April
26th 2007
Posted under BookLog & Conservatism & Political Philosophy
Wow. Check this out.
E. Michael Jones is the editor of Culture Wars. He is a very partisan Catholic and focuses a lot on the “Jewish question.” He might or might not consider himself a paleo, but he is at least in that orbit. He made a speech, apparently focused heavily on the “Jewish question,” at the conference honoring the late Sam Francis and his book Shots Fired. Apparently Taki, Paul Gottfried, and Peter Brimelow took exception to his speech.
I am not sure exactly what the issue is, but I will explore further.
Ron on 26 Apr 2007 at 9:33 am #
For Mr. Jones, to be Jewish, one is to be at war with the West, if not everyone else.
Although Paul Gottfried is not particularly observant, he should be offended.
As for the message itself, Mr. Jones’s reading of history is hilariously incorrect. I suppose that given his malevolence, I could be horribly offended, but the pure idiocy of much of it is overwhelming in his thesis:
“As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews†the minute they rejected Christ. As such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making. Thirty years after rejecting Christ, the revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar, one of their many messiahs, and tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome they attemtped to destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias. What do Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar, the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev, and Radek, the short lived Soviet Republics of Bavaria under Kurt Eisner and Eugene Levine and Hungary under Bela Kun, the racial Apartheid state known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir, or the neocon never-never land known as a free and democratic Iraq have in common? Death is what they have in common. Lots of people have to die to bring about the revolutionary Jew’s version of heaven on earth.
The West which we seek to preserve is based on docility to Logos, the order of the universe which makes discourse possible. The essence of the Jewish Messianic politics which seeks to create heaven on earth is rejection of Logos, not sacred (or wicked) DNA. The essence of the Jewish rejection of Logos is known as the Talmud, which is anti-Logos in every sense of the word, from hatred of Christ all the way down to rejection of the practical logos that is known as morality. We saw a recent example of Talmudic thought this summer during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon when Charles Krauthammer and the Jewish rabbinic council attacked the Just War theory–in particular its ban on killing noncombatants and the principle of proportionality–as a “Christian†idea and, therefore, one which Jews did not have to follow. The principles of the Just War Theory are another word for civilized behavior. Those who refuse to be bound by them are barbarians and deserved to be treated as such. No country can implement Talmudic thought–as our country has—and not suffer the consequences that rejection of Logos necessarily brings with it.”
We weren’t “Jewish” before the rejection of Jesus? That would have come as quite a surprise to the Judahites and other Israelites living in Roman occupied Judea prior to and after Jesus.
As for rejecting “Logos”, the Pharasees (Perushim) sought to explain God’s laws from the Bible and the Oral Law (customs) in logical terms. This discussion, along with the Oral Law is what forms the Talmud; a text evidently for which Jones holds so much hatred that he could not be bothered to look at a table of contents much less read.
Jones’s assertions about the Jewish revolts against Rome show utter ignorance. Firstly, these were not revolutions but wars of liberation against a pagan oppressor, which occupied Israel and was colonizing it. The revolts did not start with the death of Jesus. Rather, dozens of leaders, some claiming to be the messiah led small revolts against the Romans and their collaborators. Simon bar Kokhba (no “r” at the end) was one of the Messianic claimants. He did not try to sack Rome. For a time, he did liberate most of Judea.
The Soviet Union was communist, not Jewish. And every communist from Marx on was anti-Jewish. Jews may have theoretically been protected as an ethnic catagory, but Judaism was forbidden. Zionism was a crime.
It is ironic for a man, opposing the desegregation movement, to call Israel Apartheid state. That he targets anti-communist members of the free-market Likud party in same breath as he speaks of communism is a sign of living too long in an echo chamber of lunacy.
I suppose that Jones is unaware that Israeli Arabs have all the rights of Israeli Jews and have an affirmative action program? If he is speaking of the displaced Arabs or those in the contested territories, I wonder if Jones spends much time crying over the Native Americans. (We Americans have a right to the land in the US. Israelis who have cultural ethnic, historical and now military and political ties deserve the same respect as a sovereign people.)
E. Michael Jones is simply an anti-Jewish bigot. His basis is religious.
If Taki wants to keep up pretences that he is merely anti-Zionist, I would have expected a stronger rebuke than to call this “too strident”.
It is not a strident condemnation of neoconservatives or even hypocritical Jewish neocons and liberals who make double standards for Israel. Rather Jones’s speech was a denunciation of Judaism as revolutionary war against the West.
Jan Rogozinski on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:36 am #
Taki might be right that Jones’ speech was not entirely appropriate for the situation.
However, Jones is no bigot. Most (probaby all) of his statements about the Jews’ work throughout history are statements of fact, of reality, of the truth.
And the truth does not care who states the truth.
When Paleocons make ad hominum PC charges, when they call someone a “bigot,” then they have become clones of the Neo Cons.
Shame, shame, shame on you, Ron.
Ron on 26 Apr 2007 at 3:00 pm #
Mr. Rogozinski,
There is a difference between saying that Jews have participated in Revolutionary movements throught history at disproprotional rates and saying that Judaism itself is an assualt.
Basic fact checking would prove at least half of his classical historical assertions to be false. I am no historian on the civil rights era, but given the track record, I suspect that he is no more fastidious there.
His attempt to tie Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism to liberalism and communism is beyond misguided. Jews who accepted these rejected Orthodox Judaism. The same is true for any Karaite Jew (Karaites being a sect of Jews who reject the authority of the Talmud and trace their roots to the Saducees) who would join such a movement. Either one believe’s in God and the Law or one does not. Communists not only do not, but they define Judaism as the problem.
“Since in civil society the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized, civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed only the ideal aspect of practical need. Consequently, not only in the Pentateuch and the Talmud, but in present-day society we find the nature of the modern Jew, and not as an abstract nature but as one that is in the highest degree empirical, not merely as a narrowness of the Jew, but as the Jewish narrowness of society.
Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, nd because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.
The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”
Karl Marx “On the Jewish Question”, a response to Bruno Bauer.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
Ironically, Mr. Jones also attacks Judaism and Jewishness. In defining all Jews as definitional enemies, Jones exposes a deep seeting prejudice.
I get the distinct feeling that you, Mr. Rogozinski, did not read the entirety of my initial criticism, only the last two paragraphs. However, if failed to make my point then, I would think that I have made it now.
Don’t fall into a puerile syllogistic traps of anti-anti-semitism and hatred of anything possibly related to neoconservatives.
Frank B Lee on 26 Apr 2007 at 4:11 pm #
Ron,
Jews are generally leftwing in Western matters and right wing in Israeli matters, perhaps simply because they have little respect for the West after having been persecuted for so long or because as minorities they do not identify with it. Or perhaps it’s because in a diverse society, they are judged more as individuals – topic continued in paragraph 5.
Frankfurt School, Boasianism, and neoconservatism were all predominantly Jewish whether the participants were observant or not. Then you’ve got Engels and Marx, and the major role Jews played in Bolshevism and the civil rights movement. Oh, feminist Betty Friedan and open borders enthusiast Ron Unz come to mind. The ADL and SPLC are clearly anti-West.
While the ethnic cleansing in the Middle East is probably the only possible solution for saving Israel from its bloodthirsty neighbors, it can’t be supported without a double standard since such actions would be condemned if done by anyone else. The same can be said for segregation; somehow it’s only OK for Israel to do it.
I’m not saying all Jews are anti-West of course… I’ve got them (more than one) married into my family (marriage not blood) before anyone throws racist, antisemite, or some other fuzzy slander at me
I’d be interested to hear responses; I’m always learning, and I don’t hate Jews…
Gottfried seems to be very patriotic to Judaism. He seems to have realised the dangers the managerial state and mass immigration (of people who are far more antisemitic than current Americans) pose to Jews whereas most are still reliving the Holocaust and their Ellis Island heritage (America has a “tradition of open borders.”) White Christians are some of the least antisemitic people on Earth, and Gottfried realises this.
Didn’t Gottfried’s daughter marry a fairly patriotic Jew as well?
Cliff Jones on 26 Apr 2007 at 4:24 pm #
I thought “logos” meant “word.” …as in the Lord spoke and all was, born of the light He spoke into existence.
Frank B Lee on 26 Apr 2007 at 5:01 pm #
Ron, what you say seems correct.
“Jews may have theoretically been protected as an ethnic catagory, but Judaism was forbidden. Zionism was a crime.”
Judaism has two definitions doesn’t it? 1 ethnicity, 2 religion and traditions.
—
“We weren’t “Jewish†before the rejection of Jesus?”
To a Catholic the Jews went on to become Christians, eh? Those who rejected Christ were heretics. I don’t think this should be taken as a bad statement.
—
“There is a difference between saying that Jews have participated in Revolutionary movements throught history at disproprotional rates and saying that Judaism itself is an assualt.”
Ah, well disregard most of my previous post then. There’s no disagreement though I can’t say I can follow parts of this discussion. Anyway, it seems to me that Jews and conservative Americans in general have a lot of common interests at the moment whether they realise it or not.
Filmer on 26 Apr 2007 at 10:17 pm #
Ron,
I had not read the Jones’ article when I posted this because it was long, and I didn’t have time. After reading it, I can see what the fuss was about. The first part of the article was interesting. More on that later. But I do think the theological parts were problematic.
First, I was going to make this point on the John Sharpe thread, but time passed, and I never got around to it. I think it is troublesome to define a certain theological belief as “anti-Semitic.” This is the same point I was trying to make with the dispensationalism vs. replacement theology debate. Since many conservative Christians, esp. in America, believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, then it follows that what matters is correctly interpreting it, not whether we like the results. You can’t ask people to change their religious beliefs because they lead to bad thoughts. I guess you can, like the homosexuals asking Christians to reject the condemnation of homosexuality. But the Christian is not responsible for what the homosexuals want. They are responsible to God and trying to follow his Word.
Some Jews have been guilty of this. For example, the suggestion that the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic. For many Christians, John is inspired so to suggest it is anti-Semitic is to question inspiration. This seems unwise. Even if you accept the premise, which I don’t, is the anti-Semitism inspired by John worse than the anti-Semitism that could result from a perceived attack on the Scriptures?
Now back to Jones. On that note, I would quarrel with his theology, not the perception that what he said was anti-Semitic. I think he is playing fast and loose with the word Logos. Logos (usually translated Word I believe) is another name for Christ I think. The word Logos may imply certain metaphysical/spiritual things that other words for Christ don’t, but I think it is a rather far stretch to suggest it means order, truth, etc. as Jones does. In fact he just asserts that. No word study or anything. From my experience that is a rather esoteric reading.
Now the Bible is clear that “those who are not with Me are against Me” (very rough paraphrase) and portrays the world often as sharply divided between the lost and the found, the spiritual and the carnal, etc. But that would equally apply to all non-Christian groups in the eyes of conservative Christians. So the Jew is an “enemy of God” in the same way the Muslim is or the atheist is. That is in the spiritual sense.
That Jews contribute disproportionately to whatever is not really a theological or spiritual issue. It is a political/cultural/sociological issue. Unless you suggest some sort of spiritual curse. But that suggestion would have to be based on Scripture. Not from drawing theological conclusions from p/c/s data. I hope I am making sense.
I have heard the anti-Semitic charge against Jones for awhile, but he seems to be more open in his criticisms lately after being attacked. As I suggested in the Sharpe thread, I think the zero tolerance of anti-Semitism and the suppression of debate strategy, causes those who might be less strident to become more so and to enter into associations they would otherwise shun.
I think the current atmosphere of virulent anti-anti-Semitism, like virulent anti-Racism, makes intelligent conversation impossible. But I agree that it is possible to end up defending things that you wouldn’t otherwise defend in the act of being anti-anti-anti-Semitism. So it is important to distinguish that you are counter-attacking the attacker (the forces of PC) and not necessarily defending the attacked. (Imus, Coulter, and Hardaway come to mind.)
(For the sake of clarity, in my mind the two “anti” anti-anti-Semitism is equivalent to the single “anti” anti-Racism meaning the vigilant opposition to either. So I would say the “syllogistic traps” of anti-anti-anti-Semitism. [My head hurts.] But I think we mean the same thing.)
T. Chan on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:23 am #
Logos is quite actually flexible–from its use in Greek philosophy to its incorporation by the Church Fathers. To use logos analogically to refer to Christ and to reason or truth is not foreign to the Christian theological tradition. A more recent play on this word can be found in Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech.
T. Chan on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:52 am #
But I do think Dr. Jones goes too far. It’s one thing for a Christian to claim that the religion of the Jews who rejected Christ is not the same as the religion of the Jews who came before Christ, or that it is not revealed or “authentic.” But it is another to claim that those who reject Christ by that very fact embrace anarchy, etc.
He writes: “and there are Jews who accept it in some lesser capacity by their docility to the truth.”
But isn’t it possible for a Jew to reject Christ without guilt, through ignorance, etc.? It seems so. If he admits this, then he undermines his own thesis.
Bede on 27 Apr 2007 at 1:39 am #
In Classical Greek, logos can mean word, reason, thought, account, consideration, etc. Its scope of meaning is actually quite broad. What exactly John means by it, though, is a matter of debate.
Patroon on 27 Apr 2007 at 6:08 pm #
Test
Friend of Sam's on 27 Apr 2007 at 7:23 pm #
Among other things, here’s what’s wrong with Mr. Jones’s rant (from his concluding paragraphs):
“We have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no we. We are a nation of nations, and that is all we have ever been.”
In other words, Mr. Jones denies that there is an American identity. He denies that whites have — or should have — a racial identity. By his comments about lacking an established religion and the absence of a royal family, he also strongly suggests that only those two things provide a people with their identity — which puts him at odds with America’s Founding Fathers in more ways than one. Thus Mr. Jones is the political and cultural opponent of those who seek to forge and recapture a racial/cultural identity that can resist our destruction. He is therefore an opponent of everything Sam Francis stood for and worked for. Mr. Jones is a religious multiculturalist and the enemy of white consciousness and white solidarity.
Ron Lewenberg on 28 Apr 2007 at 9:08 am #
Mr. Lee,
“Jews are generally leftwing in Western matters and right wing in Israeli matters”
It would be a mistake to generalise on Jewish views on Israel. I know very few Jews who are truly right-wing nationalists on Israel and left-wing on Western matters. It may have been true as late as the 1970′s, but not today. There are too many shared enemies (commies, trazies, Frankfurt-school left, Third worldists, post-nationalists, and Islamists).
That is not to say that there are not disagreements. I think that purely religious issues can be touchy. I think that there is an atavistic fear of public religion. It leads some to oppose both creches and the creation of unobtrusive Eruvs (Jewish neighborhoods closed off by a closeline, to allow Jews to conduct certain secular activities on the Sabbath).
Most of the Jews you are thinking of are liberals who make exceptions for Israel and have difficulties when called on it. Hence they fold like a deck of cards. For instance the AJC is funding anti-Zionist tours in Israel now and the JNF sells land to Arabs.
“perhaps simply because they have little respect for the West after having been persecuted for so long or because as minorities they do not identify with it. ”
Fear and resentment play a large part in the objectively suicidal behavior of groups, which percieve themselves as oppressed.
“Frankfurt School, Boasianism, and neoconservatism were all predominantly Jewish whether the participants were observant or not. ”
The Frankfurt school is an attack on religion and culture. It is an act of self-hatred by a former Jew to susbscribe to this theory. On the other hand, levels of religious observence and cultural affiliations are not tied to being neo-conservative. If they were, then one would think that as a rarely observent Manhattanite I would be a neoconservative.
“Then you’ve got Engels and Marx, and the major role Jews played in Bolshevism and the civil rights movement.”
Not to nitpick, but Engels and Marx were lapsed Protestants. Marx’s father had the family convert and break ties with the Jewish community for professional reasons. In fact, I suspect that Karl’s hatred of Judaism was taught by his father’s rejection of the faith of his grandfather, a rabbi. Of course, Karl had his own daddy issues, hating capitalism. Engels, whose father was a protestant industrialist was the first communist dilitant, subsidized by parents he hated.
I don’t see what this has to do with Judaism. All Communists were antio-Jewish starting with Marx. I suggest you read “On the Jewish Question” were he calls for the end of Judaism as a way of freeing Jews and humanity from hucksterism.
Bolsheviks all but banned the practice of Judaism. Like priests, rabbis were sent to Gulags. Those caught leading services were tried for either counter-revolutionary activies or for the crime of Zionism.
” The ADL and SPLC are clearly anti-West.”
And they go after Jewish groups too.
“While the ethnic cleansing in the Middle East is probably the only possible solution for saving Israel from its bloodthirsty neighbors, it can’t be supported without a double standard since such actions would be condemned if done by anyone else. The same can be said for segregation; somehow it’s only OK for Israel to do it.”
I seem to remember the US was conquered too. History did not end in 1946 with the creation of the communist UN.
“Didn’t Gottfried’s daughter marry a fairly patriotic Jew as well?”
I don’t know. I know Professor Gottfried only through correspondence and mutual acquantences.
“Judaism has two definitions doesn’t it? 1 ethnicity, 2 religion and traditions”
“Judaism” is the RELIGION.
“Jews” are the people/ethnicity
“Jewish” is the adjective used for those cultural traditions. However, I would note that there are many Jewish communities. What Ameircan’s think of as “Jewish” isbasically Eastern and Centeral European Jewish. Ashkenazi Jews account for about 7.5 to 8 million of the 13 million Jews.
“To a Catholic the Jews went on to become Christians, eh? Those who rejected Christ were heretics. I don’t think this should be taken as a bad statement.”
So, Mr. Jones would not take offense when a Muslim tells him that Christianity is a heresy created in the 7th century when Christians failed to accept the previous truth of Mohammed?
Somehow I doubt it.
Ron Lewenberg on 28 Apr 2007 at 9:56 am #
Filmer,
I am not trying to define a belief as anti-Semitic. But it is anti-Jewish.
If you believe that Jews are followers of the devil or definitional revolutionaries, then what should I call the belief?
I would ignore it, except that it is used as the basis of a political argument. As politics, I have every right to attack it. By the way, why is it that Jones can condemn Jewish belief (actually wrongly) without you standing up for the right of belief?
You are annoyed at censorious “anti-anti-semitism” and ignore your own double standard. Was it an oversight because I responded so quickly or is it that you are not used to different perceptions? Perhaps it did not occur to you that Jones attacked Judaism because this WAS Catholic dogma? (I believe that the Vatican has changed position)
“It follows that what matters is correctly interpreting it, not whether we like the results. You can’t ask people to change their religious beliefs because they lead to bad thoughts. I guess you can, like the homosexuals asking Christians to reject the condemnation of homosexuality.”
1) I am not asking for a theological change.
2) In so far as it affects policy debate, I can question motives, especially when the author mixes theology with lies and historical distortion.
3. Homosexuality is universally condemned in the Bible. There is no way to interepret it out.
“Some Jews have been guilty of this. For example, the suggestion that the Gospel of John is anti-Semitic. For many Christians, John is inspired so to suggest it is anti-Semitic is to question inspiration. This seems unwise. Even if you accept the premise, which I don’t, is the anti-Semitism inspired by John worse than the anti-Semitism that could result from a perceived attack on the Scriptures?”
I am not attacking the Gospel of John. However, the author could look to interpretation from the Gospel of Mark, which provides a very different context.
In Mark the reason for Jesus’ execution is that he is a threat to civil order and may bring bloodshed. Given the historical context that MR. Jones chose to lie about, the argument makes sense. There were plenty of Messianic claimants leading revolts. These included Jews and even a Samaritan claiming to be the re-incarnation of Moses. (Please see Livius.org)
I would also note that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Judaism as “an elder sibling”. If he is a Catholic, his theological opinion is not that of Pope John Pal II and Pope Benedict. If he is Protestant, then it says something about Jones that he chooses the harshest interpretation from the Gospel of John and mixes it with lies about Judaism and historical inaccuracy rather than looking at the Gospel of Mark.
“I think he is playing fast and loose with the word Logos. Logos (usually translated Word I believe) is another name for Christ I think.”
I thought that “logos” meant “word, thought, purpose, reason and meaning”. Given the multiple meanings, all of which work for the Talmud, I like my response. Perhaps I should have noted the capitalization of the word. He meant “The Word”.
When I read John 1:1, I see multiple meanings making sense in a way that would parallel the idea of the Trinity.
“As I suggested in the Sharpe thread, I think the zero tolerance of anti-Semitism and the suppression of debate strategy, causes those who might be less strident to become more so and to enter into associations they would otherwise shun.”
Is this a “society’s fault” argument, the “Jews made me do it” or are you saying that calling them on their beliefs “proves their beliefs in being persecuted, making their criticism of Jews rational?
“I think the current atmosphere of virulent anti-anti-Semitism, like virulent anti-Racism, makes intelligent conversation impossible. But I agree that it is possible to end up defending things that you wouldn’t otherwise defend in the act of being anti-anti-anti-Semitism. So it is important to distinguish that you are counter-attacking the attacker (the forces of PC) and not necessarily defending the attacked. (Imus, Coulter, and Hardaway come to mind.)”
Rational intelligent conversation is exactly what we do need. That is why I am writing here. ANTI anti-anti-Semitism seems to blind people from the flaws of those they have a desire to defend. It’s a persecution complex. Think of it like those people who defend some on the basis of race or think that cops are always right.
Bede on 28 Apr 2007 at 12:34 pm #
Ron,
Out of curiosity, would you say that you agree with paleos on most issues, except perhaps Israel? (And even on Israel there is much disagreement among paleos.)
Obviously you support traditional (i.e. blood and soil, kith and kin) nationhood for Israel. Do you support this for Western countries as well?
Why do you deny there’s a double standard?
Just look at Bill Kristol. He thinks the U.S. should give billions to support the borders of Israel but supports the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S. There is clearly a double standard here.
.
Filmer on 28 Apr 2007 at 2:22 pm #
Ron,
I think you are over interpreting what I am saying. I am less hostile than you think.
Jews are not followers of the Devil except in the dichotomous sense that I described. But they are certainly not Anton Levay style Satanist. Nor do I think they are definitional revolutionaries or definitional enemies in any way other than the dichotomous sense – rebellion against what Christians believe to be the revealed Truth. But they are no more so than a Muslim, a Mormon, or an atheist from the point of view of conservative Christianity. Jews are lost souls in need of the Savior, as are all non-Christians.
Now there are a few who believe in salvation outside of Christ for the Jews, such as John Hagee, but his position is considered borderline heretical in conservative evangelical circles. Conservative evangelical Christianity is exclusivist. Actually the Catholic Church is more open to an inclusivist interpretation than are conservative Protestants. I believe the Catholic Church teaches that those outside the Church who are saved are saved via the work of Christ on the cross, so their salvation is through Christ, they just don’t know it. Conservative Protestants have a great deal of trouble with this doctrine, and consider it borderline heretical if not outright heretical. When Pope John Paul articulated this idea it caused a stir in conservative Protestant circles.
But I think I have been very consistent. I think it is problematic to define a group as a definitional enemy. The problem is what the group does. So if Jews give disproportionately to liberal causes, that is a problem. But it is that behavior that is the problem, and we should focus our appeals on why that is a bad idea.
But I have said the same thing about Muslims. There is an awful lot of defining Islam as the definitional enemy going on on the pro-War rights. Would you agree? Just as it is problematic to says Jews are inherently in opposition to their host culture, it is also problematic to say that Islam is inherently Jihadist. That is why I defended Dinesh D’Souza even though he slurred paleos in the past. He was attacked because he broke from the party line that Islam is the inherent, definitional enemy.
I think I have made it clear, and if I haven’t I am now, that my attacks against the current PC environment is just that, an attack against PC. It is not necessarily a defense of the person being attacked. I don’t even like Don Imus except his cowboy hat. But I defended him because his ouster is one more notch in the belt of the PC thought police. It emboldens them, and frightens those who should be speaking out.
And Jones is a very partisan Catholic, BTW.
I will respond to Friend of Sam later.
J.D. on 28 Apr 2007 at 6:03 pm #
Friend of Sam:
“Mr. Jones is a religious multiculturalist and the enemy of white consciousness and white solidarity.”
The latter assertion is quite true, the former absurd to anyone who understands where Catholic reactionaries such as Jones are coming from.
“So, Mr. Jones would not take offense when a Muslim tells him that Christianity is a heresy created in the 7th century when Christians failed to accept the previous truth of Mohammed?
Somehow I doubt it.”
Actually I would not be offended at all; that is precisely the position I would expect a Muslim to take, assuming he is both serious and honest about Islam. What we need to emphasize is that religious claims are claims about Truth.
One can regard any particular religion as bunk — or all religions as bunk — but to expect an adherent of a religion to refuse to follow his faith all the way to its logical conclusions out of fear of being too exclusive, or of scandalizing non-adherents, is a fundamentally problematic way of understanding what religion is.
Personally I think many rad-trad Catholics are carried away with the whole “Zionist” question and become what Dr. Thomas Fleming has referred to as “single-issue kooks” who want to pin all the ills of modernity to a single simple cause — i.e. some are obsessed solely with Marxism, others with the Civil War, others with the Israel Question — but that’s not the same as saying they are wicked people.
Jones’ remarks strike me not as rabidly anti-Semitic nor as entirely innaccurate, but rather as being inappropriate to the occasion.
J.D. on 28 Apr 2007 at 6:05 pm #
My mistake; the second remark I quoted was from Ron, vice “Friend of Sam”.
Filmer on 28 Apr 2007 at 11:11 pm #
Let me clarify a point. One thing that became clearer to me as I followed the Dinesh D’Souza debate is that the objection to Islam is not just that it is inherently Jihadist, which is debatable, but that it is inherently illiberal, which is true. “How can we spread liberal democracy with these backwards recalcitrants standing in the way?” The problem that I have with Islam is not that it is illiberal. Obviously I am illiberal. The problem is that it is not true. But as J.D. points out, dogmatic truth claims are poorly tolerated in our “tolerant” times.
Filmer on 28 Apr 2007 at 11:28 pm #
Here is an evangelical Christian critique of John Hagee. Not because John Hagee is of importance to this discussion, but it illustrates very well conservative evangelical commitment to exclusivity. There are some who would label exclusivity as inherently anti-Semitic. I am not suggesting Ron would, but some Jews have.
So you run the risk of defining conservative Christians as inherently the enemy of other faiths. Jones was going above and beyond an exclusivity argument, but perhaps you understand my unease at defining theological beliefs as anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish.
http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm
RonL on 30 Apr 2007 at 7:54 am #
Bede,
“Out of curiosity, would you say that you agree with paleos on most issues, except perhaps Israel?”
I agree with paleoconservatives on most domestic issues. Philosophically, however, I am a Federalist and a nationalist.
“Obviously you support traditional (i.e. blood and soil, kith and kin) nationhood for Israel. Do you support this for Western countries as well?”
Yes, however I believe in contextual nationalism, not a mythical nationalism. Every European nation has traditionally had core ethnic groups and minorities. Spain has Basques and Catalonians. Sweden has the Skone and Saami/Lapps. …. Jews and Roma/Gypsies were all over.
So long as minorities speak the common language, do not threaten the political order, and are loyal then their cultural rights should be respected.
“Why do you deny there’s a double standard?
Just look at Bill Kristol. He thinks the U.S. should give billions to support the borders of Israel but supports the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S. There is clearly a double standard here.”
1) Kristol’s dream of a democratic middle east would undermine a Jewish state. At best he is delusional, even in his dream.
2) The steps necessary to secure Israel are not those which he would support. He would not support the expulsion of Arabs from the disputed territories. He certainly would not support any actions against the increasingly radicalized Arab-Israelis.
3) Of course there is a double standard for Israel. However, he holds a double standard for America on many issues. He is a liberal, who cannot face his internal contradictions.
RonL on 30 Apr 2007 at 8:19 am #
Filmer,
I understand the theological argument, which you are making. However, that is not what Jones said. I have read the entire Christian Scriptures including the Catholic Bible, the King James, and some of the texts included only in the Ethiopian Canon back when I was a religion minor.
“But I have said the same thing about Muslims. There is an awful lot of defining Islam as the definitional enemy going on on the pro-War rights. Would you agree? Just as it is problematic to says Jews are inherently in opposition to their host culture, it is also problematic to say that Islam is inherently Jihadist. That is why I defended Dinesh D’Souza even though he slurred paleos in the past. He was attacked because he broke from the party line that Islam is the inherent, definitional enemy.”
I look at doctrine and actions. Muslims are commanded to take over the world. Jihad is a tneet of their faith. Their Prophet and model started genocidal wars or conquest. There is 1400 years of history here.
For Jews, such behavior, is specifically limited to the land of Israel. Moreover, it is something we agonize over in Talmudic discussion.
Finally, I have never said that all Muslims are a threat. However, those Muslims who believe that America should become Muslims, either through conquest or conversion are a threat. Unfortunately, that is not a radical position, but an orthodox position.
As for Dinesh D’Souza, he has admitted that his knowledge of Islam comes from reading Bernard Lewis, an apologist for Jihad who does not write on “dhimmitde”. Thus D’Souza was, at best, disingenuous to write about these. At worst, he was just lying and then slandering those who told the Politically Incorrect truth.
And the truth of Islam is one that neoconservatives cannot abide. If it is true, then Muslims are not infinitely malleable or interchangeable with Westerners. To defend D’Souza, is to defend one of the ideological presumptions of the Democratiziation camp.
But I can also see why those understand civilizations fear talking about Jihad. To do so would be to recognize that we face an enemy whose population is in the hundreds of millions, if you assume that say 1/4 of Muslims are Islamist. Then you look at history and realize that this is not a 5 year war, but a 500 year way and it is frightening, because we cannot walk away from it.
Might I suggest that you read “The Sword of the Prophet” by Sjdja Trifkovic, an editor at “Chronicles”?
Jihadwatch.com and Lawrence Auster’s Vew From the Right (www.amnation.com/vfr) are also worth reading on this.
Ron
Filmer on 30 Apr 2007 at 6:52 pm #
Ron,
I think the jury is still out on whether Islam is inherently Jihadist. There are parts of the Koran that are and parts that are not. I haven’t ruled it in, and I haven’t ruled it out. I am aware of where Trifkovic stands. After I wrote my defense of Dinesh, I heard from one of the Chronicle’s people wanting a clarification.
There is much historical evidence of Muslims invading and seeking to expand their sphere of influence, but I am not sure how you separate out what was honestly religiously motivated and what was just a group seeking to expand as groups have been doing since the dawn of man. (I think you could say that there is less in Islam that would prohibit agressive expansion than there is in Christianity. I certainly do not buy the argument that Islam is a religion of peace.) The Ottoman Empire was not particularly religious. But there is also a history of relatively peaceful co-existence. The Middle East has always been a trade route from West to East and from Africa. The Muslims of the Middle East were historically known for being merchants. You can’t make much money if you kill off all your potential customers. So the history is a mixed bag. Ideological Jihadism is arguably a relatively recent development.
I do think the neocons are in a bind here. On the one hand, humans are infinitely pliable and on the other Muslims are by definition intransient. I think the neos see the Muslims as an aberration the same way they grew to see the Russians. Many still see the Germans that way as well. So all of mankind is yearning to be free except Muslims (or Russians or Germans or Southerners) so they must be beaten into submission or eliminated. (Of course the South example pre-dates modern neo-conservatism but applies well to its predecessor of lapsed Puritan Yankees.)
I am sure you are familiar with David Yerushalmi. He made the point above at Intellectual Conservative. (I’ll find the quote if I can.) Muslims and Russians are the great exceptions according to neocons.
The issue is that Jihadist Muslims in America is an immigration problem, not a military one. The ones overseas are a containment and diplomacy problem, not a go to war problem. You can’t declare a group of people numbering in the hundreds of millions, as you point out, all mortal enemies. The potential outcome of that logic is, to use my favorite word, problematic. See where I think I am being consistent here?
Where I think we really disagree is on the issue of nationalism. I am not a nationalist. I am a regionalist. I support Basque independence for example. The modern nation state is the problem. Secession, smallness and decentralization challenge the modern state.