Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Universalism and Particularism

In this installment I compare and contrast the morals, morality and moralizing of jews with Whites/Christians. The discussion is focused on two recently published articles in which jews use particularist moralizing, one-sidedly favoring jewish political interests, simultaneously seeking to exploit the universalist morality of Whites while trumping it.

The first article, written by Adam Gregerman, Jewish Scholar in Residence at the Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies in Baltimore, is part of a larger attempt by jews to dictate foreign policy regarding Israel to both the United States government and organized Christianity.

Gregerman’s article, Theology Fail in Christian Statement on Israel, Judaism, Palestine | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches, published on 29 June 2012, is a critique of “A Call to Action: A U.S. Response to Kairos Palestine”, which Gregerman describes as “a Christian theological critique of the state of Israel and the Jewish religious beliefs that supposedly buttress its policies”.

Gregerman writes (emphasis added):

Most authors are from major Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and United Methodist churches. These Christian traditions have, in a remarkable break with centuries of hateful teachings, opposed both Christian hostility toward Judaism and polemics about Jews’ unfaithfulness to God. They also endorse a two-state solution in the conflict.

In their advocacy for the Palestinian cause, however, the Kairos USA authors have rolled back the clock. In its critique of Israeli policies, the statement troublingly undermines these positive Christian views and takes a zero-sum attitude toward the conflict. Out of a reasonable desire to support the Palestinians, they jeopardize these remarkable interreligious gains by issuing one-sided indictments and by failing to honor Jewish religious and historical perspectives.

The authors’ explicitly religious argument only works in one direction: against Jews and Israel. It’s not criticism itself but this inconsistent application of religious standards that’s problematic.

But the contradictions don’t end there. Jews are also accused both of betraying the good (i.e., universalistic) demands of their own Bible … and of heeding its bad (i.e., particularistic) elements. The authors bemoan traditions in the Hebrew Bible that supposedly evince exclusivism and hostility to outsiders, such as the biblical promise of land that “elevate[s] one people or one race over another.” Likewise, what they call theologies “that privilege one nation with political entitlements to the exclusion of others,” … are to them also unacceptably particularistic. It is therefore wrong to prefer these parts of Scripture, and specifically to neglect universalistic themes about God’s love for all humanity.

In constructing a dichotomy between particularism and universalism, however, they also privilege some biblical themes over others.

Presenting his own one-sided arguments in favor of jews and Israel, Gregerman fails to honor Christian religious and historical perspectives. He blames universalist Christians for creating a conflict with particularist jews, misrepresenting both the source and nature of the conflict.

To illustrate the problems with Israeli policies, the authors gather historical examples of unprecedented brutality as parallels. These extreme examples not only foreclose constructive dialogue but in some cases sever Jews’ connections to their own history. For example, the authors look to antiquity, a time of tragic Jewish subjugation, when Jews suffered under “imperial rule” and faced threats to their “economic survival and physical health.”

Yet they then cast modern Jews as the ones now responsible for such actions. In a stark reversal, Jews are cast as foreign imperialists and persecutors, and Palestinians as persecuted Jews. Rather than simply critiquing Israel’s policies, some of which undoubtedly cause serious harm to Palestinians, the authors read Jews out of their own experiences. Using centuries of murderous oppression of Jews as a model for condemning Israel’s actions is highly disproportionate, as is invoking Jews’ suffering to then use it against them.

Some of the most dreadful acts in human history, including those in which Jews suffered terribly, are adduced as well: “the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition… genocides and ethnic cleansing.” In these events, the statement notes, people used Scripture to “elevate one people or one race over another,” and “to support conquest and oppression.” It then compares these horrors with Israeli policies, often in identical language.

This is the nut of Gregerman’s moralizing: these confused, uppity Christians have misunderstood the whole point of jews going on and on (as he does) about “jews’ suffering”. Jewish moralizing, both Gregerman’s and in general, is particularist. It is embedded in a narrative that takes “what’s good for the jews” for granted. The moral isn’t about suffering in general, and it certainly is not intended to be used in judging the thoughts or actions of jews themselves. Indeed, Gregerman implies that the real purpose of the constant guilt-tripping about “jews’ suffering” is to “foreclose constructive dialogue”.

The second article, written by Lord Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, is part of a larger attempt by jews to dictate domestic policy in Europe, in this instance concerning a recent court decision to restrict male circumcision in Germany.

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks: Europe’s New Anti-Semitism, published on 07/11/2012 (emphasis added):

In May 2007 a small group of religious leaders met in the E.U. headquarters in Brussels with the three most significant leaders of Europe: Angela Merkel, German Chancellor and at the time president of the European Council; Jose-Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission; and Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament.

… Concerned at the return of anti-Semitism to Europe within living memory of the Holocaust, I decided that the time had come to break protocol and speak plainly, even bluntly.

I gave the shortest speech of my life. Sitting directly opposite the three leaders, I said this: “Jews and Europe go back a long way. The experience of Jews in Europe has added several words to the human vocabulary — words like expulsion, public disputation, forced conversion, inquisition, auto-da-fe, blood libel, ghetto and pogrom, without even mentioning the word Holocaust. That is the past. My concern is with the future. Today the Jews of Europe are asking whether there is a future for Jews in Europe, and that should concern you, the leaders of Europe.”

It took less than a minute, and after it there was a shocked silence. We adjourned for lunch, and over it Angela Merkel asked, “What would you like me to do, Chief Rabbi?” I did not have an easy answer for her then. I do now. It is: reverse immediately the decision of the Cologne court that renders Jewish parents who give their son a brit milah, even if performed in hospital by a qualified doctor, liable to prosecution.

It is a measure of jewish political power and influence that professional chauvinists like Sacks have such meetings, the whole purpose of which is to moralize to the supposed “leaders” of Europe about what’s best for jews. Sacks goes on to very clearly distinguish jews from Europeans. He cites a one-sided jewish view of history, describing what he sees as an inborn European imperative to persecute jews, making what is in effect a race-based libel against Europeans:

I have argued for some years that an assault on Jewish life always needs justification by the highest source of authority in the culture at any given age. Throughout the Middle Ages the highest authority in Europe was the Church. Hence anti-Semitism took the form of Christian anti-Judaism.

In the post-enlightenment Europe of the 19th century the highest authority was no longer the Church. Instead it was science. Thus was born racial anti-Semitism, based on two disciplines regarded as science in their day: the “scientific study of race” and the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel. Today we know that both of these were pseudo-sciences, but in their day they were endorsed by some of the leading figures of the age.

Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life — on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state — must be cast in the language of human rights. Hence the by-now routine accusation that Israel has committed the five cardinal sins against human rights: racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide and crimes against humanity. This is not because the people making these accusations seriously believe them — some do, some don’t. It is because this is the only form in which an assault on Jews can be stated today.

Sacks’ is a particularist whose only concern is what’s best for jews. He deems jews exempt from the language and universalist moral authority of “human rights” that he himself uses against Europeans. He interprets this same moralizing, when aimed at jews, as “an assault on jews”, thus revealing his own guilty anti-European mind.

Sacks concludes by telling the German leader (and everyone reading his open letter to her) that in order for Germans to be morally good they must do what jews like himself think is best for jews:

The court’s judgment was tendentious, foolish and has set a dangerous precedent.

In historical context, however, it is far worse. By ruling that religious Jews performing their most ancient sacred ritual are abusing the rights of the child, a German court has just invented a new form of Blood Libel perfectly designed for the 21st century. Chancellor Merkel, the answer to your question, “What would you like me to do?” is simple. Ensure that this ruling is overturned, for the sake of religious freedom and the moral reputation of Germany.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

Morals, Morality and Moralizing

What morals are, what they’re for, where they come from. Moral authority and moral outrage. The connection to story-telling, history, and politics. Who does what to whom for whose benefit?

I discuss Gabrielle Giffords, Sarah Palin and what Whites should understand about “blood libel”.

The image comes from the “Zionism and Israel Encyclopedic Dictionary” entry for Blood Libel. I don’t discuss this article, though it contains a typical jewish version of history, portraying jews as innocent victims:

Blood libels in the both the West and the East were generally occasions for large-scale persecution and judicial murders of Jews, as well as the basis for expulsions and pogroms. There have been about 150 cases of blood libel that were actually tried by Catholic authorities, and many other rumored cases that never came to trial.

The enduring nature of the blood libel is one of its most remarkable features. It was an invention of the pagans. It was revived and exploited in medieval Christian superstition, later promoted deliberately by the counter-reformation and the Inquisition, By the 19th century, much of the “old” anti-Semitism of the medieval period had passed from the world, but the libel persisted. It has been transplanted to the United States and the belief flourishes in Muslim countries as well. Investigations, instigations and enforcement had been transferred in part from the Roman Catholic Church to lay authorities: Tsarist police, Polish police and even New York State Troopers.

Various immediate political or other motivations are often attached to the accusations, such as desire to obtain Jewish property, but the libel could not succeed if large numbers of people did not believe it, and they do. The blood libel is not a thing of the past.

The most remarkable feature of the “blood libel” accusation is the way it inverts reality. The one common factor is jews, the accusors, who portray themselves as innocent victims of a far-flung, age-old conspiracy to falsely accuse them in order to take their property.

The “blood libel” story is an outstanding example of jewish guilt-tripping and moralizing. It is an outrageous libel against European peoples, with the effect if not intent of distracting attention from jewish malfeasance.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

Pathologization and Demonization

Part II of Stupid/Crazy/Evil, focusing on the jewish source of these tactics.

Subjects include: Sigmund Freud (father of psychoanalysis), Theodor Adorno (Frankfurt School member, author of The Authoritarian Personality), Richard Hofstadter (life-long communist, author of The Paranoid Style in American Politics), Daniel Goldhagen and David Neiwert (coiner and popularizer, respectively, of “eliminationism“) and Lawrence Auster (whose special concern is “exterminationist anti-semitism“).

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
8 Comments  comments 

Stupid/Crazy/Evil

This is an extension of the topics discussed previously in Guilt-Tripping and The Litany of White Sins.

Stupid/crazy/evil is one tactic used against Whites who have gotten beyond the guilt-tripping, or were never affected by it to begin with. You’re White and not paralyzed with guilt? Well then, you must be a stupid/crazy/evil racist-KKK-nazi!

As with guilt-tripping, stupid/crazy/evil is a form of psychological aggression against Whites. It is a progression of escalating hostility that starts with ridiculing and pathologizing Whites as mentally defective, and ultimately leads to demonizing Whites as morally defective.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 

The Litany of White Sins

A review of the many things Whites as a group are guilt-tripped about. The effects it has. Why it works.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
4 Comments  comments 

Guilt-Tripping

The subject of this installment is guilt-tripping:

when someone tries to make you feel guilty for thinking/feeling/doing things a certain way.

or

when someone tries to make you do whatever they want you to. so they start making you feel bad about something.. so then you’ll give in and do whatever they want.

In particular I discuss race-based political guilt-tripping, citing a recent example in Cassandra Jackson’s article, Why the War on Affordable Health Care is a War on Blacks and Latinos, published by the Huffington Post. Jackson writes:

As we wait for the Supreme Court to announce the fate of the Affordable Care Act, researchers at the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center have released a study that indicates that the Affordable Care Act will dramatically shrink racial and ethnic differences in health care coverage. Currently 21.6 percent of blacks and over 33.3 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, compared to just 13.9 percent of whites. According to researchers, Lisa Clemens-Cope, et al., if the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act, it could potentially cut the black-white differential in half, and the Hispanic-white differential by a quarter.

The fight for affordable health care is a fight for racial equality. Though many who have actively opposed the Affordable Care Act, would dismiss this assertion, the bottom line is that if the Supreme Court upholds the law, it will be a huge step toward dissolving fundamental racial inequities in health care. Historically access to health care has been so deeply shaped by institutionalized and practiced racism that federal health care law is the only means of systematically rectifying disparities.

According to a Greenlining Institute study, opposition to national health care policy can be traced to “racial resentment,” or the belief by whites that blacks simply are not working hard enough and therefore do not deserve health care. This idea has been subtly interjected into anti-Affordable Care Act rhetoric. Remember claims that President Obama wanted to “pull the plug” on grandma so that hordes of uninsured people could step over her body to receive free health care? Who did you picture as the beloved grandma on life support when you heard this claim? It probably was not an old black lady.

Now after all this fear mongering, it seems that the Supreme Court holds the real power to pull the plug on the uninsured. If they strike down the law, it will impede the cause of racial equality. If they uphold the law, it could set us on a path toward health care as a fundamental human right. The law’s implementation would be expected to be complete in 2014, the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. I can only hope that once again, the court will stand on the right side of history.

The Greenlining study Jackson refers to is described in an earlier HuffPo article, Surprising Way Race Colors Attitudes To Health Care Reform. It contains the usual non-surprises:

Opposition to the health care reform bill has sometimes been racially charged. In 2009, a swastika was painted on a sign outside the Smyrna, Ga., office of representative David Scott, D-Ga., who backed the bill, after a town hall meeting about an unrelated issue became a confrontation over health care reform.

“This kind of hate and racism is bubbling underneath the surface,” Scott told the AJC at the time. “You hear these people say I want my country back, but from whom?” Scott told the paper. “They feel somebody has taken their country. What has happened to demonstrate that? I think it speaks for itself.”

Back from whom? Well, the swastika is a hint.

Race-based guilt-tripping – “your people have oppressed my people forever, so you should feel guilty about that and give me what I want” – is a political tactic pioneered and perfected by the jews, whose use of it predates and supercedes all other groups who claim special privilege as victims of White oppression. More on this another time. Here I cite recent examples of jews using inversion of reality and guilt-tripping in their cries for war against Iran.

The image above is a corrected version of the reality-inverting original that was attached to an article by Ron Rosenbaum, published by Slate in May 2008, In Praise of Liberal Guilt – It’s not wrong to favor Obama because of race.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 
911-cropped

Introducing Age of Treason Radio

Age of Treason Radio begins as a pre-recorded 30 minute monologue, with a new installment broadcast and available for download every Tuesday at 9PM ET. Please bear with me as I come up to speed in this new medium. I invite your feedback via comments.

This first installment focuses on who I am, what I’ve been doing, what I hope to do here, and why. Much of it is a recitation of things I’ve written or spoken about previously.

The pseudonym Tanstaafl is taken from Robert Heinlein’s science fiction novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the context of which is political and financial self-determination and separatism versus tyranny.

I refer to A Personal Disclosure and describe other aspects of my background, interests, methods and motives I have not discussed before.

Finally, I describe my political and racial views and how they have evolved over time.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
25 Comments  comments 
© the White network