the Jewish religion is “for Jews only.” It is said that this procedure is hard. Come, now, I’m sure anyone on the planet can do it easily.

“Compare that with the two other major Western religions, Islam and Christianity. Both Islam and Christianity are universalist religions. That is, Muslims and Christians believe that their religion is for everyone, regardless of ethnic backround. When the Jews send out missionaries, it’s to bring inactive Jews back into the fold, NEVER to convert those who are not already members of the ‘chosen’ race.” — Arthur Kalinowski

Once again, I’m not sure what point is being made. None of this besmirches Jews, assuming it’s all true. Look — what Jews or any other religion do among themselves is none of our business. That’s not clear to everyone? Substitute any other religion for Jews. Is what the Mormons do amongst themselves any of our business? It becomes our business if they try to interfere (and especially, if they are hypocrites in doing so, as some Jews are, it is true) with what we do among ourselves. But how is what they do among themselves any of our business?

I’ll look at Kevin McDonald’s book. Thanks for the reference.

TK writes:
“The Church in Her Good Friday prayer before Vatican II called for the conversion of the “perfidious Jews.” No doubt that Unadorned, Auster, and even Matt might call this bigoted or anti-semitic, or at least exaggerated because it makes a big lump of all Jews (Matt).”

I think a prayer for the conversion of the Jews, or the Moslems, etc is a wonderful thing. I think the wording “the perfidious Jews” was mean-spirited, and good riddance. For someone who supports Ferrara and Wood TK has a rather neocon attitude about pastoral practice and authority; he just chooses a different Pope (really his own conception and interpretation as mediated through Fahey) to whom to submit abjectly.

TK quotes Fahey:
“Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the Jewish naturalism.”

The problem with this statement is in the last two prepositional phrases. Fahey is (to all appearances) suffering from a scoping error. I have no difficulty with the duty to oppose naturalism, and I have no doubt that the Jewish people have made their own contribution to its advance. I also have no problem with attributing certain things to Judaism as such — antiessentialism is its own form of nonsense. But to call it “the Jewish naturalism” is to imply a Judaic ownership of naturalism; it is to say that Jews are the primary source of naturalism. That is simply incorrect as a matter of fact, and specifically is a scoping error.

There are at least two significant consequences of someone like Fahey making that scoping error with such vigor. One is that it discredits legitimate opposition to naturalism and all of its sources. It even discredits legitimate opposition to and criticism of Jewish complicity with naturalism, by setting up a straw man that can easily be knocked down. The other consequence is that it leaves those other sources free to do their dirty work. Does TK truly believe that if, for example, Fahey had managed to deport all the Jews and Masons that liberalism would have been stopped in its tracks? I doubt that he does; but if he doesn’t then how can he deny that Fahey has objectively made a scoping error?

“Compare that with the two other major Western religions, Islam and Christianity.” — Arthur Kalinowski

I just noticed this gaffe you made, Arthur. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam isn’t a Western religion. I think you meant to say, ” … the two other major monotheistic religions, Islam and Christianity.”

“The West” is and was the following:

a) The European ethnocultures prior to the advent of Christianity (itself a branch or sect of Judaism) and the conversion of each one to it which took place one-by-one from the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the 300s to the conversion of the last pagan Europeans in the Lithuanian forests in the 1500s;

b) The post-conversion union of Europe and Jerusalem. The only sect of “Jerusalem” that would “take Europe in” was the Christian one, the other one wanting no part of Europe — so any union that might take place between Europe and Jerusalem could only be with the Christian sect of Jerusalem. Through its Christian sect, Jerusalem took Europe in and Europe took Jerusalem in. THAT — that melding of Europe and Jerusalem — is, was, and, God willing, always will be — “The West,” and that Christian sect of Jerusalem is the West’s religion. I don’t see where Islam plays any part in “The West,” according to that understanding of what “The West” is, always was, and always will be.

Unadorned wrote: “I don’t see what’s wrong with that, except when Jews who want it for themselves reject its legitimacy for others. As I think you may be trying to say, it’s not consistent for individual Jewish-Americans to favor ‘marriage only within the group’ for Jews, and at the same time to harp on the ‘racism’ or ‘prejudice’ of other groups if they try to do the same thing.”

Precisely! But I would add that whites are the only group in contemporary America that Jews explicitly discourage from exhibiting a sense of togetherness or racial consciousness. This is why Jews, a group who account for slightly less than 3 percent of the US population, dominate the news and entertainment media. The Jews are using it as a propaganda device designed to further quell our sense of racial consciousness while they retain theirs; for us to be ashamed of our nature and our traditions; for us to be afraid to organize for our common good, lest we be thought “racists” for doing so. This is confirmed, I believe, by MacDonald’s exhaustive study.

Your comments regarding the myth of America as a “propositional nation” are spot-on! The political ideals that America was founded on are Western in origin, specifically Anglo-Saxon (English Common Law, e.g.), as is the prevailing language, customs and folkways, as David Hackett Fischer explained in “Albion’s Seed.”

“note that the solution Prof. Dershowitz has proposed to reverse Jewish demographic decline is the opposite of a genetic-ethnic one. To keep Jewish numbers up, he proposes simply considering any person who calls himself a Jew to be one, regardless of what religion or ethnicity he was born with or what his parents were.”

Dershowitz knows that Jews are defined in terms of their bloodline, not in terms of their faith, which is why non-religious Jews like Freud or Trotsky or even Marx, the father of atheistic communism, are considered just as much Jews as the most pious synagogue-goer, with sidelocks and yarmulke. So when someone refers to himself as a “Jew,” he’s likely to share a distinct Jewish genetic identity.

“I’m not sure what point is being made here. If it’s to question their fitness for Western society on the gounds that they are too distinct, I don’t agree. Why have they and the West thriven together these two thousand years, then?”

Unadorned, you need to check your history books — Jews have not “thriven together” with the West for the last two thousand years. On the contrary, Jews were expelled from nearly every European country over the last millenium, from Mainz in 1012, to Moscow in 1891. Every European country they inhabited has historically sought to expel them.

“There does happen to be a procedure by which gentiles can convert and become Jews. The existence of this procedure by itself disproves that the Jewish religion is ‘for Jews only.’ It is said that this procedure is hard. Come, now, I’m sure anyone on the planet can do it easily.”

Remember Unadorned, Jews define themselves in terms of their bloodline; so while a few gentiles may convert to Judaism, they are not Jewish in the technical sense.

“Once again, I’m not sure what point is being made. None of this besmirches Jews, assuming it’s all true. Look — what Jews or any other religion do among themselves is none of our business.”

Even if they control the media, which they’ve taken over through a deliberate, concerted effort, the purpose of which is to undermine Europeans and the societies they’ve built?

Unadorned wrote: “I just noticed this gaffe you made, Arthur. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam isn’t a Western religion. I think you meant to say, ’ … the two other major monotheistic religions, Islam and Christianity.’

I distinguish “Western” religions from “Eastern” religions for theological reasons, not for historical reasons. Christianity, Islam and Judaism belong to traditional theism, which is the view that there is a transcendent being, sometimes called “God,” also called Yahweh, Allah and Jehovah, who created the entire universe and who governs it from moment to moment. Traditional theism is the view shared by orthodox believers within Judaism, Islam and Christianity. I distinguish traditional theistic religions from Eastern, pantheistic religions (such as Hinduism and Zen Buddhism) that identify all the world as God. So I designate traditional theistic religions as “Western” for their shared theological foundations from “Eastern,” pantheistic religions.

” … whites are the only group in contemporary America that Jews explicitly discourage from exhibiting a sense of togetherness or racial consciousness. This is why Jews, a group who account for slightly less than 3 percent of the US population, dominate the news and entertainment media.” — Arthur Kalinowski

You’re right that the liberals and leftists, among whom I wish there were a smaller percentage of Jews (a smaller percentage of everybody, really — namely, zero percent) are targeting traditional white Euro Christian America for destruction while showering all kinds of praise, encouragement, benefits, and advantages upon every single ethnoculturally-incompatible group they can possibly get to come to this country in ever-increasing numbers to be elevated to a position of dominance over the pre-1965 demgraphic reality which prevailed here, the hope being that that former reality dwindle to nothing.

Everyone but them sees that this is suicide for them in addition to amounting to homicide for traditional white Euro Christian America. What makes them target what they target is rabid hatred in the case of some, and in the case of others, the “high” they get from feeling holier-than-thou through doing this sort of targeting. An example of the former is Harvard Prof. Noël Ignatiev (he’s an extreme example but there are thousands and millions of “Ignatiev-lites” out there), while an example of the latter is the unbelievably stupid Rev. Barry Lynn who heads the utterly phony group, “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,” and spouts off regularly on shows like “CrossFire” (or he used to — I don’t watch TV any more).

Why they push what will be suicide for themselves if ever realized, no one knows, but they wouldn’t be the first haters to be killed by the destruction their own hatred has wrought — that’s called “acting out of blind rage” — or the first addicts to die in search of a high — cocaine abusers die that way every day.

Your bit about “this being why Jews dominate news and entertainment media” looks like a typo, or something you didn’t think through. Jews didn’t plot to achieve lop-sided representation in these media, for that or for any other reason. Jews are like everyone else — they are born, they struggle through elementary school, high school, and college like everyone else, worrying the whole time about their future and about doing well, they get jobs or make careers for themselves, they raise families as best they can, they work hard, and sweat, and worry, and fear failure like everyone else, and what success they achieve is achieved through the same means it is for everyone else. There is no plot to take over the media for propagandizing purposes.

I have more to say in reply to your post but, so as not to keep taking more than my share of space on this generous Forum, I’ll stop here.

Indifference to evil is evil.(Elie Wiesel).

Anti-Semitism springs from a severe misunderstanding of the role of the Jewish people in the world. A covenant was made between God and His distinctively non-assimilated people. Because of this special arrangement, the secular world tends to mistrust them. In defense of their presence, they have sought to distort the truth about the Jews. The result: persecution almost to the extent of annihilation. Yet the Jew remains faithful to the Promise. It is our duty, then, to uplift the cause of God’s Chosen and do well with them. In the end, we are blest for it.

Well stated, Mr. Vogt!