Sunday, July 03, 2005

The Tribe of Judah and "The Great Society"

By the end of the Great Society reforms, Jews, in Ginsberg's view, had become the major force in American politics and government: ___________________________________________________________________

"From the 1970s onward, Jews led or were influential in most, though not all, of the political reform, feminist, consumer rights, gay rights, environmentalist and other public interest groups and related foundations, study groups, and think tanks that came to dominate the Democratic party during the 1970s and continue to be the leading forces within that party today." (p. 137) And Jews wield considerable power in the institutions of the American welfare state, holding as they do prominent positions in the "public or quasi-public economy of government agencies, helping professions, private foundations, think tanks, and universities." (p. 140) Since Jewish power and wealth is either directly or indirectly tied to the national government, rather than to state and local governments or to the strictly private sector, Jews have a vested interest in its maintenance and expansion. In short, Ginsberg contends, Jews support the liberal welfare state for reasons of material self-interest: "Jewish liberalism is more an institutional than an attitudinal phenomenon. It is associated more with Jews' political linkages and involvements than with their underlying attitudes." _____________________________________________________________________


Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State,
which deals with the rise and fall of Jews in different societies, is an intellectual bombshell. A liberal American Jew who teaches political science at Johns Hopkins, Ginsberg makes observations about Jewish influence in government and society that would be deemed anti-Semitic if expressed by a Gentile. Ginsberg, however, does not criticize that Jewish power for being harmful to Gentiles; his only concern is the harm it can cause for Jews by provoking Gentiles to anti-Semitic actions.Outlining Jewish power since the Middle Ages, Ginsberg notes that Jews helped kings expand and centralize their realms; in mediæval Spain, for example, Jews were closely tied to the monarchies, largely, but not solely, in the financial sphere. But they also took the lead in working for the revolutionary destruction of societies hostile to Jews; thus, Jews played key roles in European revolutions, liberal and Communist alike. In the liberal revolutions and in the development of liberal states, Jews propagandized the public and financed liberal groups. In France, Jews helped establish the Third Republic in the 1870s; their influence loomed especially large in the republic's anti-clerical campaigns. Jewish financial and media power also provided the underpinning for the Weimar Republic, whose depiction as the Judenrepublik by anti-Semites was not far from the mark. In late 19th-century Britain, the Jewish-dominated press championed imperialism, which benefited Jewish finance. And during the early stages of the Soviet regime, Jews were numerous in leadership positions, especially in the secret police and the propaganda agencies, which they dominated. In contrast to Judeophiles who claim that Jews observe a higher humanitarian ethos, Ginsberg acknowledges that Jewish Communists played a ruthless role in liquidating their opposition.Ginsberg warns that as a result of their great power, Jews become a highly visible target for the enemies of the regime and often suffer group destruction with the regime's demise.

Thus in the late 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain, where they had occupied key positions under previous monarchs. In Germany, Hitler eliminated the Jews along with the Weimar Republic; what enabled Nazism to succeed was a coalescence of lower- and upper-class opposition to Jewish power. Where such a fusion of divergent classes does not take place, as in the French Third Republic, Jewish power survives despite a high degree of anti-Semitism. The Jewish fall from power does not always require the demise of a friendly regime. Sometimes a previously hospitable regime will eliminate Jews when they are no longer necessary for the maintenance of power, as was the case in the Soviet Union when Stalin dispensed with Jews. Ginsberg's fundamental theory is that the Jewish close relationship with the state is a "fatal embrace": the achievement of great power, and the concomitant high visibility, invite group destruction as situations change.

***Ginsberg devotes the greatest part of his book to the history of Jewish power in America. German Jews gained significant power in the United States after the Civil War, largely in the realm of finance. Jews financed the U.S. regime's Civil War debt, the debts of the reconstructed Southern states, and the nascent industries. In essence, according to our author, Jews were a part of the new business and industrial class of the Gilded Age, and became "identified with the worst excesses of the nineteenth-century industrial order." (p. 75) Jewish prominence induced an anti-Semitic opposition from Southern and Western agrarians (Populists), and from old-stock New England patricians. Reacting to that anti-Semitic criticism, the Gentile business class jettisoned its ties with the Jews and aligned itself with the patricians. Thus, the 1890s saw the emergence both of exclusive clubs that barred Jews and of anti-Jewish quotas in the Ivy League colleges. Having been thrust out of the business elite, Jews sought to alter the American economic system, Ginsberg writes. They identified with the Progressive reform movement and — on the part of the newly immigrating EasternEuropean Jews — with radical socialism. The Jewish role in the Progressive movement crested in the Wilson administration, with Louis Brandeis playing a major role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Trade Commission. However, the Jewish rise was transitory, cut short by the anti-radical Red Scare in the aftermath of World War I, which destroyed radical and reform movements as well as (in Ginsberg's view) an emerging welfare state.It was with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal that Jews gained long-term power in the United States, power that continues into the present. Jews served as Roosevelt's idea men and staffed his New Deal agencies.

They played a fundamental part in fashioning the centralized American welfare state — and Ginsberg asserts thatthey created it to serve their own interests. In contrast to American Protestants' success in the private sector, Ginsberg writes that Jews "relied upon the state and the public economy to achieve positions of influence and status in American society." (p. 103) That account contrasts, we should note, with Thomas Sowell's portrayal of Jewish success via the free market.Jews also played a significant role in getting the United States into World War II to destroy their Nazi nemesis. And they worked actively to undermine popular noninterventionist resistance to war. For example, the Anti-Defamation League "employed investigative agents who secretly penetrated isolationist and anti-Semitic organizations and collected potentially damaging or incriminating information" which it turned over to the FBI and other federal agencies. (p. 110) Ginsberg does not develop this point, but given the fact that the overwhelming majority of "isolationists" were not enemy agents and were simply exercising their constitutional right to oppose a policy, it is apparent that activist American Jews have been quite willing to crush the civil liberties of others in order to advance their own goals. Jews also played a critical part in turning the media toward a prowar stance.
(That was quite an achievement, since the American mood in the 1930s was strongly antiwar and "isolationist.") In Hollywood, Jewish film makers concentrated on producing anti-Nazi propaganda films to prepare the masses for a crusade against evil.

In the immediate postwar period, right-wing attacks on Communist subversion put Jews on the defensive. Since Jews had been numerous in the American Communist Party, to them the attacks reeked of anti-Semitism. But by joining forces with the also-imperiled WASP elite, Jews were able to destroy the threat by exercising their media power. They did not just succeed in downplaying the idea of Communist subversion; they were even able to change the issue from Communist subversion to the right-wing threat to American civil liberties. That was quite a striking ideological turnaround from the Jews' total disregard of the civil liberties of pre-World War II "isolationists." The Jewish success against the right-wing danger meant that by the late 1950s, "conservative anti-Communists who sought to maintain a modicum of respectability ... carefully avoided the least hint of anti-Semitism." (p. 125) Ginsberg cites William F. Buckley Jr. as an example.

In the 1960s, the Jews played key roles in the civil rights revolution and the concomitant Great Society programs. For Jews, Ginsberg points out, support for black civil rights was not only a "moral commitment" but also an "important political tactic" to weaken the white South and the ethnic machine politicians in the North, and, as a consequence, increase their own relative power within the Democratic coalition. Moreover, the advancement of the concept of "equality of opportunity" bolstered Jewish power throughout society. (pp. 125-26) Jews opposed the Vietnam War because it inhibited the expansion of those liberal Great Society programs in which their power resided. By the end of the Great Society reforms, Jews, in Ginsberg's view, had become the major force in American politics and government: "From the 1970s onward, Jews led or were influential in most, though not all, of the political reform, feminist, consumer rights, gay rights, environmentalist and other public interest groups and related foundations, study groups, and think tanks that came to dominate the Democratic party during the 1970s and continue to be the leading forces within that party today." (p. 137) And Jews wield considerable power in the institutions of the American welfare state, holding as they do prominent positions in the "public or quasi-public economy of government agencies, helping professions, private foundations, think tanks, and universities." (p. 140)

Since Jewish power and wealth is either directly or indirectly tied to the national government, rather than to state and local governments or to the strictly private sector, Jews have a vested interest in its maintenance and expansion. In short, Ginsberg contends, Jews support the liberal welfare state for reasons of material self-interest: "Jewish liberalism is more an institutional than an attitudinal phenomenon. It is associated more with Jews' political linkages and involvements than with their underlying attitudes." (p. 143) Ginsberg attributes the rise of black anti-Semitism over the past couple decades to the desire of upwardly mobile blacks to share in the positions of power held by Jews in the welfare-state apparatus. Jews may oppose some black activities, but they cannot become too critical of blacks because it is the idea of helping disadvantaged blacks that provides the "legitimation of the American welfare state.

" Indeed, Ginsberg maintains, "Many Jews and Jewish organizations believe that the fundamental interests of Jews are so closely tied, both politically and institutionally, to those of blacks, that it is sometimes necessary to support black demands even when, conceived narrowly or in the short term, these seem to be disadvantageous to Jews." (p. 165) It is that vested interest in the liberal welfare state that prevented most Jews from turning to Republicanism in the 1980s despite the Republicans' support for pro-Jewish positions on racial quotas and the defense of Israel. Although the overwhelming majority of Jews did not turn to Reagan Republicanism in the 1980s, "Jews played important roles in implementing the administration's economic and foreign policy objectives," Ginsberg writes.

"The association of Jews with Reaganism, especially in the realm of foreign policy, helped to heighten the anti-Semitism of forces on the political Left but produced a measure of philo-Semitism on the right, most notably among Protestant fundamentalists." (p. 188) Neoconservative Reaganauts identified Israel as America's "strategic asset" in the Cold War, and Israel actually helped the United States fight communism in Latin America and elsewhere. In the economic realm, Jewish parvenu financiers such as Michael Milken were the major beneficiaries of the Reagan rollback of regulations. Ginsberg claims that the Republicans, unable to attract any significant number of Jews to their side, abandoned their support of the neocon elite with the end of the Cold War. Israel simply was no longer needed as an ally. Thus President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker tried to coerce Israel into following American Middle East policy and in so doing alienated their neoconservative support. Ginsberg, who completed Fatal Embrace at the beginning of the Clinton administration, emphasizes the large number of Jews who were entering that regime, reinforcing his theme of American Jewry's continued identification with liberal Democrats. The author attempts to gauge whether Jewish power — which aroused strong opposition in the past — is threatened today. Despite the explicit anti-Semitism of blacks, Ginsberg doubts that they pose a direct threat to Jews because of their dependence on the welfare state that Jews supervise: blacks and Jews are "locked into a long-term relationship which neither can easily abandon." (p. 183) Black anti-Semitic rhetoric, however, has loosened the taboo against anti-Semitism in American society, according to Ginsberg, so that white right-wing forces — Joe Sobran, Patrick Buchanan, David Duke, paleoconservatives — can attack Jews and their agenda. Ginsberg believes that those right-wingers, if they should use the correct populist appeal to unite upper- and lower-class whites in what he characterizes as the Nazi manner, could pose a formidable threat to American Jewry:

"An alliance of radical populists and respectable conservatives would almost inevitably make vigorous use of anti-Semitic themes to attack the liberal Democratic regime, and the Jews would find themselves locked in the fatal embrace of yet another state." (p. 243)

***Ginsberg is far more explicit on the reality of Jewish power than any other pro-Jewish author of which this reader is aware. However, he leaves some important matters unresolved. First, it must be asked: What enables Jews to dominate societies? Ginsberg says they have certain talents — scholarly, business, managerial — not possessed by the bulk of the population.However, he does not claim (like Nathaniel Weyl) that Jews are innately more intelligent than other people. It is odd that societies supposedly based on equality (such as America's current welfare state) would come to reflect greater Jewish dominance. With all the purported equal educational opportunities and aid to the disadvantaged, one would think that social and economic differences among groups would lessen over time.

Of course, it could be argued that the real purpose of the liberal welfare state is not to help the disadvantaged but rather to keep them dependent in order to maintain the rationale for the welfare institutions that Jews dominate. Ginsberg does not even hint at this explanation.Also problematic is the author's understanding of anti-Semitism. Ginsberg characterizes as anti-Semitic those Gentiles who are critical of Jewish power and its uses. Therefore, anti-Semitism does not necessarily entail racial hatred, threats of racial expulsion or racial extermination, or even lies. A statement can be perfectly truthful and still qualify as anti-Semitic! Despite this apparent meaning, Ginsberg still gives anti-Semitism a negative connotation. Presumably, it is wrong for Gentiles to oppose the Jewish agenda. A reader of Ginsberg's book should understand from the outset that the work is directed to Jews and Judeophiles, and that the author's concern is the long-term effect of Jewish power on Jews. He does not dwell on the negative impacts that Jewish power has had on Gentiles, even though he cites examples in which Gentiles have been harmed— such as in the Soviet Union.

Finally, Ginsberg underplays the importance of neoconservatism. (Paul Gottfried, the foremost paleoconservative analyst of neoconservatism, has underscored the significant power of neoconservatism in such works as The Conservative Movement. ) Bush and Baker did anger neocons, but neoconservatism still dominates the Republican Party and the American conservative establishment. Neoconservatism simply does not threaten the welfare-state apparatus that provides Jews a base of power. As paleoconservatives correctly point out, neoconservatism simply acts to coopt the conservative thrust of the electorate, rendering it harmless to those whose interests are served by the welfare state. Besides being innocuous to the domestic welfare state, a neocon Republican regime might better serve Jewish foreign policy interests than a liberal Democratic one. It could pursue a Zionist-oriented globalistic foreign policy without the inhibitions of the Democratic Left. And having neocons in strategic positions in the Republican Party means that the Jews have placed their eggs in more than one basket: no matter who controls the government, Democrat or Republican, Jewish power remains intact. Outside of the Jewish orbit there remain only Patrick Buchanan and the paleoconservatives, whom Ginsberg sees as imminent threats to Jewish power and its agenda.Despite some questionable interpretations, The Fatal Embrace is of immense value for its candid discussion of Jewish power, especially since it is authored by a Jew who identifies closely with Jewish interests. It is must reading for anyone interested in this taboo but critically important subject.

Ford, Dawkins,MacDonald and Latitudarianism

I am fond of the new word "Meme" as proposed by a non-Jew, Richard
Dawkins, however later popularized by Howard Bloom
(a Jew) in the "Lucifer Principle" and the "Global Brain".

To me this Darwinian and thoroughly non-Jewish concept or schemata
of ideas working like human genes, however faster, explains cultural
evolution. It is also highly consistent with how our popular culture
has been formed by progenitors of ideas par excellence, the Jews.

Henry Ford rightly recognized this and termed it "Latitudarianism"
as in its worse case as a series or streams of ideas running through
gentile culture with the intent to subvert/invert traditional

Ford also proposed that until his writing circa 1920, that Jewish ideas led the predominant intellectual movements in world history.

It has also been said that Marxism is the background of the background in which "Cultural Criticism"takes place.

It was then left to Kevin MacDonald some 70 years later in
Critique of Culture to pickup where Ford left off in exposing Jewish
Intellectuals as the progenitors of structuralism, post
structuralism, deconstruction and multiculturalism from the
Frankfurt School. Some of these ideas serve to undermine
Enlightenment principles, universalism and Gentile World Order. Some
of these ideas are collectively what Ford would have
termed "Latitudarianism"

Meme theory can propose "Meme production". Memes are the units of
cultural production and with a direct influence on culture and its
transmission of values or in some instances, anti-values. Whether it
be movies, television programming, cable television programming,
major print media ( the NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post
or USA Today), magazines, journals, etc. the stamp of largely Jewish
ideas are propounded and pounded consistently and without remission.
The recent increase in book production, book deals and Book TV
attest to the human need for culture which is about as important a
humans need as food and shelter. All people and probably at all
times have a need to belong, be a part of something bigger. The
question is whether and to what extent this will be exploited.

It is with all of this in mind that I confesses to having contracted
what has been called the "Jewish Thing". The Jewish thing may in
fact be a Meme by itself or even a virus of the mind. The
interesting thing is though it involves now recognizing another
virus of the mind or viruses in Latitudarianism. It is the
depressing recognition of alienist Ideas and the extent to which
they have permeated our culture. There is simply no anecdote other
than to recognize its presence and to combat it as effectively as

Henry Ford said let it be a fair fight and on the battleground of
ideas in full view of all to see.

"odium generis humani"


"odium generis humani"

And the LORD shall scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth .... And among these nations shalt thou have no repose, and there shall be no rest for the sole of thy foot; but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul. And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance of thy life. In the morning thou shalt say: 'Would it were even!' and at even thou shalt say: 'Would it were morning!' (Deu 28: 64-67).......

So if I look back to the very dawn of recorded human history I will discover a defiant people who were simply unable or should I dare say unWILLING to follow the commandments of their God and lawgiver. After all it would seem as though the Tribe of Judea were the misfits , iconoclasts and willful misanthropes of that Desert Tree as humankind made its way out of Africa through the fertile cresent and into the Mideast . And perhaps their entire Ideology cum religion was designed to accommodate and over historical time to justify their unique and alien temperament.

So if I look back on human history and circa 70AD I see a small people who had there asses kicked repeatedly, sent packing and undeserving of real nationhood.

So if I look back in history circa 1500 AD I see those same people sent packing from most major and "Enlightened " countries.

So if I look back on history to 1933 AD I see a people with an idea who were responsible for the deaths of 20 million people in Russia and in Poland.

So if I look back to 1945 and I see the predictable cataclysm of Bolshevism and Hitlerism. I also see a people that while they bemoaned the fate of the Jews in Germany, would not accept their settlement in their countries.

I am afraid that history has already rendered a firm decision that a people that worships themselves in the name of a god cannot peacefully abide with the bulk of humanity now and probably in the future.

Further still, perhaps Nietzsche was incorrect in ascribing the pround and hateful values inversion and priestly resentment to Christianity, and not to the "popular moral genius" of Jews and Judaism.

As things play out in our own culture in 2005AD I must say that Jewish cultural producers have excelled in the defilement of traditional Greco-Roman and Christian values. There is a certain glee taking place as all the old values are toppled and while the wreckers are making money as the dimwitted are entertained.

Our Jewish ilk in postmodern academia and pop culture have gone beyond the simple transvaluation of values and into the realm of Nihilism. When a so called nation within a nation cannot make war with traditional weaponry, you should not preclude the real possibility of making war with "Ideas".

The Jewish Question is a very "deep", primordial" and truly "existential" affair. I have often wondered whether a Meme designed in the hot and baren cauldron of the Desert will someday be the death or ruin of us all. At least Evangelical Christians will be satisfied that the Apocalypse occurred as predicted.

For those atheists,agnostics or even deists amoungst us the time would appear to have come to pave paradise or at least to render it inhabitable for hundreds of years. At the current rate that may happen.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Nietzsche and The Jewish Question

Frederic Nietzsche and the Revolutionary Origins of Judaism. Is "their popular genius" as well as their genius in the inversion of values not recurrent in various forms throughout History ?


But you do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required two thousand years to achieve victory? There is nothing to wonder at in that; all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before-there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love--and from what other trunk could it have grown?

*** One should not imagine it grew up as the denial of that thirst for revenge, as the opposite of Jewish hatred!*** No, the reverse is true!

That love grew out of it as its crown, as its triumphant crown spreading itself farther and farther into the purest brightness and sunlight, driven as it were into the domain of light and the heights in pursuit of the goals of that hatred-victory, spoil, and seduction by the same impulse that drove the roots of that hatred deeper and deeper and more and more covetously into all that was profound and evil.

This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and ,'victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners-was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and bypath to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the bypath of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

What is certain, at Least, is that sub hoc signo Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.

"But why are you talking about nobler ideals! Let us stick to the facts: the people have Won over 'the slaves' or 'the mob' or 'the herd or whatever you like to call them though has happened through the Jews, very well! in that case no people ever had a more world-historic mission.

'The masters' have been disposed of; the morality of the common man has won. One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a blood-poisoning (it is mixed the races together)-I shan't contradict; but this intoxication has undoubtedly been successful. The 'redemption' of the human race (Cram 'the masters,' that is) is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaizcd, Christianized, mobized (what do the words matter!).

The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems irresistible, its pace and tempo may from now on even grow slower, subtler, less audible, more cautious-there is plenty of time.- To this end, does the church today still have any necessary role to play? Does it still have? The right to exist? Or could one do without it? It seems to hinder rather than hasten this progress. But perhaps that is its usefulness- Certainly it has, over the years, become something crude and boorish, something repellent to a more delicate intellect, to a truly modern taste. Ought it not to become at least a little more refined?- Today it alienates rather than seduces.- Which of us would be a free spirit if the church did not exist? It is the church, and not its poison, that repels US.- Apart from the church, we, too, love the poison.-"

This is the epilogue of a "free spirit" to my speech; an honest animal, as he has abundantly revealed, and a democrat, moreover; he had been listening to me till then and could not endure to listen to my silence. For at this point I have much to be silent about.


The Jews-a people "born for slavery," as Tacitus and the whole ancient world say; *** "the chosen people among the peoples," as they themselves say and believe--the Jews have brought off that miraculous feat of an inversion of values,*** thanks to which life on earth has acquired a novel and dangerous attraction for a couple of millennia: their prophets have fused "rich," "godless," "evil," "violent," and "sensual" into one and were the first to use the word "world" as an opprobrium. This inversion of values (which includes using the word "poor" as synonymous with "holy" and "friend") constitutes the significance of the' Jewish people; they mark the beginning of the slave rebellion in morals.

*** Revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed priestly vengefulness.***

It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying ''the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone arc pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone-and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and YOU shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned!" ... One knows who inherited this Jewish revaluation ... In connection with the tremendous and immeasurably fateful initiative provided by the Jews through this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I recall the proposition I arrived at on a previous occasion (Beyond Good and Evil, section 195) 'That with the Jews there begins the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of two thousand years behind it and which we no longer see because it-has been victorious.

Let us conclude. The two opposing values "good and bad," "good and evil" have been engaged in fearful struggle on for thousands of years; and though the latter value has certainly been on top for a long time, there are still places where this struggle is yet undecided.

One might even say that It has risen ever higher and thus become more and more profound and Spiritual: so that today there is perhaps no more mark of a ”Higher nature," a more spiritual nature, than that of being divided sense and a genuine battleground of these opposed values.

The symbol of this struggle, inscribed in letters across all human history, is "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome .: -there has hitherto been no greater event than this struggle,this question, this deadly contradiction.

*** Rome felt the Jew to be something like anti-nature itself. its antipodal monstrosity as It were: Rome the Jew stood "convicted of hatred for the whole human' race" ***
; and rightly, provided one has a right to link the salvation and future of the human race with the unconditional dominance of aristocratic values, Roman values.

How, on the other hand, did the Jews feel about Rome? A thousand signs tell us; but it suffices to recall the Apocalypse of John, the most wanton of all literary outbursts that vengefulness has on its conscience. (One should not underestimate the profound consistency of [he Christian instinct when it signed this book of hate with the name of the disciple or Jove, the same disciple 10 whom it attributed that amorous-enthusiastic Gospel: there is a piece of truth in this, however much literary counterfeiting might have been required to produce it.) For the Romans were the strong and noble. and nobody stronger and nobler has yet existed on earth or even been dreamed of: every remnant of them, every inscription gives delight, if only one divines what it was that was there at work.

The Jews, on the contrary, were the priestly nation of resentiment par excellence, in whom there dwelt an unequaled popular-moral genius: one only has to compare similarly gifted nations -the Chinese or the Germans, for instance-with the Jews, to sense which is of the first and which of the fifth rank

Which of them has won for the present, Rome or Judea? But there can be no doubt: consider to whom one bows down in Rome itself today, as if they were the epitome of all the highest values and not only in Rome but over almost half the earth, everywhere that man has become tame or desires to become tame: three Jews, as is known, and olle Jewess (Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome has been defeated beyond doubt.

There was, to be sure, in the Renaissance an uncanny and glittering reawakening of the classical ideal, of the noble mode of evaluating all things; Rome itself, oppressed by the new superimposed Judaized Rome that presented the aspect of an ecumenical Synagogue and was called the "church," stirred like one awakened from seeming death: but Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that thoroughly plebeian (German and English) resentment movement called the Reformation, and to that which was bound to arise from it, the restoration of the church-the restoration too of the ancient sepulchral repose of classical Rome.

With the French Revolution, Judea once again triumphed over the classical ideal, and this time in an even more profound and decisive sense: the last political noblesse in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth century, collapsed beneath the popular instincts of resentment-greater rejoicing, more uproarious enthusiasm had never been heard on earth! To be sure, in the midst of it there occurred the most tremendous, the most unexpected thing: the ideal of antiquity itself stepped incarnate and in unheard-of splendor before the eyes and conscience of mankind and once again, in opposition to the mendacious slogan of resentment, "supreme rights of the majority," in opposition to the will to the lowering, the abasement, the leveling and the decline and twilight of mankind, there sounded stronger, simpler, and more insistently than ever the terrible and rapturous counter slogan "supreme rights of the few"! Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon appeared, the most isolated and late-born man there has even been, and in him the problem of the noble ideal as such made flesh one might well ponder what kind of problem it is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and superhuman.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The Jewish Establishment

The Jewish Establishmentby Joseph Sobran

IN THE EARLY 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in the Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.Now imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated - thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime's persecution. Would that paper's respectability have been unimpaired several decades later?

There you have an epitome of what is lamely called "media bias." The Western supporters of Stalin haven't just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call the "McCarthy era," to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself. Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as "anti-semitism." But there isn't even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murder of Christians. Liberals still don't censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason - liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America.It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish Establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others - you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don't look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately

Power openly acquired, openly exercised, and openly discussed is one thing. You may think organized labor or the Social Security lobby abuses its power, but you don't jeopardize your career by saying so. But a kind of power that forbids its own public mention, like the Holy Name in the Old Testament, is another matter entirely.There is an important anomaly here. The word "Jewish," in this context, doesn't include Orthodox or otherwise religious Jews. The Jews who still maintain the Hebraic tradition of millennia are marginal, if they are included at all, in the Jewish establishment that wields journalistic, political, and cultural power. Morally and culturally, the Orthodox might be classed as virtual Christians, much like the descendants of Christians who still uphold the basic morality, if not the faith, of their ancestors. Many of these Jews are friendly to Christians and eager to make common cause against the moral decadence they see promoted by their apostate cousins. Above all, the Orthodox understand, better than almost anyone else in America today, the virtues - the necessity - of tribalism, patriarchal authority, the moral bonds of kinship.

The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is predominantly secularist and systematically anti-Christian. In fact, it is unified far more by its hostility to Christianity than by its support of Israel, on which it is somewhat divided. The more left-wing Jews are faintly critical of Israel, though never questioning its "right to exist" - that is, its right to exist on terms forbidden to any Christian country; that is, its right to deny rights to non-Jews. A state that treated Jews as Israel treats gentiles would be condemned outright as Nazi-like. But Israel is called "democratic," even "pluralistic."Explicitly "Jewish" organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League enforce a dual standard. What is permitted to Israel is forbidden to America. This is not just thoughtless inconsistency. These organizations consciously support one set of principles here - equal rights for all, ethnic neutrality, separation of church and state - and their precise opposites in Israel, where Jewish ancestry and religion enjoy privilege. They "pass" as Jeffersonians when it serves their purpose, espousing rules that win the assent of most Americans. At the same time, they are bent on sacrificing the national interest of the United States to the interests of Israel, under the pretense that both countries' interests are identical. (There is, of course, no countervailing American lobby in Israel.)

The single most powerful Jewish lobbying group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, as its former director Thomas Dine openly boasted, controls Congress. At a time when even Medicare may face budget cuts, aid to Israel remains untouchable. If the Israelis were to begin "ethnic cleansing" against Arabs in Israel and the occupied lands, it is inconceivable that any American political figure would demand the kind of military strike now being urged against the Serbs in ex-Yugoslavia.Jewish-owned publications like The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Post, and New York's Daily News emit relentless pro-Israel propaganda; so do such pundits as William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and George Will, to name a few. That Israel's journalistic partisans include so many gentiles - lapsed goyim, you might say - is one more sign of the Jewish establishment's power. So is the fact that this fact isn't mentioned in public (though it is hardly unnoticed in private.)

So is the fear of being called "anti-Semitic." Nobody worries about being called "anti-Italian" or "anti-French" or "anti-Christian"; these aren't words that launch avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid to do business with you.It's pointless to ask what "anti-Semitic" means. It means trouble. It's an attack signal. The practical function of the word is not to define or distinguish things, but to conflate them indiscriminately - to equate the soberest criticism of Israel or Jewish power with the murderous hatred of Jews. And it works. Oh, how it works.When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn't make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his "loose" charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

The opposite applies to charges of "anti-Semitism." The word has no precise definition. An "anti-Semite" may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn't defined.A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of "anti-Semitism," everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined - even if the charge was baseless. Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out."Anti-Semitism" is therefore less a charge than a curse, an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically. Being a "bogus predicate," to use Gilbert Ryle's phrase, it has no real content, no functional equivalent in plain nouns and verbs. Its power comes from the knowledge of its potential targets, the gentiles, that powerful people are willing to back it up with material penalties.

In other words, journalists are as afraid of Jewish power as politicians are. This means that public discussion is cramped and warped by unspoken fear - a fear journalists won't acknowledge, because it embarrasses their pretense of being fearless critics of power. When there are incentives to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable.What is true of "anti-Semitism" is also true to a lesser degree of other bogus predicates like "racism," "sexism," and "homophobia." Other minorities have seen and adopted the successful model of the Jewish establishment. And so our public tongue has become not only Jewish-oriented but more generally minority-oriented in its inhibitions.The illusion that we enjoy free speech has been fostered by the breaking of Christian taboos, which has become not only safe but profitable. To violate minority taboos is "offensive" and "insensitive"; to violate Christian taboos - many of them shared by religious Jews - is to be "daring" and "irreverent." ("Irreverence," of course, has become good.)

Jewry, like Gaul, may be divided into three parts, each defined by its borders vis-a-vis the gentile world. There are the Orthodox, who not only insist on borders but wear them. They often dress in attire that sets them apart; they are even willing to look outlandish to gentiles in order to affirm their identity and their distinctive way of life. At the other extreme are Jews who have no borders, who may (or may not) assimilate and intermarry, whose politics may range from left to right, but who in any case accept the same set of rules for everyone. I respect both types.

But the third type presents problems. These are the Jews who maintain their borders furtively and deal disingenuously with gentiles. Raymond Chandler once observed of them that they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen as Jews by gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have not such interests, using the charge of "anti-Semitism" as sword and shield.

As Chandler put it, they are like a man who refuses to give his real name and address but insists on being invited to all the best parties. Unfortunately, it's this third type that wields most of the power and skews the rules for gentiles. The columnist Richard Cohen cites an old maxim: "Dress British, think Yiddish."Americans ought to be free to discuss Jewish power and Jewish interests frankly, without being accused of denying the rights of Jews. That should go without saying. The truth is both otherwise and unmentionable.

Joseph Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist who now maintains a Website at

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Studying the Tribe

"The Tribe resists being studied, especially by those
who are wary of it."

Sobran devotes a page to Kevin MacDonald in the April Sobran's.


Kevin MacDonald, of California State University at Long Beach, has written a learned trilogy on what he calls "Judaism as an evolutionary strategy," analyzing Jewish conduct through the ages, right up to the present. Most recently he has written three penetrating essays in THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY, one of them "Neoconservatism
as a Jewish Movement"; it shows the movement's roots in theTrotskyite Jewish left of yore, as well as its ancient roots in Jewish tribalism. It's a fascinating

You can't read MacDonald's work, either the imposing trilogy or his shorter essays, without feeling that such a study of Jewish influence is long overdue. He isn't accusatory; he's quite attentive to strategic differences that have divided the Jews themselves. But he does make it clear that the extreme elements among them have always had advantages over the others. Hence, for example, Ariel Sharon's ruthless Likud coalition has muscled out the Labor Party in Israel, with vigorous support from erstwhile "moderate" Jewish organizations in the Diaspora. Not long ago, those organizations appeared firmly in the Labor camp; but MacDonald explains how seemingly
unpredictable alignments arise from Jewish culture. We shouldn't have been surprised.

One quibble. I'm allergic to the word "evolutionary"; the pattern seems to me
quite conscious and intelligent, and indeed everything MacDonald adduces
confirms this: the cunning combination of group self-interest with pseudo-universalist rhetoric (liberal, conservative, Marxist, democratic, patriotic, et
cetera) designed to fool outsiders; the long and vengeful historical memory; the
use of guilt and victimhood for advantage; the severe measures of group
self-discipline. Neoconservatism is just a new application of some very old tactics.
MacDonald is telling in great detail and depth what a few brave Jews -- such as
the late Israel Shahak and, today, Israel Shamir --have tried to tell us from inside the fanatical world of Zionism.

MacDonald's reward for his labors has been predictable. He has been smeared as anti-Semitic, and some Jews have tried to get him fired from his university and ostracized in academia. Even to describe and analyze organized Jewish behavior,however objectively, is to be an enemy deserving destruction. Accurately
quoting Jewish sources themselves, from the Talmud to recent publications, only makes the offense worse!

Everyone knows this is a subject protected by profound taboos; indeed the mere mention of those taboos is an offense. The taboos themselves, in other words, force us to pretend that there are no taboos, as MacDonald has found. The relevant Jewish powers -- the Tribe, as I call them (to distinguish them from independent Jews) -- insist that they favor complete freedom of speech, and woe to him who says otherwise. In fact it's not always wise to observe that those powers exist, even though politicians, journalists, churchmen, and other influential people constantly kowtow to them.

No other topic requires such mental and verbal contortions in order to avoid ugly, and damaging, accusations. The Tribe resists being studied, especially by those who are wary of it. Even wariness is anti-Semitic, you know -- though the Tribe wants to be feared. It's striking how freely the Christian Right can be discussed in public, while Jewish power may be alluded to only in euphemisms. The difference is especially startling when you consider the relative numbers of Christians and Jews.

The rules of this game are head-spinning. Kafka and Orwell might have collaborated on them. Except, of course, that they're unwritten, and must remain so.

Just as the Talmud says that no Gentile may study the Law, to formulate the rules is to violate them. You can't win. Not if you're a Gentile, anyway. That's really the whole point of the game. No wonder the Tribe is winning.

If you're so much as accused of anti-Semitism, you lose. And what's the penalty for making false charges of anti-Semitism? There is none. There is no such thing as a false charge of it; to be accused is to be guilty. If nothing else, you're guilty of having been accused.

The neoconservatives have used, without compunction, every trick in their
very old book to defeat and destroy the few traditional conservatives who have
resisted their takeover of what is still called the "conservative movement."
After accusing his own dead father of anti-Semitism, Bill Buckley virtually
deeded the whole movement over to the neocons.

Zionist power has long controlled the American Congress. Today the neocons
have gained nearly total control of the executive branch too. After all, the
United States is fighting Israel's enemies, and may soon be fighting two more:
Syria and Iran.

The neocons have succeeded almost too well: Their success has gotten them
more media attention than they probably wanted -- much of it critical, in a
guarded (given the taboos) way. More and more Americans now know what a "neocon" is
and don't need MacDonald to tell them that the neocons are a specifically
Jewish and Zionist movement. (Some of my old friends in the Midwest are a lot
less naive about this than they used to be.)

Some neocons, uneasy at their recent exposure, have in effect tried to go underground: They deny that there's even such a thing as a "neoconservative." The word, they say, is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jew." Have they already forgotten that it was once their own codeword?

Monday, June 06, 2005

Alien Justice

Hard Core Leftist W/ Frankfurt School Honorary Degree

From 1974 and with the ACLU-

This from a Jewish Woman who advocated Co-Ed Prisons, the Abolition of Fathers and Mothers Day and have a Unisex Day, advocated Legal Prostitution, advocated Polgomy and said that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Perpetuated Sexual Stereotypes

Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. the Declaration of Independence

By M. Edward Whelan III

Posted: Tuesday, April 26, 2005

ARTICLE National Review Online Publication Date: April 26, 2005

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently gave a speech defending the Supreme Court's increasing use of foreign law in support of its rulings on the meaning of the Constitution. The title of her speech — "'A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind': the Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication" — nicely encapsulates the core flaws in her position.

First is her thinly disguised contempt for the Framers. Obtusely appealing to the Declaration of Independence to justify the Supreme Court's dependence on foreign law, Ginsburg cannot resist the urge to purge the gender bias she perceives in the Framers' observation that "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind" requires a declaration of the "causes which impel them to the Separation." Nor, apparently, did she notice that one of those stated causes was that King George III "has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution."

The rhetorical centerpiece of Ginsburg's speech is a crude attack against originalists — those who adhere to the original understanding of the Framers' Constitution and of the various amendments to it.

Here's the structure of her illogic: (1) Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott stated the originalist principle that no "change in public opinion or feeling . . . in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country should induce the [Supreme Court] to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction . . . than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted." (2) This statement of originalist orthodoxy, Ginsburg asserts, is "extreme." (3) Notwithstanding the fact that the Civil War and the post-Civil War Amendments reversed Dred Scott, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas somehow continue to share Taney's "extreme" position that constitutional rulings should not be based on foreign developments. With this glaring non sequitur, Ginsburg absurdly insinuates that the position espoused by her three colleagues has some special kinship with Taney and Dred Scott.

Taney's opinion in Dred Scott is deservedly infamous, but not because of its recitation of originalist orthodoxy. Besides its overt racism, the main legal defect in Taney's opinion is that, while pretending to be faithful to originalist principles, it in fact marked the Court's first use of the modern judicial activist's favorite tool, "substantive due process," to invalidate a statute — the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories. Notably, the dissenters in Dred Scott invoked and properly applied the very originalist principles that Ginsburg finds abhorrent: "I prefer the lights of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, as a means of construing the Constitution in all its bearings," wrote Justice McLean. "[I]f a prohibition of slavery in a Territory in 1820 violated this principle of [due process], the ordinance of 1787 also violated it," explained Justice Curtis in exposing Taney's deviation from originalism.

In attacking originalism as "frozen in time," Ginsburg slights the genius of the Framers in setting up a system in which the people, through their elected representatives and within the broad bounds established by the Constitution, adapt the laws to changing times. She claims that judges "honor the Framers' intent 'to create [sic] a more perfect Union'" when they rewrite the Constitution to comport with their own understandings of the needs of the day. But it is "We the People of the United States," not judges, to whom the Constitution looks to "form a more perfect Union."

The second basic flaw in Ginsburg's speech is signaled by her elusive subtitle. What exactly does a "comparative perspective" in constitutional adjudication mean, and what is its value? Addressing a group of international lawyers, Ginsburg resorts to kindergarten talk — "we can learn from others," "we can join hands with others," we should "share our experience" — but never even attempts to explain how a foreign court's decision on how a foreign law measures up to a foreign charter can or should have analytical value in construing our Constitution. She emphasizes that she does not regard foreign decisions as "controlling authorities." Could those foreign decisions be the tipping factor in a particular case? Ginsburg doesn't expressly say so, but she gives no reason why that couldn't happen. Nor does she offer any principle to determine what weight they should have. In short, she has no response to Scalia's criticism:

"To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."

When Ginsburg's position is clear, her understanding is muddled. Ginsburg points out that the Framers understood that the United States "would be bound by 'the Law of Nations,' today called international law." But the Constitution's conferral of power on Congress "[t]o define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations" makes clear that it is up to Congress, not judges, to determine which obligations under international law should apply domestically.

Similarly, Ginsburg points out with pride that her separate opinions in the Michigan racial-preference cases cite two United Nations Conventions — one that the United States has ratified, and one that "sadly" it "has not yet ratified" — as evidence that the international understanding of racial preferences supports her application of the Equal Protection Clause. But the very fact that she sees no effective difference between a ratified treaty — which (whether or not it has any domestic effect) is part of "the supreme Law of the Land" under the Constitution — and an unratified convention demonstrates the incoherence of her views.

Ginsburg ends her speech by quoting Abigail Adams's comment that the "habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties." Alas for Ginsburg — and for all Americans subjected to her dominion — the habits of a flabby mind are reinforced in merely pretending to have contended with difficulties.
— Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and directs EPPC's program on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture.




"The glib use of the Deep Throat moniker by the establishment buoying Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein was itself a signal of the new corruption: one form of crassness had been replaced by a more chic crassness. And that crassness -- at once willing to wallow in scandal in the popular culture and conduct puritanical political purges against select reviled figures -- would masquerade as morality for years until it exploded in the liberals' complicity in the very lies, perjury, and obstruction of justice that they spent their youth decrying." - George Neumeyer

Harry Reems (j) , Star of Deep Throat the movie ( aka Herbert Streicher Seen Here Prior to his Physical and Religious Conversion to become Geraldo Rivera, :< ) )

No doubt but that Monica Lewinsky (j) performed Deep Throat upon William Jefferson Clinton.

In turn it was Michael Isikoff (j) who uncovered their relationship. It was later broken on the Internet by Matt Drudge (j) . Further lest we forget the woman who counseled Linda Tripp to tape convesations with Monica- Luccianne Goldberg (j). In other words, Michael Isikoff was to the Clinton - Lewinsky episode what Mark Felt (j) was to Nixon and Watergate.

One may also be reminded that the Grahm''s , owners (j) of the Washington Post, were the leaders in the journalistic coverage and frenzy of Watergate. And last but not least, it was Carl Bernstein (j) and Bob Woodward who met with Deep Throat.

Deep Throat the movie became the most popular Porn film of the day. Harry Reems (j) was its star and the recipient of Linda Lovelace's unique talents.

Who says that truth is not stranger than fiction and when self described ethnic Jews in exile now "own" the Pornography Business ( credits to Phil Harvey- Porn Magnet (j) , Al Goldstein of Screw Magazine (j) and Chatsworth, CA homies) .

Sunday, May 22, 2005

This weblog is a non malevolent exploration and chronicling of a Nihilistic segment of the Jewish Diaspora, who have rejected any belief in God and embraced the Focaultian concept of "impersonal forces" (Solomon) .
"Truth" is non-objective and defined by Group Power.

"...There Really Is No Demonstrable Difference Between Truth And Consensus"

Skin and Discourse

by E. Michael Jones

From the Website "Culture Wars"

I have never owned a television. In the over 34 years that I have been married, we had one once. It came as part of the furnished apartment we rented in Germany and was kept and watched as an aid to learning the language of the natives. To say that I watched the premiere of Skin, the new TV series which was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and was being touted as the best new show of the season, means that in a culture like this, the instruments of communication are so powerful that you cannot not know certain things. What other people watch is one of these things; what we are supposed to think about them is another. Skin was portrayed in the previews and in subsequent reviews as one more attempt on the part of Hollywood to push the envelope on TV obscenity.

Skin describes the conflict between a pornographer and Los Angeles District Attorney. The show's premise allows for state of the art transgression of the TV code on nudity. If people tuned in for nudity, however, I suspect they were disappointed. There was no T and no A, just lots of young ladies in bikins hanging on to poles and writhing and gyrating to generic rock music. A much-hyped scene where the porn distributor has the young ladies demonstrate their product to prospective cable company buyers involved lots of underwear falling from the ceiling and little else. The really interesting part of the show was not the skin; it was the ethnicity. The DA is an Irish Catholic; the pornographer is Jewish. Their children make the ethnic angle clear on their first date. "I'm half Irish, half Mexican, but all Catholic," says the boy who is the DA's son. The girl for her part makes it clear that she comes from a family of secular Jews, but Jews nonetheles; there is no ambiguity about her ethnic identity. The two children complain about their parents, injecting a large dose of moral relativism into the show. Both children have issues with their parents. The Jewish girl wishes her dad didn't make porno films, but the Catholic boy also wishes that his father wasn't the crusading DA. A pox on both of your houses, seems appropriate here, since the script writers have appropriated the story line from Romeo and Juliet, but the relativism is -- at this point, at least -- inescapable. From the kids' perspective, being a crusading DA who is against pornography is just as bad as being a producer of porn. On this point, the Hollywood script writers attempt to evade the implications of their own ethnically charged story because what we are dealing with here is one of the oldest and most perduring cultural fault lines in American history, the Catholic/Jewish battle over who determines the country's sexual morality. The fact that we're talking about an ethnic fault line here means that this is not a generation gap issue here. Catholic kids agree with Catholic parents on certain issues, and Jewish kids do the same. That is what ethnicity is all about. There is, quite simply, no generation gap when it comes to abortion or pornography. There is only ethnic continuity, and a large chasm between Catholics and Jews which has perdured for going on an entire century now.But let's give credit where credit is due. Jerry Bruckheimer is either honest enough or clever enough to know that reality is what drives TV. This is so because reality drives all art, even abstract art like music. If there is no recognition of reality -- emotional reality, in the case of music -- then there is no interest. Hollywood is known to trim reality to ideology on a regular basis -- think of movies like GI Jane -- but they invariably lose money when they do. A TV series like Skin demonstrates that even the love of money can have its bright side, while still remaining the root of all evil.This is not to say that moral clarity follows from ethnic realism. It does not. The porn industry is sanitized by juxtaposing it with child pornography. The real issue in the Skin pilot is whether the Jewish pornographer is involved in child pornography, and his moral bona fides, at least in terms of Hollywood morality, is quickly established by his rage at one of his subordinates, who has inadvertently allowed some of his sites to be used by child pornographers. The Jewish pornographer is a family man, too. He doesn't want his family name besmirched. He is sensitive to what his daughter thinks of him. Moral unreality, at this point, gives way to ethnic reality. Jews have been major players in the obscenity trade ever since they arrived on these shores, and before that, they engaged in the same sort of trade in Poland and in the Pale of the Settlement in Russia. The ethnic premise for Skin, in this regard, could have been taken from Jay Gertzmann's book, Bookleggers and Smuthounds: The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940:

The ethnic flavor of prewar erotica distribution is still with us, although, except for extreme right-wing hate groups, critics of sexual explicitness do not overly exploit the fact. Many distributors of erotica are Jewish, even though very few sons and daughters of the people whose careers are surveyed here have adopted their parents' careers.

Gertzmann is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, but his uncle was arrested in Philadelphia in the '50s for trafficking in obscene material. The ethnic connection, as I have said before, goes a long way in explaining how the Jewish pornographer in Skin can think of himself as a family man, in spite of the way he earns a living. That's part of what makes the show interesting, but, by the same token, it's fairly easy to see where the show is going. The Jewish pornographer implies that anyone who is interested in prosecuting porn must have a secret obsession for it. The Catholic DA is being set up for it. We can imagine what will be downloaded from his computer in future episodes. In terms of morality, in other words, it's easy to see which ethnic group's view of reality is going to come out on top. That's one of the perks of being in charge of the most powerful media machine in the history of the universe. The owners get to dictate the outcomes: who wins and who loses in the ongoing saga of transvaluing all values that has become our culture wars. But, as I said, let's give credit where credit is due. Skin deals with reality, if not moral reality then certainly ethnic reality. One of the major fronts during the 20th century culture wars was the battle between Jews and Catholics over obscenity. I've already written about the Legion of Decency. In fact, I wrote about it in the May issue of Culture Wars in the context of Jews and pornography. The facts in the case are fairly straightforward when it comes to the story of obscenity in America: Jews promoted obscenity; Catholics fought it. Jerry Bruckheimer is to be commended for dealing with the facts. There is more ethnic reality in Skin than in all of Reality TV combined.But that leads to further questions. Television vies with sessions of the Modern Language Association as the most politically correct speech on the planet. That must mean then that it is now permissible to talk about Jewish involvement in pornography. Right? The answer to that question is "no," as I found out in the expensive school of experience. The people from Touchstone who disinvited me from speaking at their conference never gave a reason -- publicly, that is -- for my disinvitation. Privately -- which is to say, behind my back -- they would claim in response to queries from concerned readers that the reason behind my disinvitation was the May issue of Culture Wars, the issue on Rabbi Dresner's Dilemma over Jews and Pornography. That means that I was punished for making the same statement that is now making Jerry Bruckheimer rich.AHEAD OF MY TIMEBut perhaps I was just six months ahead of my time. Has the situation changed? Does the appearance of Skin as the big new TV series of the 2003-4 season mean that it is now culturally acceptable to talk about Jewish involvement in pornography? Does the existence of Skin on the most heavily censored medium in America mean that the taboo on talking about ethnicity in public has been lifted? If not, does that mean that Jerry Bruckheimer would not be invited to speak at a Touchstone conference because he was an anti-Semite? Or, more to the point, does that mean that Touchstone would turn down his money if he offered it to them? Questions proliferate the more we ask them. How can Jerry Bruckheimer get away portraying a Jew as a pornographer, a Negro as a drug dealer (Breaking with a longstanding Hollywood precedent, not one Negro in Skin was portrayed sitting in front of a computer screen.) on the most politically correct medium in the world, while I can't say similar things without being punished? I could, of course, say the same thing about my article on Rabbi Dresner in the May issue of Culture Wars. Rabbi Dresner was upset about Jewish involvement in obscenity and said so in his book Can Families Survive in Pagan America. But Rabbi Dresner was not Jerry Bruckheimer, and a small publishing house in Louisiana is not the Fox TV network. The same is true of Luke Ford, a Jew who has similar things to say about Jewish involvement in porn. He said what he had to say on his (now defunct) website, and websites are not primetime TV. Is it permissible to say things now that were impermissible six months ago? Many Jews wrote to me with their views on the article. None of them claimed that it was anti-Semitic, for to make the claim they would have to claim that Rabbi Dresner was anti-Semitic. Hence, Touchstone's (at least public) silence on the matter. One Jewish woman wrote to me after reading the article claiming that no Jew should be expected to defend Jews who engage in this sort of activity. So have things changed or not?Things have not changed, but we need to make a number of further distinctions before we can explain why.

The simplest way to dispel the whole issue of what is and is not permissible speech would be to come up with a set of rules or, alternatively, an objective description of anti-Semitism, followed by a list of statements which all men of good will could construe as anti-Semitic. That would solve the problem, but within 48 hours of the premiere of Skin there were enough counter-incidents to indictate this is not going to happen.For example, on the day of the premiere, Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor at The New Republic, the same New Republic that ran Daniel Goldhagen's diatribe against Pius XII, wrote a review attacking Quentin Tarantino's new film Kill Bill for its gratuitous portrayal of violence. He went on to critcize the heads of Disney and Miramax for producing the film, saying that they as Jews should have been more sensitive to the issue of violence, since Jews had been on the receiving end of so much violence, i.e., the Holocaust, during the 20th century. "Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner," Easterbrook wrote, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message -- now Disney's message -- that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

Within 20 minutes, Easterbrook wrote, the "entire world" had read his review. Pressure was brought to bear and, predictably, he caved in to the pressure, but not before trying to explain what he really meant It seems that he had criticized Mel Gibson a few days earlier for glorifying violence in his films too. He criticized Gibson as a Christian, and that led him to believe that he could, therefore, criticize Harvey Weinstein as a Jew. It only took a few minutes before Easterbrook realized he was wrong, or, if not wrong, then guilty of counterrevolutionary deviationism or something. Easterbrook came to see (How could he have not seen this at the time?) his error only with the benefit of hindsight. He came to understand, in other words, that "accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize." In other words, it is wrong to accuse Jews of "adoring money" but not wrong to accuse Christians of the same sort of behavior. Rarely has a double standard been stated and justified so unblushingly. Well, is "adoring money" wrong or not? Or is it only wrong when Christians do it?But suppose there is some basis in reality for the stereotypes, as there is in Skin? What then? If Gregg Easterbrook is guilty of purveying stereotypes, why isn't Jerry Bruckheimer guilty of the same thing? According to Bernard Weinraub's article on the incident in the New York Times, Matthew Hiltzik, a Miramax spokesman, said, "It is sad that these terrible stereotypes persist and that these comments are receiving a wider platform." But isn't Jerry Bruckheimer giving a wider platform to even worse stereotypes, namely, the Jew as pornographer?The tyro at politically correct ethnic speak might draw the wrong conclusions at this point. He might conclude that purveying ethnic stereotypes is acceptable as long as it remains an intraethnic affair. So Irishmen can accuse other Irish of being drunks, but only Jews can talk about Jewish involvement in pornography. That is certainly what Rabbi Dresner was doing; it seems to be what Jerry Bruckheimer is doing. That means, of course, that the objective truth of the situation is irrelevant. There is, in other words, no way of judging a statement as anti-Semitic simply according to the face value of the statement. Abe Foxman, in other words, could refer to Jews in the language that Hitler used in Mein Kampf without incurring the taint of anti-Semitism. But this argument breaks down before long as well. Within 24 hours of the premier of Skin, Mahathir Mohammed, prime minister of Malaysia, announced that "The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." General William G. "Jerry" Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence at the Pentagon said pretty much the same thing in a speech at Good Shepherd Church in Sandy, Oregon. Like the prime minister of Malaysia, Boykin was denounced for saying that Muslims were evil, but he was not denounced for saying essentially what Prime Minister Mahathir said, namely, that the Jews are getting America to fight their battles. During that speech, he talked about Christians receiving their religion from the Jews; he talked about America having a special relationship with Israel, a relationship that involved military support, even to the point of invading other countries, as the United States had done in Iraq. In other words, Boykin said virtually the same thing that Mahathir did and was not denounced, whereas Mahathir was accused of making "an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews.""OPPOSED TERRORISM"Henry Makow, a Jew whose article on the film Chicago appeared in the May issue of Culture Wars, felt that Mahathir's speech "opposed terrorism." Does that mean that what Mahathir said was not anti-Semitic? The answer is no. But to understand why, we have to understand the difference between a Jews like Henry Makow and a Jew like Abe Foxman.Another Jew, who agreed with Makow that Mahathir wasn't a terrorist, had something similar to say. Elias Davidson, a native of Jerusalem, feels that Jews do rule the world by proxy. He goes on to explain how:
As a Jew myself (but opposed to Zionism) I need no encouragement from Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad to observe what should be obvious to the blatant eye: Namely that Jews effectively rule US foreign policy and thus determine to a great extent the conduct of most countries.... So it is with the proposition that Jews control the world. Surely they do not control every single action; surely it does not mean that every Jew participates in the "control." But for all practical purposes the proposition holds.

What distinguishes a Jew like Davidson from a Jew like, say, Stanley Fish is obviously not his ethnicity. It is not even his politics. What distinguishes them is their divergent forms of literary criticism. Davidson believes in the objectivity of statements. He holds the Malaysian Prime Minister to what he actually said and, as a result, finds nothing anti-Semitic in his statement. "Mahathir," Davidson continues,
has neither asked to discriminate against Jews, let alone to kill Jews. It is shameful to equate him to the Hitlerites. He urges Muslims to fight Jews by adopting modern methods, technology and educate themselves, in other words to surpass Jews in excellence. What's wrong with that? By this he is doing service to the Muslims (over 1 Billion people) and to humanity. Jews must know their place and content themselves with influence derived from their small number. jews must learn some humility....

Which brings us back to Stanley Fish and his revolutionary friends. In order to understand why some people can say some things and others cannot say the same things without being accused of being bad people, we have to understand the revolution in literary criticism which took place during the 1970s.

According to Fish, there is no objective truth to any statement. The only "truth" (a word he would not use) which a statement possesses is what the reader or listener assigns to it. Does that mean that I (a lonely graduate student at the time he was my teacher) get to determine meaning, I asked during my class with him in the '70s. No, Fish replied, meaning is determined by "interpretive communities." Does that mean, I continued, things like the English department at Temple University, where I was studying at the time? No, it meant elite institutions like Johns Hopkins, where Fish was teaching at the time. And how can we tell whether a university is an elite institution? Well, if Stanley Fish is teaching there.

That means that, in short order, first Duke University and then the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle became elite institutions. What Stanley Fish really meant to say is that the interpretive rabbis have complete hegemony over the Torah and any other text. And why does Professor Fish feel this way? Because he grew up in post-World War II America during a period in which the rabbis from Hollywood and Madison Avenue began to exercise more and more draconian control over discourse of every sort. Fish is a sophist, and like all sophists he recognizes power when he sees it. So to bring us back to our project of deciphering the real code behind politically corect ethnic speech, it does no good to argue that what you are saying is not anti-Semitic; it does no good to quote another Jew who has made exactly the same claim you are making, because the people who are in the business of running discourse do not believe in the objective truth of any statement. Like Thrasymachus, as described by Plato, they believe that what we call "truth" is really the opinion of the powerful. Truth is what the powerful want.

DISCOURSE In terms of contemporary discourse, this means that there is no objective thing that can be defined as anti-Semitism. Hence, there is no possible way to avoid the accusation. Anti-Semitism is, like one version of beauty, something that is in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder happens to be not just a Jew -- Dresner, Makow, and Davidson are all Jews -- but a powerful Jew. Someone like Jerry Bruckheimer, for example, can talk about Jews and pornography in a way that Rabbi Dresner -- and most certainly Mike Jones -- cannot. This view comes very close to the Talmudic understanding of textual analysis propounded by Stanley Fish. According to Fish there is no text. There are only interpretations. Fish introduced this hermeneutic during the '70s, when he was involved in leading an insurrection against the New Criticism, a critical theory that confined itself to rigorous readings of the text to the exclusion of "Catholic" references to tradition (i.e., history and biography) and was essentially Protestant in its orientation. During the '50s, the New Criticism had assumed a position of hegemony in English departments across the country. Just as the New Criticism was an updated version of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, so Fish's Reader Response criticism was an updated version of Talmudic scholarship. According to Fish, there was no Torah; there was only Talmud. The Talmud, the interpretation, had complete hegemony ove rthe Torah, or text. The Talmud permitted what the Torah forbade. Just as the text was supreme in the New Criticism version of sola scriptura, the Rabbi/Interpreter was supreme in Fish's reader response theory. Truth was what the rabbi said it was. Fish was resurrecting what Paul Johnson called, in his history of the Jews, the cathedocracy.Kevin MacDonald said something similar in his book The Culture of Critique:

[A] fundamental aspect of Jewish intellectual history has been the realization that there is really no demonstrable difference between truth and consensus. Within traditional Jewish religious discourse "truth" was the prerogative of a privileged interpretive elite that in traditional societies consisted of the scholarly class within the Jewish community. Within this community, "truth" and "reality" were nothing more (and were undoubtedly perceived as nothing more) than consensus within a sufficiently large portion of the interpretive community.

Fish's Reader Response Criticism and the subsequent revolutionary takeover of the Modern Language Association were simultaneous manifestations of the triumph of "Jewish religious ideology" in American cultural life. "Jewish religious ideology," according to MacDonald,

was an infinitely plastic set of propositions that could rationalize and interpret any event in a manner compatible with serving the interests of the community [in this instance, the "interpretive community" as brokered by Stanley Fish]. Authority within the Jewish intellectual community was always understood to be based entirely on what recognized...scholars had said. It never occurred to the members of this discourse community to seek confirmation of their views from outside the community of intellectual discourse itself, either from other (gentile) discourse communities or by trying to understand the nature of reality itself. Reality was whatever the group decided it should be, and any dissent from this socially constructed reality would have to be performed within a narrow intellectual space that would not endanger the overall goals of the group (p. 234).

This is not to say that all Jews agreed with the Rabbis then (Spinoza certainly did not) or with Stanley Fish now. On the other hand, Reader Response Criticism, like Bolshevism and Neoconservatism, is a quintessentially Jewish theory. It is full of self-contradictions (which I exposed in my first published article, in College English in 1979), but it was taken seriously nonetheless because of the enormous influence that Jews like Fish had had on American culture in the years following World War II. Fish was espousing the hermeneutics of Thrasymachus as practiced by medieval Rabbis, the source of all power and interpretation when it came to texts in their community. So, to explicate the theory in light of recent events, General Boykin said essentially what Prime Minister Mahathir said, in a much more specific fashion, when he claimed that America had a special relationship with Israel and that part of that relationship meant using US troops to defend Israel's interests, but he did not get in trouble for saying it because General Boykin is a Christian Zionist of the sort we have discussed at length in these pages, and the people controlling America's foreign policy need Christian Zionist votes.THE LESSON FROM SKINThe lesson to be drawn from Skin is simple: the offensiveness of the statement depends upon the power of the person who makes it. Jerry Bruckheimer can say that Jews are involved in pornography, but Mike Jones cannot. Two men can make essentially the same statement, but only the man who lacks political or (what is the same thing) financial power will get into trouble for making the statement. In a world governed by sophists, Thrasymachus will always have the last word when it comes to defining truth. Truth is the opinion of the powerful. The powerful cannot get into trouble for anything they say. The fact that certain people do get into trouble for what they say is simply an indication that they are not that powerful, or on their way down, probably because they offended someone with real power. Rush Limbaugh, who was discovered to have a drug problem shortly after making an insensitive remark about the race of Philadelphia's quarterback, seems to be a case in port.Mel Gibson is another case in point. Why is Mel Gibson being portrayed as an anti-Semite by the Anti-Defamation League, when just about everyone -- Jews and Gentile alike -- who has seen his film on the last hours of Christ says that it isn't anti-Semitic in the least? The simplest answer to the question is that the objective statements in the movie have nothing to do with the charge being leveled. The imputation of anti-Semitism is taken seriously not because of anything in se but because of the power of the man leveling the charge. Abe Foxman is powerful. Truth, as Thrasymachus said, is the opinion of the powerful. Hence, Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, no matter how many Jews or Christians he gets to see his movie. There are other answers to the same question. It is true that the Jews who don't want the film shown consider the gospels it portrays anti-Semitic, but the real answer to how the demonization of Mel Gibson and, by extension, Jesus Christ can take place is that the powerful, according to the real, not exoteric, laws of discourse, determine the truth of any statement. According to Fish's essentially Talmudic hermeneutic, Abe Foxman is right because he is powerful, not because he can back up his assertion which any evidence from the text, in this case, Gibson's film. Powerful people don't need evidence because "truth" is simply the opinion of the powerful anyway, and opinions don't need proof. The corollary to this truth can be seen in Skin. Hollywood is the ultimate arbiter of what is true and good -- not because it has a true understanding of those transcendentals but because it is powerful. That means that no one else is allowed to have any other interpretation because no one else has their power. That means, according to the hermeneutic imposed on us by the revolutionary movement known as Hollywood, that The Last Temptation of Christ is an acceptable reading of the Gospels, whereas Mel Gibson's movie is not. And why? Why did Last Temptation find a distributor and Gibson's Passion (as of this writing) has not? Is it because Last Temptation is more congruent with the blasphemies of the Talmud, which claims that Christ was the bastard offspring (Kallah 51A) of a whore and a Roman soldier (Sanhedrin 106A) and that Christ now resides in boiling excrement in hell (Gittin 57A)?Whatever the reason, Hollywood, now liberated from the production code, is imposing its interpretation as the only acceptable interpretation as the only acceptable interpretation of the gospel that can be portrayed in a public forum. Because Mel Gibson had the temerity to disagree and come up with an interpretation of the Gospels without rabbinic approval, he was deemed anti-Semitic, which is to say, a bad person. By now it should be obvious that there is no defense against the charge. The charge is true if the person making it is more powerful than the person who is accused. There is no other operative definition of discourse as it is practiced today. To say there is involves an appeal to the world of objective fact, which the powerful hold in contempt.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

Diaspora Within A Diaspora

Top 10 Largest National Jewish Populations
United Kingdom
South Africa
70,000Source: Ash, Russell. The Top 10 of Everything, DK Publishing, Inc.: New York (1997), pg. 160-161..
Most Jewish U.S. States
Top 10 U.S. States With Highest Proportion of Jews in the Population, 1995(including nonreligious cultural/ethnic Jews)
New York
New Jersey
Washington, D.C.

Table: "Christian Church Adherents, 1990, and Jewish Population, 1995 - States"; "The Jewish population includes Jews who define themselves as Jewish by religion as well as those who define themselves as Jewish in cultural terms. Data... based primarily on a compilation of individual estimates made by local Jewish federations." Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997, 117th Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce (Oct. 1997), pg. 70. [original source: American Jewish Year Book. New York, NY: American Jewish Committee (1995)]

Top 10 U.S. States With Highest Proportion of Jews in the Population, 1990(religious self-identification)
New York
New Jersey
Washington, D.C.

Figures represent results of the National Survey of Religious Identification, phone survey a nationwide sample of 113,000 respondents, conducted by the City University of New York. The question asks people to name their religion, and likely missed "secular Jews" who identify with the Jewish heritage but don't consider Judaism to be their religion. Source: Kosmin, Barry A. and Seymour P. Lachman. One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society; Harmony Books: New York (1993), pg. 88-93.

Top 10 U.S. States with Largest Jewish Populations, 1993 (Religiously Affiliated Jews)

New York

New Jersey






Source: Krantz, Les and Jim McCormick. The Peoplepedia: The Ultimate Reference on the American People, Henry Holt and Company: New York (1996), pg. 188.

Cities with the Largest Jewish Population in the Diaspora

New York, USA 1,750,000
Miami, USA 535,000
Los Angeles, USA 490,000
Paris, France 350,000
Philadelphia, USA 254,000
Chicago, USA 248,000
San Francisco, USA 210,000
Boston, USA 208,000

London, UK
Moscow, Russia
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Toronto, Canada
Washington DC, USA
Kiev, Ukraine
Montreal, Canada
St. Petersburg, Russia
100,000 Source: "The Jewish Population of the World" web page, 10 August 2001, The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Original source cited by that page: Source: World Jewish Congress (WJC) Lerner Publications Company, 1998.

Article: Statistical Breakdown of Religious and Non-Religious Jews in the United StatesURL: Date: 2 November 2001 By: Debra Nussbaum Cohen Source:

The Jewish Week Headline: Jews Turning From Judaism: Those choosing other faiths doubles in a decade, poll finds.

The number of Jews who identify with a religion other than Judaism has more than doubled in the last decade, marking a growing split between Jewish ethnicity and religion.

A new portrait of American Jewish religious identification conducted by three leading sociologists reveals that 1.4 million Jews say that they are Jewish by dint of parentage or ethnicity but align themselves with another faith community. In 1990, 625,000 Jews identified themselves that way.

An additional 1.4 million Jews -- another quarter of the population -- say they are secular or have no religion at all, leaving just 51 percent of American Jews to say they are Jewish by religion.

"It portends a kind of split between the two facets of identity that historically were always unified," said Egon Mayer, who authored the American Jewish Identity Survey with Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar.

"That makes it very problematic for federations, educational and recreational institutions which have always assumed an interconnectedness between people's religious and ethnic identification. This split is a very serious challenge to how you keep a group cohesive," said Mayer, who also directs the Center for Jewish Studies at the City University of New York's Graduate Center.

The close look at Jewry is a subset of a larger study released this week by the Graduate Center. The American Religious Identity Survey, which examines religious identification among Americans from atheists to Catholics to Wiccans, interviewed 50,000 randomly selected adult respondents between February and June.
Respondents who said they are Jewish or have a Jewish background were asked another roughly 20 multi-part questions meant to probe their religious identity. The questions were designed to mirror those asked on the 1990 National Jewish Population Study, so they could be directly compared.

The new study found that even as a growing number of Jews identify with other religions, an unprecedented number of American households contain at least one Jew.

The 1990 NJPS found 3.2 million households with at least one Jewish member. According to the new survey, 550,000 more households said they contain at least one Jewish member, for a total of 3.7 million.

The new study also found that the number of Americans who say they are Jewish either by religion or upbringing has remained stable at 5.5 million for more than a decade and that Jews are, as earlier studies have also indicated, far more inclined toward atheism and secularism than Americans in general.

Brandeis University's Sylvia Barack Fishman, another leading sociologist of American Jewry, criticized the Graduate Center's study for presenting what she called an incomplete and misleading picture.
To understand Jewish religious identification today, she said, you have to distinguish between those who are involved with, or who are an adult child of, an intermarriage from those in a union between Jews.
"It's not useful to throw the whole Jewish population into a blender," Fishman said. "That doesn't tell us anything."

Without breaking out the populations, "we have no context for understanding these statistics," she said. "The impact of a two-faith household means something totally different than it would if they are the children of a two-Jew household.

"The American Jewish community is not monolithic. We have many different subgroups," Fishman said. "The intensity and vibrancy of those subgroups differs very much from one to the next. In order for this study to be useful, we need the information about those different subgroups."

Mayer and his colleagues debuted their findings shortly before the United Jewish Communities convention, the General Assembly, which is scheduled to begin next week. They intend their study to rival the long-awaited National Jewish Population Study 2000, whose first results were supposed to be unveiled at the GA but whose release has been postponed until the summer.

When the 1990 NJPS revealed that just over half of Jews who had most recently wed had married non-Jews, it rocked the organized Jewish community and led to a rapid and dramatic shift in Jewish funding and priority-setting.

The new information released by Mayer, Kosmin and Keysar found that 33 percent of those identifying as Jewish are married to someone who is not, compared with the parallel figure of 28 percent in the 1990 National Jewish Population Study.

But their new report does not look at the rate of intermarriage today or compare it to the 52 percent rate of 1990. Mayer says they asked the relevant questions and are still analyzing that data.

On that question, "we are still holding our breath," said Steven Bayme, national director of the American Jewish Committee's Department of Contemporary Jewish Life.
What the American Religious Identification Survey 2001, as well as its subset looking just at the Jewish community, showed is that Americans in general are very religious. Jews, however, are not.
When asked if their outlook is "secular, somewhat secular, religious or somewhat religious," 42 percent of Jews who say they are Jewish by religion described themselves as secular or somewhat secular. Of those of Jewish heritage or background, it jumped to 72 percent.
That's in sharp contrast to American adults nationally, just 15 percent of whom described their outlook the same way.

And when asked in the new study if God exists, just 4 percent of adults nationally said no. Among Jews, though, 14 percent of Jews by religion said no, and 25 percent of those with a Jewish background said no.

"The findings of this survey suggest that the time is long overdue when those Jews who do not identify with the main religious streams of Judaism can be dismissed as if their numbers were insignificant or vestigial with the label 'just Jewish,' " said Felix Posen, the London-based philanthropist who underwrote the study of Jewish religious identification with a donation in an amount that Mayer declined to specify.

Posen is a major benefactor of Jewish secularist endeavors, including the tiny American movement of Jewish secular humanists, and secularist educational endeavors in Israel.
Mayer, also the founding director of the Jewish Outreach Institute, urged communal leaders to interpret his new study's findings as having positive potential.

"I can understand how people can look at these numbers and lament. But you don't see very clearly through tears," he said.

"I'm resolutely determined to find potential. If one wants to continue to thrive in a free and open society, we have to look at the ways in which this highly diverse and greatly secular population could be included under the large umbrella of the Jewish community."

Web page copyright © 2002 by Created 24 April 1999. Last modified 30 January 2002. Return to the "Largest Religious Communities" index page