Ah, the old country . . .

A similar song from a decade later is “Analyse” from Wake Up and Smell the Coffee:

I love how utterly lacking in pretense O’Riordan is. She dances like this in concert, too. A free spirit . . .

The official video is just weird and creepy.

The song is from No Need to Argue, released in A.D. 1994.

The opening act was the very energetic Vintage Trouble. During the act, I kept on thinking how delighted my mother would have been to be there. It was her kind of music. The band calls itself “vintage,” and I felt as if I were visiting my parents’ era. The lead Ty Taylor has the voice and showmanship of a black Baptist turned 1960’s pop star. The crowd loved it.

The time warp continued when Dolores O’Riordan and her mates took the stage as I was transported back to my childhood. I had friends who were savants of the European music scene in the early 90’s, and they introduced me to The Cranberries before the band went mainstream. I did not care for O’Riordan’s style at first, but I quickly became a fan. It was fun to see them in person two decades later as an adult surrounded by all age groups that came out for the concert.

Though the members are no longer young—O’Riordan is forty years old—they put on a good show. O’Riordan was feisty and enjoyed herself in a silly, youthful way, though with commentary between songs about her children. At one point, a fan gave O’Riordan a stuffed University of Maryland Terrapin, which she set in front of the drum set until the end of the show. After the encore, she took the turtle with her off the stage, which was endearing. Band members Noel Hogan, Mike Hogan, and Fergal Lawler also delighted in the music. Lawler has some impressive guns, by the way. I suppose that such proves quite useful for a drummer.

The band played many favorites from their discography run as well as songs from their new album, Roses, such as “Tomorrow.” The highlight of the concert was the last song before the encore, “Zombie,” when the band and the crowd reached the Dionysian unity that typifies successful rock performances. Here is the video from A.D. 1994, complete with yet more eery and confusing religious imagery in addition to topical scenes for a song about the British conflict:

My only criticism of the night would be the loudness and the consequent loss of sound quality. The 9:30 Club has massive speakers that you can feel in your pancreas—and everywhere else. I still like the place, and I am glad that I finally saw The Cranberries live.

What is up with the rosary? A funereal scene, perhaps? O’Riordan and her oddly placed Catholic imagery . . .

In fact, of course, the human good is far more complex, and far more part of how we live, than dominant opinion now assumes. When we are acting reasonably, we don’t want particular things that we think are good so much as a good way of life. We want particular things because we see them as part of a way of life that we aspire to, and believe we should aspire to, because it embodies a standard (such as closeness to God or an ideal of a life well lived) that seems worth living by. So the human good is not at all like having lots of money. Whether viewed from a commonsense, philosophical, or religious point of view, it’s part of a whole way of life infused with goods like truth and beauty that exceed our grasp and can’t be transferred or made to order.

Such a way of life requires more than the efforts of individuals, markets, and bureaucracies, the agencies liberalism accepts as authoritative. Other social institutions are needed to provide a setting for complex non-economic relations and commitments. A society can only be just and good if it helps the family be the family, communities be communities, the Church be the Church, and so on, all so that human beings can be human beings. Social justice isn’t a big, unified machine that delivers equal amounts of stuff to each of us and keeps us from interfering with each other, but a complex condition in which not only individuals but a variety of associations get what they need so that each can make its contribution to human life.

That is a basic point distinguishing Catholic social teaching, which takes the complexity of human goods seriously, from current views that make a unified, rational, and efficient system for satisfying individual preferences the goal of political life. Principles such as the right to life, the rights of the family, the complementarity of the sexes, the need for sexual restraint, the freedom of the Church, the real though conditioned rights of private property, and the general principle of subsidiarity are not arbitrary, dogmatic add-ons to a basically liberal view that identifies solidarity and the preferential option for the poor with a global welfare state. They stand for a radically different understanding of what makes for a good life and a good society.

That understanding accepts nature and tradition as basically good although needing correction, and it rejects centrally-administered social policies in favor of widely distributed initiative and authority. It is therefore the least tyrannical of all views. It is often considered conservative, because it provides support for traditional American ideals—patriotism, federalism, limited government, private property, freedom of religion, individual responsibility, family values—that are threatened by what liberalism has become. It is not simply conservative, however, because it moderates and completes those ideals, and brings out what is best in them, by bringing them into a connected system rooted in a definite understanding of God and man. Thus, for example, it makes private property a responsibility as well as a right; makes freedom of religion a public as well as personal matter by pointing to the place of God in human affairs; and supports and limits patriotism by loyalty to Church, family, and local community.

Liberals, libertarians, socialists, social capitalists, and Communists all see man primarily as a giant appetite. Is it a surprise, then, that when they succeed in directing a regime, its people let themselves be ruled by their passions? Such men are, as Lewis said, without chests, as well as being headless. They are but consumers that feast upon the sights, sounds, and touches of the world—grotesque beings with sense and sex organs that surround a stomach but with no heart. Perverse constitutions that misunderstand human nature cultivate perverse souls. Hey, let’s stop bothering with all this boring stuff and watch The Jersey Shore!

The AHC seeks to help preserve the corporate identity and heritage of the People Israel within the Church. By gathering the Jews who have entered the Church, we hope to help them rekindle and live out their collective vocation, giving corporate witness to Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and His Church.

A.H.C president David Moss provides an informative interview for Faith Magazine: “Are Jewish Converts still Jewish?”

The problem of Jewish identity may briefly be described as follows. When a Jew enters the Church, he enters into a community and culture that has become sociologically, for want of a better word, Gentile. The term Gentile refers to the non-Israelite peoples of the world.

Consequently, the Jewish convert is separated from his people, his culture and his heritage. Then, through assimilation to the prevailing culture, his offspring are no longer considered part of the People Israel.

Most importantly, the corporate vocation given to the People Israel can no longer be fulfilled, either in the convert or in his offspring. This is the case because, since the 3rd or 4th century, the People Israel have not had a corporate presence in the Church. Thus, in the Jews that enter the Church, the People terminate.

What do you mean, the people terminate?

The basic way that Jews preserve themselves and their heritage is through their offspring. The Jewish community recognizes the offspring as a Jew and, therefore, a member of the People Israel. Through the community, the individual is given his or her identity as a member of that community.

However, when a Jew enters the Church and marries, there is no community recognition of the offspring as members of the People Israel. Thus, the offspring, in effect, become Gentile. And even if the family attempts to preserve some aspects of their heritage, by the second or third generation, those aspects have disappeared and the offspring have completely lost any sense of their identity as Israelites.

So, even if the convert continues to describe himself in terms of his Jewish origins, the preservation of the People through his offspring comes to a halt. Thus, my statement that ‘the People terminate’.

That explains why, when I was interviewing a Rabbi about interfaith marriage, he stated that every Jew that converts or marries and does not raise their children Jewish - that is like another Holocaust. I was startled by the comment. Is this what he was referring to?

Yes. The way it’s communicated doesn’t add clarity. But, the Rabbi uses the term holocaust in the sense of how many Jews are lost. The People Israel have a God-given vocation in this world. They, therefore, also have an obligation to preserve themselves and their vocation.

Auster addresses the same issue in his post, “Made Whole.” When one of Auster’s readers, a Jewish Christian, noted that he felt alienated due to his becoming a Christian, Auster responded:

Two caveats. First, I would say that while some Jews have an intense negative reaction against Jews who have become Christians, not all do.

Second, I, as a Jew who became a Christian, want to assure Jewish readers, who may be concerned on this point, that I have no design to use this site to encourage the conversion of Jews to Christianity. In this area, I am truly a respecter of individuality and of the uniqueness of the Jewish people.

I first expressed my thoughts on this subject many years ago when a Christian friend asked a question that Christians often ask: “Why didn’t the Jews at the time of Jesus become Christians?”

I answered more or less as follows:

Under Judaism, the believers come into relationship with God by collectively following the Jewish law. Under Christianity, the believers comes into relationship with God by individually following Jesus Christ. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, two different approaches to God. They are not interchangeable. If the Jews had become Christians, they would have ceased to exist as Jews. Since they were the recipients and legatees of the first revelation of the true God, which they naturally valued above all else, it would have been unreasonable to expect them to give that up, to give up the Jewish dispensation, to give up their very identity and existence as a people formed around that dispensation, in order to become followers of Jesus. Of course some Jews, who were called, did follow Jesus. But the majority didn’t. While I believe that the Christian revelation is higher and truer and more complete than the Jewish revelation, the Jewish revelation, as the predecessor of the Christian revelation and the very condition of its existence, should be respected.

I then wrote the following comment. Auster’s response commentary is in bold:

I do not believe that Providence drives history in an absolute sense. The world is too wicked, and there are far too many nobler and better roads untraveled. God works with us and through us, but it appears as if he refuses to play chess with men as his pawns. That said, I often wonder why something like a “Mosaic rite” never came to pass.

I empathize with your view of rabbinical Judaism. It would be a loss to see its wisdom perish. Yet, Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. [LA replies: This is one of Jesus’ statements in which he is speaking his own language, not ordinary language. He may have meant that he was fulfilling the Jewish law in the true, spiritual sense, but from the ordinary point of view of the Jews, he certainly was coming to destroy it. There is no question that his teachings meant the end of the Jewish religion, for example, of the laws governing the Sabbath. So let’s drop the Kumbaya and frankly admit that there was an either-or situation here.] I wondered why you reacted so negatively when Ann Coulter had her episode with Donny Deutsch [covered here]. Perhaps, your opinion about the everlastingness of the covenant played a part. However, I do not see why there could not be a rabbinical expression of Christianity for the descendents of Jacob. It appears that such was the early Church in Palestine and among the diaspora communities throughout the empire. Had more Jews converted, then perhaps something like Mosaic law Christians would have survived. As it was, Jewish Christians were absorbed into the general mass of Christians, the vast majority of which converted from the nations.

I also do not think that Christians come to Jesus Christ as individuals. That is a rather modern, and to be frank, Protestant, manner of describing Christianity. The gospel is not a set of intellectual doctrines but rather the life in Christ, which is a life of being fellow members of one body. Christianity is essentially communal, even for the hermit in the desert. [LA replies: Good point about the communal nature of Christianity, but at the same time Jesus is constantly telling his disciples what they need to do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and in the Gospel of John this is primarily through the relationship of the individual person with Jesus Christ. A community of believers may share in that relationship, but each individual must have it. Paul said, “Work out your own salvation.” Each of us is an individual self and center of consciousness. Even within a church community, each of us must experience for ourselves—and thus each of us must figure out in practical terms for ourselves—what the Way consists of.]

I certainly do not know what is correct when it comes to the relationship / extension / fulfillment of God’s covenant(s) with man. Yet, it seems reasonable to think that the Mosaic law, and the special way of life that developed among the Jews, does not preclude Christianity. It was the seed bed of the apostolic mission. I see no reason why it needed to end. I suspect that thoughts to the contrary demonstrate a spectacular success for hell’s strategic planning.

P.S. Thank you for your post on Saint Mark’s gospel. I find it odd that few people comment on the humor in the scripture. The reaction of the disciples to Jesus’ comment about having been touched is very funny. Like the boy who fell asleep and then out of the window during Paul’s preaching—no one seems to notice that they’re funny.

I therefore find it heartening that there is an organized effort to establish something like what I proposed to Auster in the Roman Church. Moss continues in his explanation of his association’s purpose:

Our goal is to preserve the identity and heritage of Israelites within the Catholic Church, through the establishment of a Hebrew Catholic Community juridically approved by the Holy See.

By identity, I mean their election (calling, vocation). The election is a choice of God that applies to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is, to the People Israel of the flesh. It is collective and it is eternal.

Today, the Jew who enters the Church is unable to fulfill his vocation as a member of the People. Instead, he enters the Church and assimilates to the prevailing culture.

Isn’t this true of all cultures or is that not a fair question?

There are similarities. You can look at converts from other peoples, cultures and religions and, at times, see their own people turn against them because they feel like the convert has betrayed them.

In these cases, we are dealing with human nature. In the case of the People Israel, however, the issue is of a people created, formed, and preserved by God, a people still intimately connected to the ongoing drama of salvation history.

For example, the Catechism states that Jesus will not return until all Israel recognizes Him. Thus, it appears that there is a connection between that part of the People Israel we identify as Jews and the second coming of Jesus.

Yet, how will His people recognize Him if they are not given the opportunity to consider the Gospel? And, since the program of the Church today, with respect to the Jews, is one of dialogue, not evangelization, how will the opportunity to consider the Gospel arise?

I believe the dialogue is important and good because of the history of Catholic Jewish relations. Healing, respect, trust, honest communications, learning about the other, and shared efforts in the social arena are all necessary and important.

Yet, the dialogue has its problems. One problem arises from the efforts of some Catholics within the dialogue, as is also the case in other Catholic disciplines, to re-interpret Scripture and Tradition to the detriment of the Catholic Faith. Thus, in attempting to deal with issues that have negatively and unjustly affected the Jews, they are betraying the Catholic Faith.

What do you mean? Who is betraying the Catholic Faith?

Let me give an example outside of the dialogue which takes an extreme form: the Jesus seminar. Here, theologians vote on whether passages really reflect the words of Jesus or not. When one looks at the results of their votes, one finds that the New Testament has completely lost its character as the inspired Word of God. Others have questioned or challenged the truths of the virgin birth, the resurrection of our Lord, the miracles of the loaves, and so forth. I could go on.

Within the dialogue, you will find the aberrant notion that there are two parallel paths to salvation: one for the Jews, which is Rabbinical Judaism, and one for the Gentiles, which is Christianity. Of course, one may ask: How then do we explain that the Church was formed by Jews? that Jesus, Mary, the apostles and almost all the early believers were Jews?

Overall, however, the dialogue is necessary, important, and producing good fruit.

Returning to your original question about the goals of the AHC: I already mentioned our primary aim that is focused on preserving the People Israel within the Church. With the establishment of a Hebrew Catholic Community, the other major aim will begin to develop, that is, restoring the heritage of Israel to the life of the Church.

For 3,500 years, God has formed the People Israel. There is much in their literature, their culture, and in their spiritual and moral disciplines that will edify Catholics. God has given them certain gifts and called them, as a Servant People, to be a blessing to the nations. As a People living out their vocation within the Church, I believe they will be a blessing to the life and mission of the Church, and to their brethren outside the Church, the Jewish people.

I do not yet know what ecclesiastical format the Hebrew Catholic Community will take. There is much work that has to be done by theologians and those involved with canon law.

Scripture states that “for everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven.” The AHC makes the case that the time is at hand to restore the People Israel, as a People, to the life of the Church.

So in Acts, where they discuss the problem of Gentiles entering the Church, the issue was do Gentiles need to become Jews before they can become Christian. What you are saying is that it is reversed? Now the question is can you be a Jew and become Christian?

Yes. Let me state the question as it has been asked of me: “Can I, a Jew, become a Christian without becoming a Gentile?”

In Acts, the Church was made up primarily of Jews. Through observance of the Torah, the People Israel had been formed by God to be a holy people, separated from the pagan world surrounding them. The Mosaic laws not only formed them, but it preserved them as a people.

In the New Covenant, where the Gentiles were being grafted onto the People Israel through baptism, the following dilemma faced the Jews: How were they to retain their identity if they now no longer had to observe all of the Mosaic laws?

For example, the laws regarding ritual purity (such as the dietary laws), had helped keep them a distinct people. But, in the new dispensation, Jews began to eat with Gentiles. It became apparent that their distinctiveness could no longer be preserved through these laws. And in those early days, while the understanding of what Jesus had taught was developing, you can read in the New Testament where some of the early Jewish followers of Jesus continued to observe the Torah. In fact, this situation continued through the next two or three centuries, while the People Israel maintained a corporate presence in the early Church.

But the reversal of the situation in Acts is not the only reversal we are witnessing. St. Paul, speaking to the Gentiles, taught that they, the Gentiles, had received mercy because of the failure of the majority of the Jews to believe in Jesus. But a time would come when the Gentiles, who had the faith, would lose it. And, from their failure, the Jews would again receive mercy. And with mercy, all Israel would be saved, bringing about the return to faith of the apostate Gentiles. I believe we have entered that phase of salvation history.

As I wrote in “The Vain Queen Consort,” ethnic chauvinism has been a stumbling block for the Jews, and Moss and such men must be vigilant not to succumb to this tendency. I find his use of “gentile” for non-Hebrew Christians somewhat problematic. The world is full of many nations, and I do not think that the Lord intends for their dissolution. John writes of the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation:

I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Auster thus comments:

In the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, there are still distinct nations, and kings of nations, and these are the glories of humanity which are brought before the throne of God, and there transfigured in the light of Christ. Mankind, following the end of the world, is still providentially constituted of separate nations, which give it its character and distinctiveness, even as, for example, our earth is constituted of separate continents, islands, mountain ranges, and valleys, which give it its shape and its meaning. The physical earth is not a homogenous mass consisting of nothing but “equal” individual particles, and neither, in the biblical view, is mankind.

We need to keep such passages along with God’s covenants in mind when we ponder Paul’s letter to the Galatians:

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

As human sexuality is part of God’s plan, so are the nations. Yet, there is a more fundamental unity through Christ, who redeems and transfigures us into something even higher than the apex of creation. As such, Moss’ basic categorization of men into Hebrews and the nations—that is, everyone else—appears to go against two thousand years of Christian practice. If we are to dismiss heretical revisionism that has delusions of recovering the “authentic gospel” from “Pauline distortions,” we must take the tradition seriously. I am open to exploring roads not traveled, as mentioned above, and I would welcome a development of something like my imagined Mosaic rite, but the primary distinction among men for Christians is between those who have answered the invitation to come to the feast and those who have not yet answered. If certain merrymakers wear distinctive hats and eat special foods, then there is room at the banquet for such differences.

Moreover, we mortals do not know who will be kicked out of the party for having come unprepared, and we do not know who may be on the way to the festivities though they have not yet arrived. So, we ought to beware of triumphalism due to our presence at the festival.

I wish Moss and his friends the best in their endeavors. I would like to see the same development in the Orthodox Church. When I was researching places to visit in Jerusalem, I discovered Archpriest Aleksandr Abraham Winogradsky Frenkel, who serves at Saint Nicholas Orthodox Church in the Old City. He shepherds a multiethnic, multilingual parish, where the services are in Hebrew on Saturdays. Here is the Trisagion in Hebrew:

A few Orthodox Christian Mission Center bulletins contain an article on Fr. Aleksandr’s work:

Spring 2005: pages 24 and 25 (pdf page 13)

Fall 2007: pages 8 and 9 (pdf page 5)

The number of Russian immigrants continues to rise in Israel, and many of the immigrants have a connection to the Russian Church. They immigrate as Jews under the Law of Return, but many are converts to the Church or have relatives in the Church. This growing community, with priests like Fr. Aleksandr, may develop into the roots of a future Hebrew Orthodox Christian culture.

Southerners are dumb hicks, presumptively Klanners. Residents of small towns are narrow-minded xenophobes, presumptively Klanners. Christians are hypocrites and anti-everything (even dancing!), presumptively Klanners. Businessmen are cheating, soulless vermin, presumptively Klanners (unless they are in a Hollywood-approved business like making solar panels). And Connecticut WASPs are dull, sexually neurotic snobs who beat their wives and molest their daughters. Presumptively Klanners.

Hollywood’s heroes are just as odd. Moviegoers flocked to a film about a prostitute who was not only gorgeous and charming but disease-free because they wanted to see a Cinderella story. We know Pretty Woman‘s winsome streetwalker was as plausible as a talking bear, except we’ve always wanted to see a talking bear. . . .

Out in America, the country is fairly bristling with crosses and American flags, but in the Hollywood oeuvre, those symbols appear rarely, and when they do, they generally show up as signifiers of White Supremacists or child-molesting Connecticut WASPs. In real life, there are a lot more girls wearing cross necklaces than teenagers with Che Guevara posters in their rooms, a peculiar staple of Hollywood movies.

In the remake of Cape Fear, the psychotic killer, Max Cady, was recast as a Christian fundamentalist, sporting biblical tattoos and constantly reeling off scriptural verses. Other than the raping and murdering part, the person in real life he most resembles is Tim Tebow.

Is that what Hollywood thinks of Tebow? And why is there never a character like Tebow in any movie or TV show? Never, ever, ever. . . .

Let me give you the plots of two true crime episodes I recently watched, back-to-back, on ID TV. The show was titled Unusual Suspects—“unusual” only if it were a Hollywood production. In the first, a woman was raped at home, stabbed through the heart and her house set on fire. The police looked at suspicious white guys in her life. Then, in the last five minutes of the show, DNA proved that her rapist/murderer was a Hispanic who wanted to have sex with a virgin. In the second, a married couple and their son were stabbed to death in their sleep. Various white guys were arrested, but all were let go when their DNA didn’t match or they had airtight alibis. Then it turned out to be a random Hispanic kid who committed the murders as a gang initiation.

In other words, the exact opposite of a Law & Order plot. I like watching beautiful rich people with fabulous Manhattan apartments killing one another as much as anyone. Maybe more. But why do ALL the wealthy white people, Christians, Southerners or WASPS in these scripts have to be racist, misogynist snobs? Whatever happened to diversity? Hollywood learned to stop stereotyping black characters. Can’t it learn to stop stereotyping the rest of America?

Writer Ben Shapiro has an interview with John Langley of Cops in his book Primetime Propaganda. Langley takes offense that critics accuse Cops of perpetuating stereotypes, whereas Langley admits that he intentionally has the show cover more white criminals than black or hispanic criminals because he does not wish to confirm the public’s opinions on the “color of crime”—which happen to be based on facts rather than leftwing fancies.

Coulter’s examples, Shapiro’s book, and Bernand Goldberg‘s work list a small fraction of examples of Hollywood’s leftwing ideology—a rather target rich environment. Yet, your typical shopper at Trader Joe’s refuses to see it. Such a man still feels shame when he see decades old movies’ portraying terrorists as Mohammedans or drug cartels as hispanics—you know, the groups statistically overrepresented in such real world activities. For leftist consumers of pop culture, the silver screen is always one accurate portrayal away from The Birth of a Nation.

Charity shop worker drowned in lake just 3ft deep after firemen refused to wade in due to health and safety rules

* Drowning Simon Burgess, 41, was just 20ft away from firefighters but inquest hears they refused to save him
* Police officer who went in to water was ordered back
* Witness claims firemen told her they couldn’t go in if water was more than ‘ankle deep’

Our bureaucratic, technocratic regime fosters what Lewis calls “men without chests”—emasculated, automaton functionaries of a soulless monster. Instead of free men who pursue the good in a commonwealth, we have endless layers of subordinate cogs in a vast, self perpetuating machine. It is horrifying, and I hate to think that the masters of our society actually want to cultivate such weak shades, but “yes men” are, after all, easier to control. What has the West become?

Jim Kalb writes on View from the Right:

What robots. The whole point of training and what’s called education today is to eradicate what’s normal and substitute an artificial way of functioning. The good news is that it’s not going to last. The bad news is that what replaces it will probably be something pretty crude.

In fairness to Britain, I think something just like this happened in California a year or so ago. Some bystander went and saved the guy though.

Auster replies:

Let us also remember that the firemen and policemen who let the man drown, far from experiencing any remorse for what they did or even any second thoughts, will doubtless congratulate themselves on their “integrity,” by which they mean following to the letter the prescribed bureaucratic procedures. (I pointed to the real, bureaucratic meaning of “integrity” in the recent post about NASA’s pursuit of diversity.)

So, to continue Mr. Kalb’s argument, “education” now means learning how to be an inhuman robot, and “integrity” means consistently putting into practice what one has learned during one’s “education.”

Commentator Josh W. responds to another comment’s arguing that we cannot blame policemen and firemen for these actions because they have to follow their organizations’ policies in order to keep their jobs:

Not so. This is the test of one’s moral fortitude: being forced to choose the “hard right” over the “easy wrong.” For most of us, only a few of these types of situations present themselves in a lifetime, and how we decide to deal with them can be said to define who, and how good, we are. The “kids to feed” argument is not compelling either—would this be an acceptable defense for, say, Mike McQueary (not sure if he had/has kids) when he saw Jerry Sandusky raping a young boy in the shower but chose to do essentially nothing about it? Would you argue that the fear of being unable to provide for one’s children justifies allowing a child rapist to continue his crimes? What if it was murder? Because that is what we are talking about here: allowing a person to die, for absolutely no reason at all other than concern for one’s financial well-being.

We must actively condemn not only the bureaucracy that produces this utterly inhuman, robotic behavior but also anyone who is complicit in its operation. We are only kidding ourselves if we imagine the two entities to be distinct. The system cannot function without well-intentioned but apathetic drones who shrug their shoulders in the face of evil and injustice and say, “But I’ve got bills to pay, dude!”

Even though I disagree with the radical liberalism behind the main interpretations of Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments, I find the dehumanizing tendency of bureaucracy troubling. Perhaps, the mere complexity of a large, industrial society, which requires the proliferation of bureaucracy in government and commercial affairs, destroys its people and wrecks its civilization. Success has a tendency to undo itself, both in families and in societies.

Dear Rev. Know it all,

We heard some loon on the radio going on and on about something called the “Holy Fire” at the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem)  I had to google it to try and find more information on it.  Absurd! What nonsense.  Thank goodness not too many Catholic websites will acknowledge this phenomenon… could you comment?  Is this a Greek Orthodox tradition? Beware of Greeks lighting fires. Isn’t that in the Bible somewhere?

Yours,
Mr. &Mrs. Phil & Sophie Majors,

* * *

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Majors,

For those less aware than you, let me explain the Holy Fire. Every Easter, that is Easter according to the Greek Orthodox calendar, the Greeks claim that fire spontaneously lights the candles held by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem as he prays alone in the tomb of Christ. That sort of thing seems a bit much to swallow. After all, we are living in scientific times and know that such displays of the supernatural are nonsense. (It is interesting that the comment “Nonsense!” (leiros) does appear once in the New Testament. It is the reaction of the disciples to the women’s tale of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday morning.) The interesting thing is that if it is a fraud, it goes back at least 1,625 years. . . .

Enjoy.

The photograph’s caption reads, “Study researcher Alain Froment, of the Museum of Man in France, in the striped shirt with a group of Pygmies.” However, one of the pygmies is also wearing a striped shirt, but such did not occur to the editor. Auster notes:

The combination of rigidly orthodox PC with unconscious, non-PC instincts that subvert the PC orthodoxy makes this photo and its caption unique. To begin with, the editor who wrote the caption felt that he could not simply write, “French researcher Alain Froment with a group of pigmies,” because that would imply that Froment could be distinguished from the pigmies and identified as French solely from his physical, racial characteristics, which would violate the liberal dogma that race doesn’t matter. So he added the risibly superfluous information that Froment is wearing a striped shirt. But the poor editor somehow didn’t notice that one of the Africans in the photo is also wearing a striped shirt, making it equally likely, according to the editor’s own caption, that the African is the French researcher. But the editor didn’t notice that huge mistake, because, notwithstanding his extravagant PC gesture, he actually knew, though he couldn’t admit it consciously to himself, that it was perfectly obvious which man in a striped shirt is the French researcher.

Auster’s readers then have fun with this absurdity. Make sure to see the submission by Larry T. of another ridiculous picture and caption.

Commentary is unnecessary.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

Regular readers and listeners of Derbyshire would not have found the piece odd; Derbyshire has always been frank in his commentary. He makes no secret that he is what the underground Right terms a “race realist”—political dogma does not blind his empirical faculties. Indeed, I have often been surprised by how lenient the political wussies at The National Review were with Derbyshire. I had the faint hope that beneath the craven qualifications of their “conservative” positions, the editors actually held rightwing sympathies and allowed Derbyshire to write honestly about matters that they were too timid to address openly. Unfortunately—no. Even the resident conservative at the magazine, Andrew McCarthy, shows himself to be an inconsistent liberal. McCarthy comments on “The Corner”:

I would prefer not to comment on NR’s cutting ties with Derb, but alas …

Long before I had anything to do with National Review, I was envious of Derb’s talent as a writer and thinker. Over the last few years, I’ve gotten to know him a bit. He is charming, fiercely witty company. All that said, racialism is noxious regardless of who practices it. It is wrong that what is a day at the office for the Left’s racialists becomes a hanging offense in Derb’s case. But that is a summons to disgust over the former, not a defense of the latter.

We believe in the equal dignity and presumption of equal decency toward every person — no matter what race, no matter what science tells us about comparative intelligence, and no matter what is to be gleaned from crime statistics. It is important that research be done, that conclusions not be rigged, and that we are at liberty to speak frankly about what it tells us. But that is not an argument for a priori conclusions about how individual persons ought to be treated in various situations — or for calculating fear or friendship based on race alone. To hold or teach otherwise is to prescribe the disintegration of a pluralistic society, to undermine the aspiration of E Pluribus Unum.

Yes, NR is a journal of opinion, and that entails vigorous disagreement about countless things. But that has never meant all opinions are equally entitled to exploit this platform — or, in Derb’s case, his connection to this platform. He is not being silenced: NR is not the government, I don’t believe the magazine is responding to any sort of government pressure, and what has happened here has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Derb remains free to express his views and he’ll surely find a market for them. But NR is equally free to say: Not here.

I am sorry to see it happen, but I don’t think NR can be blamed for emphatically distancing itself from opinions people here find more harmful than illuminating.

I have much respect for McCarthy, but his words sadden me. As the most conservative, thoughtful writer remaining at America’s “flagship” conservative magazine, I expected more of him. McCarthy has uncritically digested the standard leftist slop—from their revisionism of what E Pluribus Unum means to his acceptance of the ever decreasing range of “acceptable discourse” that the leftist tyranny of perennial offense entails, as fellow National Review writer Mark Steyn notes. At least, McCarthy formulates an argument for why he thinks that Derbyshire is wrong. The typical reaction has been apoplectic spasms that do not address the facts or arguments that Derbyshire offers. In this, McCarthy shows that he remains a man—a wrong man, but still a man.

When I first read McCarthy’s statement, I immediately wondered how he could reject treating strangers according to general knowledge about the groups to which they belong. McCarthy has spent the last decade as America’s Cassandra regarding Mohammedan terrorism, and yet he fails to see his inconsistency. Most Muslims who visit and live in America are peaceful. Most of them (or a large minority) probably disagree with terrorism as a means to promote Mohammedan ends. Yet, the percentage of Muslims who participate in or support terrorism is much higher than that of the general American population. Hence, it is reasonable to focus on Muslims in counter-terrorism efforts. Such employs statistical practical reason. It is what we do every day when we notice patterns and make decisions based on those patterns. Liberals call this prejudice. Indeed, when I notice that metal glows red, like burners on a stove, even a stove that I have never before seen, I prejudge that the metal is hot. When I see a strange dog’s snarling, I prejudge that it might bite me. Scientists employ the same method in a more exacting manner. When nutritionists advise people to consume certain foods or to avoid others, in more or less amounts, they are using statistical reasoning. When physicians state that cigarette smoking contributes to cancer and lung disease, they do not thereby claim that all or even most smokers have or will get cancer or lung disease. Yet, the evidence shows that smoking significantly increases those risks. McCarthy and the millions of well intended liberals like him must be able to understand this principle, and yet they fail to apply it in certain cases where they have been brainwashed to cease the rational exercise of their minds.

When I looked at Auster’s coverage, I saw that my thoughts were shared by at least some conservatives. I especially recommend “Derbyshire’s accomplishment” at View from the Right. In addition to the statistical reasoning that Derbyshire invokes, commentator James P. mentions group dynamics, which McCarthy refuses to acknowledge:

Andrew McCarthy stated at National Review:

We believe in the equal dignity and presumption of equal decency toward every person—no matter what race, no matter what science tells us about comparative intelligence, and no matter what is to be gleaned from crime statistics. It is important that research be done, that conclusions not be rigged, and that we are at liberty to speak frankly about what it tells us. But that is not an argument for a priori conclusions about how individual persons ought to be treated in various situations—or for calculating fear or friendship based on race alone. To hold or teach otherwise is to prescribe the disintegration of a pluralistic society, to undermine the aspiration of E Pluribus Unum.

The assumption behind his conclusion is that group or national behavior is simply the sum total of all the individual behaviors. This is clearly untrue. Humans behave differently as groups (or as nations) than they do as individuals—that is why the field of “group dynamics” exists. For example, in Western countries, individual Westerners generally treat individual Muslims with dignity and decency, and many individual Muslims are of course decent and well-behaved. Nevertheless, the immigration of large groups of Muslims (as well as other alien groups) has created undeniable problems in many Western countries despite this decent, dignified behavior on the individual level. The unfortunate fact is that the prescription that “individuals should treat individuals with dignity and decency” is not scalable to the national level. The sum total result of millions of alien immigrants, most of whom deserve, receive, and reciprocate decent treatment, is not a harmonious, pluralistic society. Instead, the result is significant social stress, racial and ethnic tension, and the formation of competing, self-segregated groups—this is observable in every country that permits large-scale immigration! Far from promoting E pluribus unum, the precept that we have to treat groups the same way that we treat individuals is actively leading to the very disintegration of pluralistic society that McCarthy fears, not least because this precept inhibits honest assessment of the impact of immigration and domestic policies such as education.

Auster replies:

James’s point is one of the most important that can be made, yet it is also one that is still not understood at all. The opposite falsehood to James’s truth is still what is universally believed in the West today. Well-meaning Western people such as Andrew McCarthy instinctively recoil from any generalized negative statements about groups, because they see that as a violation of the moral imperative to treat all human beings as individuals. They are looking at reality through a wrong model. When a society considers allowing a mass immigration from another culture, the proper question ceases to be, “How shall I as an individual treat another individual who happens to be of a different racial/cultural background from myself?”, and becomes, “What is going to be the effect on our society of this culturally and racially different group”? But Western society never asks itself this question, because it still sees the situation through the filter of relationships between individuals.

In the same way, when a white person in today’s society finds himself in a black environment, such as the white man standing on a Baltimore street recently, the pertinent question is not, “How shall I deal with individuals?”, but “How are blacks as a group likely to treat a white man who has naively wandered into their neighborhood and is standing there on the sidewalk with a distracted expression on his face?” What is likely to happen to a such a white man in a black neighborhood is radically different from what is likely to happen to him in a white neighborhood or a Japanese neighborhood.

McCarthy’s mid-20th century, Eleanor Roosevelt-style liberal idealism leaves him totally unequipped to grapple with such questions, or even to see the palpable facts of black group and individual behavior. Presumably he reads the news media and has come across the constant news stories of black savage behavior (though of course the word “black” is almost never used in such stories). But he hasn’t taken it in, because it doesn’t fit his liberal model of a world of individuals whose race doesn’t matter. He therefore recoils from and condemns Derbyshire’s highly relevant warnings.

Commentator James N. adds:

This is one of the most important, and difficult, discussions I’ve read on VFR. The distinction between judging (or pre-judging) an individual as an individual, versus reacting to him as a member of a group, seems simple at first, but for Americans born after WW II it is actually quite difficult. I think this is because we grew up in a world where group identification produced particular, visible injustices to certain individuals, whose stories became well-known.

The result has been, through a kind of mental judo, that minorities can now CHOOSE when and by whom that want to be judged as individuals, and when as members of a group. Obviously, most choose whatever mode is advantageous at any particular point in time.

“Celebrate diversity” is a conscious appeal to group identities. It is precisely group characteristics we are called on to “celebrate” (tolerate). But woe betide if our “celebration” touches an individual in a disagreeable way. THAT is forbidden.

Derbyshire responds to his critics in “Talking Back” in Taki’s Magazine. He addresses the most prominent criticism of his article:

Be a bad Samaritan! Setting aside the hordes of lunatics who descended on the piece, among thoughtful and largely sympathetic commentators—the only ones I give a fig about—the item of advice most often objected to was:

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

Christians thought this un-Christian, but even people commenting from no religious position thought it was unkind and constituted poor citizenship.

I’m going to do a bit of “on-the-one-hand, on-the-other” havering here. You ready to wobble?

On one hand, I wish I had elaborated some on that, to the effect that in view of not-uncommon outcomes such as the one to which I linked, you just need to be a whole lot more wary about acting the Good Samaritan when the distressed traveler is black (even if you yourself are black). One can think of cases where you should act anyway, but in most situations, I’d still recommend double caution.

On the other hand, the context here is advice to kids. Deciding which situation says, “Stay out of this!” and which says, “Help the guy” requires an act of judgment. Kids don’t have very good judgment; so a blanket “Stay out of this!” is not bad advice in context.

Auster writes that his initial response to Derbyshire’s controversial advice was, “Of course.” Such was my response, too. However, my family and I have at times not taken this advice, but we certainly were wary. The unwary end up robbed, raped, mutilated, and/or dead.

Derbyshire also mentions our prejudice toward the weather, which occurred to me, as well, when I thought about McCarthy’s comment:

I don’t know why people have so much difficulty thinking statistically, as we behave statistically all the time. The sky is overcast; I have to go out to an event where I’ll be in the open; I take an umbrella. If, after all, it does not rain, do I feel like an idiot for having taken the umbrella? Of course not. I yielded to my inner statistician. I went with the percentages. We all do it a dozen times a day. It’s statistical common sense. The trouble-free black neighborhood is the rain-free overcast day: It happens a lot, but take that umbrella.

And that is why liberals are all wet!

Seriously, liberalism makes one blind, stupid, incoherent, careless, and vulnerable. It is a fitting cult for a suicidal nation.

My friend Andrew recently shared an amusing skit by Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele. It plays on the “numinous negro” motif in contemporary American culture, which I noted last year when referring to “The Numinous Negro” by Richard Brookhiser. The Black Commentator explores the history of the phenomenon in popular culture, Wikipedia provides a list of fictional magical negroes, and Los Angeles Times’ David Ehrenstein notes a real world application of the meme in “Obama the ‘Magic Negro.’”

“You need to find your own troubled white boy.”

Key and Peele are filling the void that David Chappelle has left.

60 Minutes ran an informative and timely story about the Christian exodus from the Holy Land earlier in the week: “Christians of the Holy Land.”

You may also wish to watch the “overtime” addition: “The last Christian village in the Holy Land.”

On George Michalopulos’ site, there has been a lively discussion about the program, with links to Christians United for Israel and to a letter in the Wall Street Journal, “Israel Really Isn’t All That Friendly to Its Christians.” Having much interest in the issue, I shared the following comments:

Thank you for the link. The segment was certainly not a “hit piece,” and Fr. John’s criticism is not “anti-semitic.” I thought that the news segment was balanced and that it interviewed very insightful people. The Palestinian problem is a classic lose-lose, everyone-is-screwed microcosm of the human condition. Our melodramatic media overuse the term, but here it is quite appropriate — the situation is a tragedy.

Most Israelis want to live in peace, but they are surrounded by a much larger hostile population.

Most Palestinians want to live in peace, but the occupied status of the West Bank leaves them in a perpetual political limbo.

Palestinian Christians leave principally for economic reasons, yes, but the occupation is the main cause of poor economic conditions. Trade is difficult through walls and across militarized borders.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Christians suffer Mohammedan persecution. In the West Bank, this doesn’t seem to be a major problem. Perhaps the kinship between Palestinian Muslims and Christians minimizes that hostility, or perhaps they have gotten along because they see the Israelis as a larger threat. An outside force makes friendship easy — from Sparta and Athens to Mao and Chiang Kai-shek — just as all human beings would lay aside our squabbles instantly if hostile aliens ever visited our planet.

When I visited the West Bank last year, I only experienced anti-Christian sentiment once. As I was leaving the monastery on the Mount of Temptation with my mother and three Russian ladies, some teenagers threw rocks at us from above. The steward explained that local youths often hurl stones at pilgrims. Besides that, people were extraordinarily cordial (I cannot exaggerate how welcoming) in Jericho. We also visited Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Hebron. Everywhere we went, the locals were happy to see us, knowing that we were Christians and Americans. On several occasions, Muslims told us, non-sequitur, that Palestinians are not terrorists and that Muslims don’t hate Americans, even though that is what we (Americans) hear on our television. That was awkward, but interesting.

Similarly, we were treated well by Israeli Arabs and Jews in Israel proper. Even in the middle of the mess, most folks are decent and hospitable to strangers. Maybe the divisions in Israeli society lead them to be so welcoming to outsiders. It was clear that everyone wanted to “represent” well in front of us as Americans. Indeed, the only rude Muslims we met were the pushy cleric in the Hebron mosque and the patriarch’s shriner-looking henchman in the Church of the Resurrection.

My favorite political graffiti from the separation wall was a slogan that I saw in Ramallah: “One Wall, Two Prisons.” It captures the truth well.

What to do about it?

People criticize the Israelis for being like Afrikaaner run South Africa, but I wish that they would follow a road not taken by the South Africans. First, there should be a joint call for repentance and forgiveness. Then, I think that a one state solution would be best — make the occupied territories part of Israel and make the Palestinians Israeli citizens. The Palestinians were conquered. That’s history. Now, let’s move on. If a Palestinian does not want Israeli citizenship, then he may sell his property and emigrate to Jordan or wherever. Only such a solution would allow the Israelis to maintain order while also allowing for human cultural and economic flourishing in the West Bank — without walls.

Both the Jews and the Palestinians would have to give up their dream of their own exclusive ethnostates. More power would have to devolve to localities. On the national level is where the proposed but not implemented South African model comes in. Israel would remain a Jewish hegemony . . . a Jewish homeland was and will always be Israel’s main purpose. The principle of one man, one vote threatens that identity, and it is the main reason that Israelis oppose the true annexation of the occupied territories. If we chucked dogmatic liberalism, though, a stable multiethnic, religiously diverse state that respected Jewish hegemony would become possible. There could be a constitutional order that represented all groups in various ways. For instance, a certain percentage of the Knesset could be reserved for Jews and another for Arabs. Maybe, minority ethnic and religious groups like Christians, Druze, Bedouins, and others could have some special representation. The president and prime minister would have to be Jews.

Israel should also actively welcome Arab Christians from the West and from Arab states where they suffer persecution to settle as a buffer population. If the Israelis got rid of liberal electoral principles, such immigration would not be a demographic threat. The Christians’ arrival would also lessen resentment toward Jewish immigrants (“settlers”) who are reclaiming the desert.

Finally, the secular Israelis need to face religious reality. The future of their state is a religious one; the atheistic socialists will die out. There should be some formal state sanctioned meeting of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious leaders wherein they promote peace and justice in Israel in the name of God rather than war, strife, and hatred.

Later, Mr. Michalopulos suggested that we should have left the Ottomans in control, a historical road not taken to which I replied:

George,

I am shocked! Have you been belittling your tribe for so long that you overlook the best scenario — the resurrection of the Christian Empire? Now that the Omogenia is having such a difficult time, we could give them all cushy bureaucratic jobs paid for by the Levant’s black gold. This fantasy would solve so many problems:

* Defection of Orthodox states from the godless E.U.

* Return of the Greek Orthodox Church to Constantinople so the E.P. would be a real Church, again.

* Guaranteed religious freedom (within reason, of course) and holy sites access throughout the Middle East for Christians, rabbinical Jews, and Muslims.

* Forced peace between Jews and Arabs.

* End of Christian persecution and emigration.

* Aggressive campaign for Christian Arabs, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Armenians, and such to return from the West, where their families quickly assimilate into the hedonistic lifestyle and their daughters dress like tacky whores. Possible slogan: “Move back; keep Anastasia, Sophia, and Eftihia from becoming sluts.”

* Return of economic vitality to the cradle of civilization, fueled by natural resources (rather than having them wasted by silver car driving despots and their Gucci wearing harems).

* Killing the millet mentality and seeing the end of ethnocentric ecclesial politics in our Churches in the area (Greeks will get their power trips in the bureaucracy, leaving the Church for real churchmen).

* Finally getting some important conciliar work done.

* Freeing Antioch from their dhimmi Stockholm Syndrome.

* Rebuilding the Nea in grand fashion. The Church of the Resurrection would be restored to its former glory.

* Finally, the Temple Mount would be open to all Abrahamic faiths for use on a shared basis. If the Church of the Resurrection can be shared, so can the Dome of the Rock. If the Muslims behave themselves, they may keep Al-Aqsa. If not, why not bring back an ecumenical version of the Templars . . .

Of course, it is far fetched. So would have the Paschal celebrations in Christ the Savior Cathedral seemed just forty years ago. History is a quirky and surprising thing.

If I had the emperor’s ear, I would suggest more controversial measures, as well:

* I would demand that the Latin and Armenian patriarchs pack their bags or agree to demote themselves to vicariate bishops with responsibilities for the Latin and Armenian populaces. Of course, we are not in communion, but we can take steps . . .

* The Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre would be given chief use of the Church of the Resurrection and other jointly administered sites in the Holy Land with the understanding that they are to share them with Rome and the non-Chalcedonians.

* I would sponsor the development of a “Mosaic rite” for Christian Jews who want to retain their Hebraic identity and practices. Imagine Messianic Judaism without Protestant heresy. They would get a nice temple in the Jewish Quarter—maybe the rebuilt Nea. They would be the primary instrument to show the rabbinical Jews that Christians do not aim for their destruction. See “Ann and the Jews” for some additional thoughts about rabbinical antipathy toward the gospel.

If missionary activity were allowed, not to mention encouraged, in the Middle East, I imagine that many Mohammedans would convert to Christianity. Lack of exposure to the gospel and fear of death for apostasy keep them in the dark. How the Crescent will peacefully fall in the Holy Land when competition with the Cross is allowed. Consider negroid Africa as a precedent (well, perhaps not peacefully . . .) So, too, would the desert go—and return to Christendom after a very long night.

I’ll include the two film adaptations of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies by Peter Brook and Harry Hook because boyhood is not a romanticized Norman Rockwell experience. Men are largely wicked, and children are even more irrational and appetite-driven than men. They may not be as depraved as human beings who have, with more time, sunk ever deeper into vicious mire, but their innocence has more to do with the lack of power and opportunity than with inherent virtue. Both films depict this disturbing trait in mankind with their “boy as naked man” idea wherein human beings, when stripped of tradition, culture, law, and the inherited rules of society, act like beasts. I appreciate the full frontal attack on Rousseauian stupidity.

I wonder if the Googler was disappointed or enlightened.

Most perverted referrals link to one of the Marian posts in my Music domain. My guess is that “Virgin” fits the search engine’s goal.

I did an I.P. search and found that my visitor was not from San Fran’s Castro District but from Grand Prairie, Texas. Texas! I looked up the town near Dallas and found that its percentage of whites has decreased to half of what it was in the previous census—from 62% in A.D. 2000 to 29% in A.D. 2010. Maybe, hebephilia and online porn are not good recipes for population sustainability.

What is it with the past week—is it the season to break taboos? [I was refering to the firing of John Derbyshire by The National Review over his “The Talk: Nonblack Version” in Taki’s Magazine.] Well, you may read my two shekels about rabbinical Jews on my site, especially:

“Those Jews,”
“Ann and the Jews,”
“Hadley Arkes, Yet Another,”
“Jewish Leftism,”
“Anti-Christian Bigotry,” and
“The Vain Queen Consort.”

I do not have a fixed opinion on the “liberal WASP” counterargument, but I do not think that Kristor and others are acknowledging the subversive potential of a permanent “Other” that invariably rises to the elite in its host society.

The “liberal WASP” argument notes that liberal, degenerate Protestants are as destructive to American society as liberal, secular Jews due to their political opinions. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that liberal Jews’ assaults on traditional culture result from their leftist ideas rather than from any group hatred toward or alienation from the majority population. I occasionally refer to this argument in my posts. An obvious objection is that rabbinical Jews as Jews organize for leftist causes, meaning that individuals and organizations that represent Jews as Jews often attack traditional Western, Christian society. For example, Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman’s long career as an advocate for the tolerance and acceptance of Jews gives one the impression that the same tolerance and acceptance should not be granted to traditional Christians. However, we know that leftists use whatever means available to them to advance their causes. So, one could argue that leftists who happen to be Jews choose to organize as Jews to promote their ideas behind an identity that most Americans see as an irreproachable Victim Group. Leftists exploit children and women in the same way—why not rabbinical Jews?

Anyway, Steve Nicoloso wanted a clarification about the “Other” in my comment, and he further said that he found Orthodox Jews to be closer in spirit to him than Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. I responded:

Mr. Nicoloso,

I address your question in my linked posts. The permanent state of “otherness” comes from Judaism itself, where to be Jewish is to be a nation apart. Your point is that the religious children of the rabbis are not problematic, but rather the sowers of discord are secularized Jews. I largely agree, but I would argue, based on personal experience quite unlike Kristor’s and on a cursory examination of American politics over the last few generations, that even secularized Jews persist in a state of—to use a favorite concept of an early secular Jew—alienation from the dominant society. With Abe Foxman and his ilk, it is always late imperial Russia, and the goyim are always a crazed mob ready with pitchforks and torches.

As far as demographic destiny, the Left does not need to reproduce when it can re-educate. My point above is that Jews will always come to occupy places of influence (when allowed) because of their exceptional qualities, and hence they will be in a position to re-educate as they see fit. When rabbinical Jews fear and loathe their host societies, they make a dangerous elite—for the host society and, ultimately, for themselves (when the reaction finally comes).

And shame on you for mentioning the Cardinal Who Shall Not Be Named! Well, sometimes, we must speak of the devil.

Bonald’s article disappeared. Then in “More on inferiority,” Bonald stated that he had deleted his initial post. He further requested some advice from philosemitic Christians. The new entry elicited dozens of responses, which you may (as of now) still read in context, including the following of mine:

Bonald, did you just “Lowry” yourself? What a pity. I agree with Joseph above . . . we ought not to assist the Masters of Discourse by “pre-emptive obedience” (such terms do appear more impressive in German). Also, the Jewish Problem is a real issue, and those who wish to ignore it won’t thereby make it go away, just like the dominant American political establishment’s fantasies won’t make the problems of our particular ethnic diversity go away. One commentator mentioned in the deleted thread that the Orthosphere had “jumped the shark” with your entry, and another mentioned that discussing such issues might scare away potential allies or converts. Yet, the problem remains, and being unwilling to discuss it openly, rationally, and honestly cripples us—leaving us prey to the “fever swamps of the anti-Semites” or to the white, conservative, Christian hating leftists, not a few of whom are rabbinical Jews. Moreover, such delicacy and misplaced tact are insulting to Jews. Men like Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved, and Andrew Klavan—those allies and converts that we treasure so highly—are not girly whiners. Hopefully, they can distinguish between our discourse and the agenda of Mr. MacDonald.

I cannot really answer your chief question since I don’t frame the issue in the same way. Rabbinical Jews are not a cleanly marked “Other” for me, for personal and religious reasons, as I have mentioned in my posts about them. On a personal level, I am a total Heebiephile (though NOT a hebephile!) because I admire, respect, and share many characteristics that are peculiarly abundant among the children of Jacob. There is no other ethnic group with whom I would rather spend my time.

Religiously, I respect rabbinical Judaism as an ethically rich, pious tradition that is historically and doctrinally close to my own religion. I acknowledge its good aspects and blithely disapprove of its shortcomings—similarly to how I respond to mainstream Protestantism.

On matters of religious “diplomacy” and religio-socially, though, I quickly lose patience with rabbinical Jews because truth and justice trump ethnic chauvinism and personal preferences for me. This might be a family trait. Last week when I was home, I attended a passion play at a local Roman parish with my father. I was pleased that the production kept the Barabbas scene with the ugly mob. I mentioned this to my father afterward, noting how “offensive” the gospel was to those in the rabbinical community who have taken upon themselves the role of official offendees. To which my father, a man of the most judenfreundlich tendencies, retorted in a way rather unkind to the Foxmans of the world. The only other time that I witnessed my halbjude father express anything negative toward the Jewish community was during the hysterical and bigoted reaction to The Passion of the Christ—for similar reasons.

Given the Orthodoxfest on these threads, I want to note that some of the most hateful, anti-Christian rhetoric that I have ever witnessed has been sputtered by super Orthodox rabbinical Jews. Yes, secular Jews are far more likely to support monstrous leftist policies, but they are far more cordial . . . in the way that Anglicans are preferable to Westboro Baptists. Religious fanaticism—self righteousness, not a spirit enlightened by love and wisdom—creates ugly souls. Liberalism is a form of degenerate charity, but I prefer it to cold, proud legalism. Sloppy theology is likely less harmful than nakedly demonic theology.

Mr. Nicoloso, you wrote, “for every Abe Foxman, there are probably hundreds of Katharine Jefferts Schoris.” This is a continuation of the “liberal WASP” counterargument. First, you have to consider quality in addition to quantity. Sure—there are probably more WASP fools in Massachusetts alone than perverse Jews in the entire country, but look at the caliber of the threat. One Foxman is more estimable a foe than hundreds of Shoris. Look at what that man hath wrought. Consider the ethnic make up of the elite in the media, academia, the political establishment, and NGOs, and you will quickly see why the fever swamps come up with their conspiracies. Rabbinical Jews, observant or not, are at the center of American life now. However, that community still continues to behave, in large measure, as if they were still an oppressed outsider. I think that Sailer made the point that American Jews have become the elite without having acknowledged the cultural responsibilities of being the elite. Would the same be true of the “liberal WASPs” of the nineteenth century? Which of those American patricians Who Knew Better actively worked for the dissolution of the American people?

Second, instead of comparing the rabbinical Jewish community in America to liberal WASPS, we should compare them to American WASPS in general. Which community, as a whole, is more harmful to the culture, to welcoming Christians to having a place in the public square, and to the traditions of Anglo-Saxon constitutional republicanism? We do not know exactly what has caused such dismal forces in the Jewish community, but we cannot deny that such forces are far more prevalent among American Jews than among WASPs. Moreover, the respective talents and organization of Jews magnify their influence. Therefore, what traditional, wise Jews we get on our side are a significant boon, like manna from heaven. Yet, not many join the side of guarding and preserving our civilization. Hence, the Shoris of America enjoy the considerable intellectual, creative, material, and political power of the American Jewish community. The American Left has successfully tapped the first round top demographic pick for its roster.

To use Kristor’s policy test against his genteel and Christian disposition, imagine the American regime without the descendants of immigrants from the Pale and compare it to our actuality. It seems pretty clear to me which America would be stronger, more united, and more sane. Though I also suspect that it would be far less interesting, learned, and entertaining. Such thoughts trigger fears of Judenrein among us, but they clarify the situation instead of indulging in warm fuzzy hopes. Bonald’s original post brings up the Jewish Problem, and his taking it down doesn’t help to resolve our mess.

To Franklin [who had mentioned that future Jewish communities would be less intelligent due to the relative rise of the anti-intellectual Hasidic population]: the traditional rabbinical communities are not unintelligent. They are simply uneducated (in the modern, worldly sense) and uninvolved. Don’t you think that they will continue to be a fount of genius, which will only be recognized in the ones who leave their insular worlds? If traditional, observant life were “moronogenic,” then please explain the bright lights that have emerged since emancipation.

A commentator named HenryOrientJnr replied:

There is no Jewish Problem, and I think anyone who uses that phrase is asking for trouble. There is a problem of political correctness which is associated with education and intelligence and since Ashkenazim have both in abundance they are naturally disproportionately affected by it. . . .

I think that Henry makes a significant point, and it is similar to how I usually explain the leftist orientation of Western elites in general. Our society is dominated by leftist ideology, and clever, educated people imbibe that ideology. Moreover, as my friend Andrew often points out, it takes some intelligence to rise above convention and to question the standards of one’s civilization. When these bright, young folks notice the superficial irrationality of tradition, they begin their journey leftwards. However, it takes a lot more intelligence and insight to see how such conventions accord with nature and hold societies together. Hence, there are fewer intelligent conservatives than intelligent leftists, but they are far more profound and rationally grounded in their ideas.

My rejoinder:

Henry,

I do not agree with your trepidation toward the monstrous Left and its taboos. “Asking for trouble”? Faugh!

I’ll explain what I mean by the “Jewish Problem.” It is basically what Auster says, and we all know what a raving Judenhasser Auster is. In any society, ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, and class divisions cause tension and stress social cohesion and unity. Of course, the more healthy and robust the body politic is, the better the regime is able to deal with such problems. There are also many mitigating or aggravating circumstances that lessen or heighten the impact of those stresses. Unfortunately, leftist ideas are among the latter; they turn ailments into cancers. Yet, liberalism does not make the ailments problematic. For they are natural challenges that inhere in diversity.

A society with a self-separating subpopulation will often have some level of social conflict. There are not many ethnic differences between the Amish and their normal American neighbors, but every year there are criminal cases that result from harassment or violence between the two groups. The greater the difference, the more likely the rate and severity of conflict. Consider the less than rosy relations between American whites and blacks that no amount of manipulative advertising, institutional indoctrination, and media framing will change. The gypsies have been in Europe for centuries, and yet there remains enmity between them and the host population.

Why, then, would I mention a specifically “Jewish Problem”? Unlike many other groups, Jewish communities do not engage in criminality at higher rates than their host population. They do not become a parasitic class that lives by a mendicant or criminal code. On the contrary, they tend to excel. Their learning, intelligence, industry, creativity, and organization allow them to climb the social ladders wherever they settle if their hosts allow them the freedom to do so. This is the Jewish Problem. It is not a special perfidy. It is not a genetic disposition toward destruction that only Jews have. There is no worldwide Zionist conspiracy to dispossess the closest competition. Rather, Jews are a self-separating subpopulation that invariably rises to the elite in an open, meritocratic host society. That is an inherent recipe for disaster. It is a real problem, and it must be discussed. We have seen the alternatives too many times.

Only by acknowledging the problem can we take steps to mitigate it. The Parsis of India are in a similar situation, but they and the Hindu population appear to have developed a sustainable system that works for them. America before our cultural revolution also seemed to have kept a harmonious way. Sure, there were country clubs where Jews could not golf. Sure, Jews were overly represented among American Communists. Yet, overall, the relations were decent. Jewish Hollywood celebrated Christian America, and American Christians welcomed rabbinical Jews as fellow citizens without apologizing for their own cultural hegemony. We need to return to something like WASP hegemony, but we cannot even begin to take the steps that will ensure the longterm safety, peace, and social inclusion of American Jews until we recognize and proceed to deal with what you, Henry, find unthinkable.

Later in the comments, Franklin and Brock discuss the ultra-Orthodox / secular dynamic in the rabbinical community in more detail, with an entertaining tangent on Jews and Chinese food. I asked them the following question:

Franklin and Brock,

Thank you for your responses. Only time will tell what rabbinical Judaism will look like in a century. Imagine yourself at any given point in time and think what would be reasonable to expect in the future at that moment. Then, think about what followed. History is usually surprising.

I never thought about Jews and Chinese food that way. I just assumed that Jews ate Chinese on Western Christmas for the same reason that the Parkers ate Chinese in A Christmas Story—those joints are the only places open. Maybe the film was just Jewish Hollywood’s dastardly covering their tribe’s tracks by hoodwinking the gullible goyim! I spent Western Christmas in New York City one year, and I took my mother to Joe’s Shanghai for dinner. It was a very festive atmosphere.

I have a question for you that I raised in “Jewish Leftism.” Basically, I want to know why the earlier wave of predominantly liberal, German Jews—who brought the Reform movement to America—appear to have become conservative while the later wave of traditionalist, Eastern European Jews have supplied the Gramscian Left its most formidable recruits in this country for the last century. In my ignorance, I can see several possible explanations:

* Liberal German Jews meshed well with conservative American ideas (“right liberal” in Auster’s terminology).

* German Jews from the nineteenth century had better relations in the old country with the majority population, while immigrants from the Pale hated and feared non-Jews due to the pogroms.

* German Jews were emancipated assimilationists (Reform Judaism is somewhat Protestant Judaism), while the folks from the shtetls had no experience of or desire for assimilating. Such would explain their varied responses to American society.

* The earlier wave was accepted more into the mainstream of the American Midwest than the later wave that settled in East Coast ethnic ghettoes.

* The political climates where the two groups settled determined their orientations, just like the Irish. Cincinnati Jews often registered as Republicans while New York Jews became Democrats with few exceptions.

* “Conservative” and “progressive” tendencies within one’s religion do not necessarily match such tendencies toward outsiders.

Do you have any insights about the issue?

There several other delightful morsels in the thread. “Vishmehr” stated that he has read many Jewish writings and found them all lacking in depth and life, and I asked, “What about the gospel of John?” “BGC” despairingly wrote about his having to abandon his Englishness for the sake of the gospel, to which I wrote:

I am reminded of Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity as a new Buddhism. Remember, we have an incarnational religion. The nihilistic interpretation of the gospel is for the gnostics, not for us. Do not eschew your English heritage as a Buddhist consolation while you witness evil men mar your civilization. Rather, redeem your civilization to the extent that you can. The Left hates Christendom. It thus hates England. You do not hate your mother because she is not Jesus, though the gospel leaves itself open to such Buddhist interpretations in many places. Resist and rejoice. And sing “Jerusalem” to yourself in moments of doubt!

“MPB” warned against the thread’s fascination with (Jewish) intelligence, stating people value certain traits in others as good because they conform to their own traits. To such 60’s anthropological rubbish, my inner HBD retorted:

I don’t think that problem solving ability, which is what we basically mean by intelligence, is a cultural bias. Different individuals and different groups have different gifts in different distributions. Among such gifts is the ability to notice patterns, absorb information, make distinctions, and propose solutions. That is something that we should want for our society.

Of course, only birds that fly will crash in midair. Snakes will not crash in midair. Is that an argument against the gift of flight?

Human group relations, cultural conflict, religion, ethnicity, intelligence, ideological clashes, and Jews—these threads that disgust so many Orthosphere readers serve a wondrous bounty of my interests. What joy! Of course, whenever anyone steps beyond the Markers of Propriety set for respectable people, only disrespectable people share words . . . awkward folks like Sailer, Auster, and Derbyshire who are more interested in matters of truth than faddish notions of politesse . . . and, unfortunately, truly disrespectable folks. Of course, that line of demarcation varies considerably depending on who discriminates. Discussions of Jacob’s patrimony is a beckoning beacon to Jew haters, and they rarely fail to show. Regardless, we must address matters of import sincerely rather than falling into conditioned unthought. Many Jews have taught me so.

May the rest of your Bright Week be blessed.

In Jerusalem, they’re a bit crazier, naturally:

Here is another video about the Holy Fire:

You may also watch the celebration in Beit Jala, which we visited last year on our way to Bethlehem, and in Ramallah, through which we passed on the way to Jericho. The latter story is on an Iranian site. I find the political propaganda interesting.

Lastly, you may wish to see how the Eritreans celebrate the feast.

RIA Novosti also has some nice photographs from Christ the Savior.

The article states that ninety percent of Russia’s Airborne Troops are Orthodox. I have read elsewhere that religious observance is much higher in the armed forces than in the society at large. I suspect that such is probably true for most nations. As Fr. Z. states with regard to his own communion, Russia is rebuilding its spiritual house brick by brick.

Weapons of Russia has additional pictures of the mobile military chapel. From the story, it appears that ten priests will undergo parachute training so that the Воздушно-десантных войск will have chaplains that air drop with their flying chapel.

I wish Fr. Meletios the best in his endeavors to bring an Orthodox version of Alcoholics Anonymous to Eastern Europe and Russia.

You may read about the runty reptile and his critter cousins on National Geographic, The Daily Mail, and PLoS ONE.

I suspect that a significant percentage of Sheindlin’s viewers are on the dole themselves. I wonder what lessons they take from her shows.

According to estimates from the National Institutes of Health, in the United States in 2010, 207,090 women and 1,970 men will get new cases of breast cancer, while 39,840 women and 390 men will likely die from the disease. The estimated new cases of prostate cancer this year — all affecting men — is 217,730, while it is predicted 32,050 will die from the disease. . . .

In fiscal year 2009, breast cancer research received $872 million worth of federal funding, while prostate cancer received $390 million. It is estimated that fiscal year 2010 will end similarly, with breast cancer research getting $891 million and prostate cancer research receiving $399 million.

There are more prostate cancer cases than breast cancer cases, and there are four prostate cancer fatalities for every five breast cancer fatalities. However, breast cancer funding is 223% of prostate cancer funding. Why?

Political muscle, of course. Homosexualist organizations see HIV/AIDS as a tribal concern, even though they have tried to convince the public otherwise. Similarly, American women have made pink ribbons omnipresent in society. Not only feminists but average American women have successfully lobbied for increased breast cancer funding. Still, breast cancer funding pales in comparison with HIV/AIDS. The National Cancer Institute estimates that 226,870 women and 2,190 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, while 39,510 women and 410 men will die from the disease. For comparison, around 40,000 HIV diagnoses will occur and 20,000 deaths. However, HIV/AIDS federal funding is over twenty times higher. We do not really know all the factors that lead to breast cancer, but we absolutely know what causes HIV transmission. Why is there this discrepancy? It is because homosexualists care more about HIV/AIDS than women care about breast cancer. Politicans respond to noisy, persistent interest groups, and red ribbons are more convincing than pink ones.

Beyond red and pink, black remains the dominant color when one thinks of identity group politics in America. However, I have long suspected that the “leaders” in the black community—community organizers, you might say—are not very interested in the good of the community that they allegedly represent. Rather, racial shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their many bros of ill repute are more interested in lining their pockets with corporate extortion money. The black elite lives the life of Riley even as the black community at large becomes ever more dysfunctional and dystopic. Accordingly, I wondered what I would find when I looked into the federal funding of the most visible “black disease”—sickle cell anemia. Heart disease is the number one health problem of black Americans, but as it kills everyone, it is not a championed cause for any particular faction. Well, “Sickle Cell Disease: A Question of Equity and Quality” in Pediatrics confirmed my suspicions:

For example, for fiscal year 2003, the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America’s total revenue was $498,577, compared with $152 million for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, a 300-fold difference that has substantial implications for the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America’s ability to support research and advocacy.

N.I.H. spent $65,000,000 last year on sickle cell disease. The American Society of Hematology estimates that about 90,000 Americans have the condition. That means that N.I.H. spent $722 on sickle cell disease per afflicted person. That is ten times higher than cardiovascular health but less than a fourth of the HIV/AIDS level. Still, given the clout that blacks have as an interest group, it is surprising to see such a low number. J.J. has other concerns; not being a scientist or medical doctor, he cannot ride the medical funding gravy train to a new fleet of Cadillacs.