Day of Wrath, 20

Nine percent?

At the beginning of our century some Amazonian tribes continue the practice as horribly as described above. With the advances in technology we can even watch videos on YouTube about such practices, like children being buried alive.

Let us remember the exclamation of Sahagún. The humble friar would have found it rather difficult to imagine that not only the ancient Mexicans, but all humanity had been seized by a passion for killing their little ones. Throughout his treatise on infanticide, Larry Milner mentioned several times that our species could have killed not millions, but billions of children since the emergence of Homo sapiens. At the beginning of his book Milner chose as the epigraph a quotation of Laila Williamson, an anthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History:

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter-gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.

Milner cowers in his book to avoid giving the impression that he openly condemns the parents. Before I distanced myself from deMause, in the Journal of Psychohistory of Autumn 2008 I published a critical essay-review of his treatise. My criticism aside, Milner’s words about the even more serious cowardice among other scholars is worth quoting:

As for the research into general human behavior, infanticide has been almost totally ignored. When acts of child-murder are referenced at all, they generally are passed off as some quirk or defective apparatus of an unusual place or time. Look in the index of almost all major social treatises and you will find only a rare reference to the presence of infanticide. […] Yet, the importance of understanding the reasons for infanticide is borne out by its mathematical proportions. Since man first appeared on earth about 600,000 years ago, it has been calculated that about 77 billion human babies have been born. If estimates of infanticide of 5-10 percent are true, then up to seven billion children [9 percent!] have been killed by their parents: a figure which should suffice as one of incredible importance.

Even assuming that this figure is contradicted by future studies, the anthropologist Glenn Hausfater would have agreed with Milner. In an August 1982 article of the New York Times about a conference of several specialists at the University of Cornell on animal and human infanticide, Hausfater said: “Infanticide has not received much study because it’s a repulsive subject. Many people regard it as reprehensible to even think about it…” In that same conference Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, a primatologist at Harvard said that infanticide occurs in all groups of evolved primates. Given the psychological limitations of academics, it is not surprising to see that the few who are not silent on the subject argue that the primary cause is economic. But the “economic explanation” does not explain why infanticide occurred equally among both the rich and the poor, or why it had been so frequent and sometimes even more frequent in the most prosperous periods of Rome and Carthage. The same is true about those seeking explanations about the taboos, superstitions and customs of the peoples, or the stigma attached to children born out of wedlock. None of these factors explains infanticide for the simple reason that modern Western societies have had these features and refrain from practicing it. Marvin Harris’s position is typical. Harris has calculated that among Paleolithic hunters, up to 23-50 percent of infants were put to death, and postulated that female infanticide was a form of population control. His colleagues have criticized him as a typical proponent of “environmental determinism.” If environmental determinism were true, there would have to be more sacrifice and infanticide today given the demographic explosion.

It is true that Milner fails to condemn the perpetrators. But despite his flaws, outlined in my 2008 review in deMause’s journal, the information Milner collected under a single cover is so disturbing that it made me think: What is really the human species? I have no choice but to try to ponder the question by analyzing one of the most horrendous forms of infanticide practiced over the centuries.
 

Historical Israel

In the past, the shadow of infanticide covered the world, but the Phoenicians and their biblical ancestors, the Canaanites, performed sacrifices that turn pale the Mesoamerican sacrifices of children.

The Tophet, located in the valley of Gehenna, was a place near Jerusalem where it is believed that children were burned alive to the god Moloch Baal. Later it became synonymous with hell, and the generic name “tophet” would be transferred to the sacrificial site of the cemetery at Carthage and other Mediterranean cities like Motya, Tharros and Hadrumetum, where bones have been found of Carthaginian and Phoenician children.

According to a traditional reading of the Bible, stories of sacrifice by the Hebrews were relapses of the chosen people to pagan customs. Recent studies, such as Jon Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity have suggested that the ancient Hebrews did not differ much from the neighboring towns but that they were typical examples of the Semitic peoples of Canaan. The cult of Yahweh was only gradually imposed in a group while the cult of Baal was still part of the fabric of the Hebrew-Canaanite culture. Such religion had not been a syncretistic custom that the most purist Hebrews rejected from their “neighbor” Canaanites: it was part of their roots. For Israel Finkelstein, an Israeli archaeologist and academic, the writing of the book of Deuteronomy in the reign of Josiah was a milestone in the development and invention of Judaism. Josiah represents what I call one of the psychogenic mutants who firmly rejected the infanticidal psychoclass of their own people. Never mind that he and his aides had rewritten their nation’s past by idealizing the epic of Israel. More important is that they make Yahweh say—who led the captivity of his people by the Assyrians—that it was a punishment for their idolatry: which includes the burning of children. The book of Josiah’s scribes even promotes to conquer other peoples that, like the Hebrews, carried out such practices. “The nations whom you go in to dispossess,” says the Deuteronomy, “they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.” (12: 29-31). “When you come into the land that the Lord is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.” (18: 9-10).

This emergence, or jump to a higher psychoclass from the infanticidal, is also attested in other books of the Hebrew Bible. “The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim” (2 Kings: 17: 30-31). There were kings of Judah who committed these outrages with their children too. In the 8th century B.C. the thriving king Ahaz “even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites” (2 Kings 16: 1-3). Manasseh, one of the most successful kings of Judah, “burnt his son in sacrifice” (21:6). The sacrificial site also flourished under Amon, the son of Manasseh. Fortunately it was destroyed during the reign of Josiah. Josiah also destroyed the sacrificial site of the Valley of Ben Hinnom “so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech” (23:10). Such destructions are like the destruction of Mesoamerican temples by the Spaniards, and for identical reasons.

Ezekiel, taken into exile to Babylon preached there to his people. He angrily chided them: “And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children and made them pass through the fire” (Ezekiel 16: 20-21). The prophet tells us that from the times when his people wandered in the desert they burned their children, adding: “When you offer your gifts—making your sons pass through the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will not let you inquire of me” (20:31). Other passages in Ezekiel that complain about his people’s sins appear in 20: 23-26 and 23: 37-39. A secular though Jung-inspired way of seeing God is to conceive it as how the ego of an individual’s superficial consciousness relates to the core of his own psyche: the Self. In Ezekiel’s next diatribe against his people (16: 35-38) I can hear his inner daimon, the “lord” of the man Ezekiel:

Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: Because you poured out your lust and exposed your nakedness in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood in sacrifice, therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness. I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and who shed blood; I will bring upon you the blood vengeance of my wrath and jealous anger.

When a “prophet” (an individual who has made a leap to a higher psychoclass) maligned his inferiors, he received insults. Isaiah (57: 4-5) wrote:

Whom are you mocking? At whom do you sneer and stick out your tongue? Are you not a brood of rebels, the offspring of liars? You burn with lust among the oaks and under every spreading tree; you sacrifice your children in the ravines and under the overhanging crags.

The very psalmist complained that people sacrificed their children to idols. But what exactly were these sacrificial rites? The spoken tradition of what was to be collected in biblical texts centuries later complained that Solomon “built a high place for Chemosh, the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech, the detestable god of the Ammonites,” and that his wives made offerings to these gods (1 Kings 11: 7-8). And even from the third book of the Torah we read the commandment: “Do not give any of your children to be passed through the fire to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God.” (Leviticus 18:21). A couple of pages later (20: 2-5) it says:

Say to the Israelites: “Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.”

Despite these admonitions, the influential anthropologist James Frazer interpreted some biblical passages as indicating that the god of the early Hebrews, unlike the emergent god quoted above, required sacrifices of children. After all, “God” is but the projection of the Jungian Self from a human being at a given stage of the human theodicy. Unlike Milner, a Christian frightened by the idea, I do not see it impossible that the ancient Hebrews had emerged from the infanticidal psychoclass to a more emergent one. In “The Dying God,” part three of The Golden Bough, Frazer draws our attention to these verses of Exodus (22: 29-30):

Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

A similar passage can be read in Numbers (18: 14-15), and the following one (3: 11-13) seems especially revealing:

The Lord also said to Moses, “I have taken the Levites from among the Israelites in place of the first male offspring of every Israelite woman. The Levites are mine, for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether man or animal. They are to be mine. I am the Lord.”

The psychohistorian Howard Stein, who has written scholarly articles on Judaism since the mid-1970s, concludes in an article of 2009 that the gathered information suggests a particular interpretation. According to Stein, the substrate of fear for the slaughter “helps to explain the valency that the High Holiday have for millions of Jews worldwide,” presumably echoes of very ancient happenings: actual sacrifices by the Hebrews.

In contrast to what the evangelicals were taught in Sunday school as children, Moses did not write the Torah—it was not written before the Persian period. In fact, the most sacred book of the Jews includes four different sources. Since the 17th-century thinkers such as Spinoza and Hobbes had researched the origins of the Pentateuch, and the consensus of contemporary studies is that the final edition is dated by the 5th century B.C. (the biblical Moses, assuming he existed, would have lived in the 13th century B.C.). Taking into account the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible—for example, Isaiah, who belonged to a much more evolved psychoclass, even abhorred animal sacrifice—it should not surprise us that the first chapter of Leviticus consists only of animal sacrifices. The “Lord” called them holocausts to be offered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. After killing, skinning and butchering the poor animal, the priest incinerates everything on the altar “as a burnt offering to the Lord; it is a pleasing aroma, a special gift presented to the Lord.” A phrase that is repeated three times in that first chapter, it also appears in subsequent chapters and reminds me those words by Cortés to Charles V about the Mesoamerican sacrifices (“They take many girls and boys and even adults, and in the presence of these idols they open their chests while they are still alive and take out their hearts and entrails and burn them before the idols, offering the smoke as the sacrifice.”) In the book of Exodus (34:20) even the emerging transition of child sacrifice to lamb sacrifice can be guessed in some passages, what gave rise to the legend of Abraham:

For the first foal of a donkey, they should give a lamb or a goat instead of the ass, but if you do not give, you break the neck of the donkey. You must also give an offering instead of each eldest child. And no one is to appear before me empty-handed.

Compared with other infanticidal peoples the projection of the demanding father had been identical, but the emergency to a less dissociated layer of the human psyche is clearly visible. As noted by Jaynes, the Bible is a treasure to keep track of the greatest psychogenic change in history. The Hebrews sacrificed their children just as other peoples, but eventually they would leave behind the barbaric practice.

After captivity in the comparatively more civilized Babylon in 586 B.C., the Jews abandoned their practices. In his book King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities, published in 2004, Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that child sacrifice was part of the worship of Yahweh, and that the practice was condemned only after the exile. Like their Christian successors, the Jews had sublimated their filicidal impulses in the Passover ritual. Each year they celebrate the liberation of their people and remember how Yahweh killed the firstborn Egyptians: legendary resonance of the habit of killing one’s eldest son.

But the biblical Moloch (in Hebrew without vowels, mlk), represented as a human figure with a bull’s head was not only a Canaanite god. It also was a god of the descendants of the Canaanites, the Phoenicians. The founding myth of Moloch was similar to that of many other religions: sacrifices were compensation for a catastrophe from the beginning of time. Above I said that Plutarch, Tertullian, Orosius, Philo, Cleitarchus and Diodorus Siculus mentioned the practice of the burning children to Moloch in Carthage, but refrained from wielding the most disturbing details. Diodorus says that every child who was placed in the outstretched hands of Moloch fell through the open mouth of the heated bronze statue, into the fire. When at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. Agathocles defeated Carthage the Carthaginians began to burn their children in a huge sacrifice as a tactical “defense” before the enemy. The sources mention three hundred incinerated children. If I had made a career as a film director, I would feel obliged to visually show humanity its infamous past by filming the huge bronze statue, heated red-hot while the Greek troops besieged the city, gobbling child after child: who would be sliding to the bottom of the flaming chimney. In addition to Carthage, the worship of Moloch, whose ritual was held outdoors, was widespread in other Phoenician cities. He was widely worshiped in the Middle East and in the Punic cultures of the time, including several Semitic peoples and as far as the Etruscans. Various sacrificial tophets have been found in North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, outside Tyre and at a temple of Amman.

Terracotta urns containing the cremated remains of children, discovered in 1817, have been photographed numerous times. However, since the late 1980s some Italian teachers began to question the historicity of the accounts of classical writers. Tunisian nationalists took advantage, including the president whose palace near the suburban sea is very close the ruins of the ancient city of Carthage. The Tunisian tourist guides even make foreigners believe that the Carthaginians did not perform sacrifices (something similar to what some ignorant Mexican tourist guides do in Chiapas). Traditional historians argue that the fact that the remains are from very young children suggests sacrifice, not cremation by natural death as alleged by the revisionists. The sacrificial interpretation of Carthage is also suggested by the fact that, along with the children, there are charred remains of lambs (remember the biblical quote that an evolved Yahweh says that the slaughter of sheep was a barter for the firstborn). This suggests that some Carthaginians replaced animals in the sacrificial rite: data inconsistent with the revisionist theory that the tophet was a normal cemetery. Furthermore, the word mlk (Moloch) appears in many stelae as a dedication to this god. If they were simple burials, it would not make sense to find those stelae dedicated to the fire god: common graves are not inscribed as offerings to the gods. Finally, although classical writers were staunch enemies of the Carthaginians, historical violence is exerted by rejecting all their testimonies, from Alexander’s time to the Common Era. The revisionism on Carthage has been a phenomenon that is not part of new archaeological discoveries, or newly discovered ancient texts. The revisionists simply put into question the veracity of the accounts of classical writers, and they try to rationalize the archaeological data by stressing our credulity to the breaking point. Brian Garnand, of the University of Chicago, concluded in his monograph on the Phoenician sacrifice that “the distinguished scholars of the ridimensionamento [revisionism] have not proven their case.”

However, I must say that the revisionists do not bother me. What I cannot tolerate are those subjects who, while accepting the reality of the Carthaginian sacrifice, idealize it. On September 1, 1987 an article in the New York Times, “Relics of Carthage Show Brutality Amid the Good Life” contains this nefarious phrase: “Some scholars assert, the practice of infanticide helped produce Carthage’s great wealth and its flowering of artistic achievement.” The memory of these sacrificed children has not really been vindicated even by present-day standards.

The Carthaginian tophet is the largest cemetery of humans, actually of boys and girls, ever discovered. After the Third Punic War Rome forced the Carthaginians to learn Latin, just as the Spanish imposed their language on the conquered Mexicans. Personally, what most alarms me is that there is evidence in the tophets of remains of tens of thousands of children sacrificed by fire over so many centuries. I cannot tremble more in imagining what would have been of our civilization had the Semitic Hannibal reached Rome.

Lately I’ve had contact with a child that a couple of days ago has turned six years old and who loves his mother very much. I confess that to imagine what a Carthaginian boy of the same age would have felt when his dear papa handed him over to the imposing bronze statue with a Bull’s head; to imagine what he would have felt for such treachery as he writhed with infinite pain in the fired oven, moved me to write this last chapter. Although my parents did not physically kill me (only shattered my soul), every time I come across stories about sacrificed firstborns, it’s hard not to touch my inner fiber.

In the final book of this work I will return to my autobiography, and we will see if after this type of findings humanity has the right to exist.

 
___________

The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next time I will reproduce the final chapter. Day of Wrath will be available again through Amazon Books.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 76

Below, an abridged translation from the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.

 
The same as the work of Isaiah, the book of Ezekiel, written almost all in the first person, unites prophecies of misfortunes and beatitudes, reprimands and threats with tempting hymns and omens. For a long time it was considered the undisputed writing of the most symbolic Jewish prophet, the man who in the year 597 BC left Jerusalem with King Jehoiakim to exile in Babylon.

Until the beginning of the 20th century Ezekiel’s book was almost universally seen as a work of the prophet himself and of true authenticity. From the investigations of literary criticism by R. Kraetzschmars (1900) and even more by J. Herrmann (1908, 1924), the opinion prevailed that this presumably unitary book emerged in stages and that a subsequent hand reworked it. Some researchers even attribute to Ezekiel only the poetic parts, assigning to the compiler the texts in prose.

In this scenario the compiler would have designed at least the bulk of the work: no less than five-sixths. According to W.A. Irwin, of the total of 1,273 verses only 251 come from Ezekiel and according to G. Hölscher, 170. Although other authors accept the authenticity of the text, they admit several redactions and editors, who interspersed falsified passages among those considered authentic and also manipulated the rest at their discretion. It is very significant that the Jewish tradition does not attribute the work to Ezekiel, but to the ‘men of the great synagogue’.

The book of Daniel was clearly and completely fabricated: something that, surprisingly, already affirms Porphyry, the great adversary of the Christians, in the 3rd century. Although his fifteen books Against the Christians were targeted for destruction by the first Christian emperor, something has been preserved in excerpts and quotations, among them the following phrases of Jerome in the prologue of his comments on Daniel:

Porphyry has destined, against the prophet Daniel, the book XII of his work. He does not want to admit that the book was written by Daniel, whose name appears on the title, but by someone who lived in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (that is, some 400 years later) in Judea, and maintains that Daniel did not predict anything of the future but simply told something of the past.

The book of Daniel would come from the prophet Daniel, who apparently lived in the 6th century BC in the royal court of Babylon and whose authorship has also been questioned in modern times by Thomas Hobbes. Critical research has long since stopped considering it an authentic book. But in 1931 the Catholic Lexikonfür Theologie und Kirche (Encyclopaedia for Theology and the Church) says: ‘The nucleus of the different episodes can reach very ancient times, even that of Daniel… Most of the Catholic exegetes essentially consider Daniel as the author of the book’.

The first-person form of the visions of chapters 7-12 and, of course, their place in the Holy Scriptures made the Christian tradition believe for a long time in the authorship of the book by Daniel: about whose life and acts they know only for his own work. It is probable that it was the last to reach the canon of the Old Testament and, from the traditionalist point of view, must be defended accordingly as authentic.

But it comes from the Revelations of the time of the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, probably from the year of the revolt of the Maccabees, 164 BC. Ergo the author lived long after the events described in the historical part of his book written in the third person (chapters 1-6). In this way, the ‘prophet Daniel’, who four centuries before is the servant of King Nebuchadnezzar in ‘Babel’ and who understands ‘stories and dreams of all kinds’, can easily prophesy. This is what Porphyry had discovered.

Consequently, in the historical epoch of the book in which Daniel presumably lived and described, the ‘prophet’ mixes everything. Thus, Balthazar, the organiser of the famous banquet, although was a regent he was not ‘king’. Balthazar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king (555-539). Artaxerxes did not come before Xerxes but after him and ‘Darius the Mede’ is not a historical figure at all. In short, ‘Daniel’ knew more about visions than about the time he lived.

Special forgeries of the Septuagint are also some well-known pieces, which Catholics call Deuterocanonics and Protestants apocryphal: the story of the Three Boys in the Fiery Furnace [Left: Gustave Doré’s illustration], the story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. All these special fabrications appear today in the Catholic Bible.

The book of Daniel is the oldest apocalypse and, among all the apocalyptic literature. the only one that reaches the Old Testament and consequently becomes canonical. In the Catholic Bible there is another forgery, Baruch’s ‘Deuterocanonical’ book, with which we turn our attention to a special literary genre, made up of obvious falsifications, which later goes on in an organic and integral way into Christianity.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Published in: on July 27, 2018 at 1:12 pm  Comments Off on Christianity’s Criminal History, 76  
Tags: ,

Christianity’s Criminal History, 73

Below, a translation from a section of the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.

 
The five books of Moses, which Moses did not write

The Old Testament is a very random and very fragmentary selection of what was left of ancient transmission. The Bible itself quotes the titles of nineteen works that have been lost, among them The Book of the Wars of the Lord, The Story of the Prophet Iddo, The Book of the Good. However, the researchers believe that there were many other biblical texts that have not left us even the title. Have they also been holy, inspired and divine?

In any case the remains are enough, more than enough; especially of the so-called five books of Moses, presumably the oldest and most venerable, that is, the Torah, the Pentateuch (Greek pentáteuchos, the book ‘containing five’ because it consists of five rolls): a qualifier applied around 200 AD by Gnostic writers and Christians. Until the 16th century, it was unanimously believed that these texts were the oldest of the Old Testament and that they would therefore be counted among the first in a chronologically ordered Bible. That is something that today cannot even be considered. The Genesis, the first book, is without good reason at the head of this collection. And although still in the 19th century renowned biblical scholars believed they could reconstruct an ‘archetype’ of the Bible, an authentic original text, that opinion has been abandoned. Or even worse, ‘it is very likely that such an original text never existed’ (Comfeld / Botterweck).

The Old Testament was transmitted mostly anonymously, but the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses and the Christian churches have proclaimed his authorship until the 20th century. However, while the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the first Israelite fathers, must have lived between the 21st and the 15th centuries BC, or between 2000 and 1700 if they actually lived, Moses—‘a marshal, but at the bottom of his being with a rich emotional life’ (Cardinal Faulhaber)—must have lived in the 14th or 12th century BC, if he also lived.

In any case, nowhere outside the Bible the existence of these venerable figures, and others more recent, is ‘documented’. There is no proof of their existence. Nowhere have they left historical traces; neither in stone, bronze, rolls of papyrus, nor in tablets or cylinders of clay, even though they are more recent than, for example, many of the Egyptian sovereigns historically documented in the form of famous tombs, hieroglyphs or cuneiform texts: authentic certificates of life. Therefore, writes Ernest Garden, ‘either one is tempted to deny the existence of the great figures of the Bible or, in case of wishing to admit their historicity even with the lack of demonstrative material, it is supposed that their life and time they passed in the way described by the Bible… had circulated for many generations’.

For Judaism, Moses is the most important figure in the Old Testament. It is mentioned 750 times as a legislator; the New Testament does it 80 times. It is claimed that all the Laws were being handled as if Moses had received them at Sinai. In this way he acquired for Israel a ‘transcendental importance’ (Brockington). Each time he was increasingly glorified. He was considered the inspired author of the Pentateuch. It was attributed to him, the murderer (of an Egyptian because he had beaten a Hebrew), even a pre-existence. He became the forerunner of the Messiah, and the Messiah was considered a second Moses. Many legends about him emerged in the 1st century BC; a novel about Moses, and also a multitude of artistic representations. But the tomb of Moses is not known. In fact, the prophets of the Old Testament quote him five times.

Ezekiel never mentions him! And yet, these prophets evoke the time of Moses, but not him. In their ethical-religious proclamations they never rely on Moses. Neither the papyrus Salt 124 ‘has a testimony of any Moses’ (Cornelius). Nor does archaeology give any sign of Moses. The Syrian-Palestinian inscriptions barely quote him in as little measure as cuneiform texts or hieroglyphic and hieratic texts. Herodotus (5th century BC) knows nothing of Moses. In short, there is no non-Israelite proof of Moses, our only source of his existence is—as in the case of Jesus—the Bible.

There were already some who in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages doubted the unity and authorship of Moses in the Pentateuch. It was hardly believed that Moses himself could have reported on his own death, ‘an extraordinary question’ Shelley mocks, ‘almost as how to describe the creation of the world’ in Genesis. However, a deep criticism only came from the pen of Christian ‘heretics’, as the primitive Church saw no contradiction in the Old or New Testaments.

In the modern age Andreas Karlstadt was one of the first scholars in which some doubts were aroused when reading the Bible (1520). More doubts were raised by the Dutchman Andreas Masius, a Catholic jurist (1574). But if this pair, and shortly afterwards the Jesuits B. Pereira and J. Bonfrère, only declared some citations as post-Mosaic and continued to consider Moses the author of the whole text, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes declared that some paragraphs of the Pentateuch were Mosaics but post-Mosaic most of the text (Leviathan, 1651). In 1655 the reformed French writer I. de Peyrère went even further; and in 1670, in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Spinoza denied Mosaic authorship for the whole thing.

In the 20th century some scholars of religion, among them Eduard Meyer (‘it is not the mission of historical research to invent novels’), and Danek of the school of the Prague, have questioned the historical existence of Moses himself; but their adversaries have rejected such hypothesis.

It is curious that even the most illustrious minds, the greatest sceptics and scientists under whose daring intervention the sources of material are shelled so that there is little space left for the figure of Moses, present us again, as if by sleight of hand, Moses in all his greatness as the dominant figure of all Israelite history. Although everything around this character is too colourful or too obscure, the hero himself cannot be fictional they say. As much as the criticism of sources has reduced the historical value of these books, almost annulled it, ‘there remains a broad field of the possible’ (Jaspers). It is not surprising, then, that among some conservatives Moses is of greater importance than the Bible!

In short: after Auschwitz, Christian theology returns to win over the Jews. ‘Today again a more positive idea of ancient Israel and its religion is possible’. However, Moses is still ‘a problem’ for the researchers, ‘there is no light to illuminate his figure’ and the corresponding traditions remain ‘outside the capacity of historical control’ according to the Bibl. Hist. Handwörterbuch (Hist. Bibl. handwritten book). Although these scholars strongly refuse to ‘reduce Moses to a nebulous figure, known only to legends’, they admit at the same time that ‘Moses himself is faded’. They claim that ‘the uniqueness of the Sinai event cannot be denied’ but they add immediately ‘although the historical demonstration is difficult’. They find in the ‘stories about Moses a considerable historical background’ and some paragraphs later claim that this ‘can not be proved by facts’, that ‘it cannot be witnessed by historical facts’ (Cornfeld / Botterweck).

This is the method followed by those who do not deny the evidence itself, but neither do they want everything to collapse with a crash (No way!). For M.A. Beek, for example, there is no doubt that the patriarchs are ‘historical figures’. Although he only sees them ‘on a semi-dark background’ he considers them ‘human beings of great importance’. He himself admits: ‘To date we have not been able to find documentary evidence of the figure of Joshua in Egyptian literature’. He adds that, apart from the Bible, he does not know ‘a single document containing a clear and historically reliable reference to Moses’. And he continues that, if we do without the Bible, ‘no source is known about the expulsion from Egypt’. ‘The abundant literature of the Egyptian historiographers silences, with a worrying obstinacy, events that should have deeply impressed the Egyptians, if the account of the Exodus is based on facts’. Beek is also surprised that the Old Testament rejects

curiously enough, any data that would make possible a chronological fixation of the departure from Egypt. We do not see the name of the Pharaoh that Joshua knew, nor the one who oppressed Israel. This is all the more amazing because the Bible retains many other Egyptian names of people, places and offices.

Even more suspicious than the lack of chronological reference points in the Old Testament is the fact that none of the known Egyptian texts cites a catastrophe that affected a Pharaoh and his army while chasing the fleeing Semites. Since historical documents have an abundance of material on the epoch in question, at least some allusion would be expected. The silence of the Egyptian documents cannot be dismissed with the observation that court historiographers do not usually talk about defeats, since the events described in the Bible are too decisive for Egyptian historians to have overlooked them.

‘It is really curious’, this scholar continues, ‘that no tomb of Moses is known’. Thus, ‘the only proof of the historical truth of Moses’ is for him ‘the mention of a great-grandson in a later epoch’.

‘And Moses was 120 years old when he died’ says the Bible, although his eyes ‘had not weakened and his strength had not diminished’ and God himself buried him and ‘no one knows to this day where his tomb is’. A pretty weird end. According to Goethe, Moses committed suicide and according to Freud his own people killed him. The disputes were not rare, as with Aaron and Miriam. But as always, the closing of the fifth and last book of the Pentateuch significantly recalls ‘the acts of horror that Moses committed before the eyes of all Israel’. Every character always enters the history thanks to his terrifying feats, and this is so regardless if he lived or not really. But whatever the case may be with Moses, the investigation is divided.

The only thing that is clear today, as Spinoza saw it, is that the five books of Moses, which directly attribute to him the infallible word of God, do not come from him. This is the coincidental conclusion of the researchers.

Naturally, there are still enough people like Alois Stiefvater and enough little treatises such as Schlag-Wörter-Buch für katholische Christen types (Schlag Words Book for Catholic Christians) who continue to deceive the mass of believers by making them believe in the five books of Moses, that ‘although not all have been directly written by him, they are due to him’. How many, and which ones Moses wrote directly, Stiefvater and his accomplices do not dare to say. What remains true is that the Laws that were considered as written by the hand of Moses or even attributed to the ‘finger of God’ are also fabrications. (On the other hand, although God himself writes the Law on two tablets of stone, Moses had so little respect for them that in his anger against the golden calf he destroyed them.)

It is also clear that the writing of these five books was preceded by an oral transmission of many centuries, with constant changes. And then there were the editors, the authors, the biblical compilers who participated throughout many generations in the writing of the books by ‘Moses’, which is reflected in the different styles. It looks like a collection of different materials, such as the entire fourth book.

Thus arose a very diffuse collection lacking any systematic organisation, overflowing with motifs of widely spread legends, etiological and folkloristic myths, contradictions and duplications (which by themselves alone exclude the writing by a single author). Added to all this is a multitude of heterogeneous opinions that have been developed in a gradual way, even in the most important issues. Thus the idea of the resurrection arises very little by little in the Old Testament, and in the books Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs any testimony of beliefs in the resurrection is missing. In addition, the scribes and compilers have constantly modified, corrected and falsified the texts, which acquired new secondary extensions every time. And these processes went on for entire epochs.

The Decalogue or Ten Commandments, which Luther considered the supreme incarnation of the Old Testament, proceeds in its earliest form perhaps from the beginning of the age of kings. Many parts of the Pentateuch that must have been written by the man who lived, if he lived, in the 14th or 13th centuries BC—no less than sixty chapters of the second, third and fourth books—were not produced or collected by Jewish priests until the 5th century BC. Thus, the final redaction of the books awarded to Moses—I quote the Jesuit Norbert Lohfink—’took place some seven hundred years later’. And the composition of all the books of the Old Testament—I quote the Catholic Otto Stegmüller—was prolonged ‘for a period of approximately 1,200 years’.

Complete set of scrolls constituting the Hebrew Bible.

Research on the Old Testament has reached enormous dimensions and we cannot contemplate it here—saving the reader from the labyrinthic methodology: the ancient documentary hypotheses of the 18th century, the assumptions of fragments, complements, crystallisation and the important differentiation of a first Elohist, a second Elohist, a Jahwist or Yahwist (H. Hupfeld, 1835), the formal historical method (H. Gunkel, 1901), the various theories about the sources, the theory of two, three, four sources, the written sources of the ‘Jahwist’ (J), of the ‘Elohist’ (E), of the ‘writing of the priests’ (P), of ‘Deuteronomy’ (D), of the combined writing… We cannot get lost in all the threads of the story, the traditions, the plethora of additions, complements, inclusions, annexes, proliferations, textual modifications, the problem of the variants, the parallel versions, the duplications—in short, the enormous ‘secondary’ enlargement, and the history and the scrutiny of the texts. We cannot discuss either the reasons for the extension of the Pentateuch into a Hexateuch, Heptateuch or even Octateuch, or its limitation to a Tetrateuch however interesting these hypotheses may be within the context of our subject.

A simple overview of the critical comments, such as Martin Noth’s explanations of the Mosaic books, will show the reader its editors, redactors, compilers; of additions, extensions, later contributions, combinations of different states of incorporation, modifications, etc.: an old piece, an older one, a fairly recent one that is often called secondary, perhaps secondary, probably secondary, surely secondary. The word ‘secondary’ appears here in all conceivable associations. It seems to be a keyword, and even I would like to affirm without having made an exact analysis of its frequency: there is no other word that appears with greater assiduity in all these investigations of Noth and his work.

Recently Hans-Joachim Kraus has written Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (The story of the historical-critical exploration of the Old Testament). Innovative and advanced for the 19th century was W.M.L. de Wette (died 1849) who perceived the many stories and traditions of these books and considered ‘David’, ‘Moses’ and ‘Solomon’ not as authors but as nominal symbols, such as collective names.

Due to the immense work of scholars in the course of the 19th century and the eventual debunking of biblical sacred history, Pope Leo XIII attempted to obstruct the freedom of research through his 1893 Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (The most provident God). A counteroffensive was opened also under his successor, Pius X, in a decree. From De Mosaica authentia Pentateuchi (Authentic Mosaic Pentateuch), June 27, 1906, Moses was considered an inspired author. Although on January 16, 1948 the secretary of the papal biblical commission declared in an official reply to Cardinal Suhard that the decisions of the commission ‘do not contradict with a later scientific analysis of these questions’, in Roman Catholicism ‘true’ always means: in the sense of Roman Catholicism. The final exhortation should be understood along the same lines: ‘That is why we invite Catholic scholars to study these problems from an impartial point of view, in the light of sound criticism’. But ‘from an impartial point of view’ means: from a partial point of view for the interests of the papacy. And with ‘sound criticism’ it is not meant to say anything other than a critique in favour of Rome.

The historical-scientific analysis of the writings of the Old Testament certainly did not provide a sure verdict about when the texts arose, although in some parts, as for example in the prophetic literature, the certainly about their antiquity is greater than, say, the religious lyrics. When it comes to the age of the Laws, there is less certainty. But historical-religious research with respect to the Tetrateuch (Moses 1-4) and the Deuteronomic historical work (Moses 5, Joshua, Judges, books of Samuel and the Kings) speaks of ‘epic works’, ‘mythological tales’, ‘legends’ and ‘myths’ (Nielsen).

The confusion that reigns in scholarship is manifest in the abundance of the repetitions: a double account of Creation, a double genealogy of Adam, a universal double flood (in one version the flood subsides after 150 days; according to other it lasts one year and ten days; and according to another, after raining forty days there are added another three weeks), in which Noah—then 600-years-old according to Genesis 7:6—took in the Ark seven pairs of pure animals and one of impure ones and, according to Genesis 6, 19 and 7, 16, there were a pair of pure and impure animals. But we would be very busy telling all the contradictions, inaccuracies, deviations with respect to a book inspired by God, in which there are a total of 250,000 textual variants.

In addition, the five books of Moses know a double Decalogue; a repeating legislation on slaves, the Passah, a loan, a double on the Sabbath, twice the entry of Noah into the Ark, twice the expulsion of Hagar by Abraham, twice the miracle of the manna and the quails, the election of Moses; three times the sins against the body and life, five times the catalogue of festivals, and are at least five legislations about the tenths, etc.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Matthew Kersten’s hilarious review

Of the Holy Bible

1-First-Edition-King-James-Bible-1611

Poor editing, logical fallacies, one-dimensional characters, and narrative inconsistencies ruin an otherwise imaginative dystopian fantasy novel in which a vengeful deity enslaves humanity into worshipping him. The King James Bible has an extremely intriguing premise, but the execution of that premise is poor and doesn’t do it justice at all. Regardless, the King James Bible is one of the world’s bestselling books of all time and has garnered a massive cult following, and understandably so, as it comes with a provocative promise of eternal life after death for anyone who believes it to be true. After reading it for myself, I find belief in this book’s alleged validity to be impossible.

It is worth noting that the King James Bible is not simply one book but an anthology of books (which are categorized under two iterations labeled as the Old and New Testaments) spanning many generations, all written by different authors at different points in time. And it shows. Oftentimes books in this collection offer redundant information and, at other times, contradictory information. In fact, the very first two chapters of the first book, titled Genesis, which lays out the origins of the book’s fictional universe, heavily contradict each other, and it all goes downhill from that point on. The editing in this book is absolutely atrocious.

The story starts off simple enough. There’s an omniscient, omnipotent, immortal celestial entity that has existed before the universe even began. This being, known as God, is bored and lonely and decides to create the universe to amuse himself. He creates light, which he calls day, followed by darkness, which he calls night, before he creates the sun. He then creates a flat earth of water, followed by dry land, grass and plant life, two great lights (one to rule the day and one to rule the night, even though the latter of which—the moon—isn’t actually a light and the former of which—the sun—would have been vital to the survival of the previously created plant life); firmament through which precipitation may occasionally be allowed to pass, creatures, and man. There’s also a tree with fruit that gives knowledge to whoever eats it and a sneaky, malicious talking snake, so if you’re into fantasy novels, the creation story at the beginning of Genesis should hold your interest.

It doesn’t take long before things go awry. The talking snake convinces the first woman, Eve, to eat fruit from the knowledge tree. Eve then convinces Adam, the first man, to do the same. God, despite supposedly being omniscient, is shocked to learn that they have done this and starts laying down the law on them, saying that men will be forced to work all the days of their life and women will be subservient to men. (To add insult to injury, childbirth will also be painful.) He punishes all of humanity for the disobedience of the first humans.

It seems puzzling that an omniscient God couldn’t devise a better creation plan. Even more puzzling is that the humans who disobeyed him were punished, along with all future members of humanity, for what they did despite not having any knowledge of what the consequences would be beforehand. Besides, if a creation is bad, does the blame rest upon the creation or the creator? Still more puzzling is that God doesn’t bother to attempt to refine his human design but sticks with the original failed one.

Things get all screwed up and a few chapters later. God, despite being omniscient, comes to a realization that his creation plan was a massive failure and that most of humanity is a lost cause and decides to destroy the world in a giant flood. That’s right; the world is destroyed at the very beginning of the book, and only a select few of each species are allowed to survive, somehow all crammed into an ark made from gopher wood. (How the plant life survives is not explained, nor is it explained how aquatic life survives salt water and fresh water mixing together, nor is it explained where the excess water ends up after the flood is over.) Why this omnipotent God couldn’t just stop the hearts of all humans who displeased him is quite beyond me. This flood plan is remarkably inefficient and serves as filler material, as the surviving human family needs to engage in incest to repopulate the world just like the first humans needed to engage in incest to originally populate the world. It’s just the same scenario rehashed. I can’t help but feel as though the contrived flood account was interpolated into the beginning of Genesis to dress it up and make it appear more impressive. It might help hook some readers early on, but I found it to be unnecessary.

Through various semi-comical, semi-irritating mishaps involving a giant tower, a child sacrifice practical joke, and a sold birthright, a tribe known as Israel arises. Israel is the tribe that God favors over all others, though it doesn’t take long for the Israelites to become enslaved in Egypt despite possessing the guidance of this omniscient God.

The second installment in the anthology, Exodus, deals with their emancipation from Egypt. God decides to give this guy named Moses some cheat codes for the universe, so that he’ll be able to use them in an attempt to intimidate the Pharaoh into allowing the Israelites to go free. Whether or not this plan would have actually worked is anyone’s guess, as God decides to violate the Pharaoh’s free will to allow the Israelites to leave (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 7:22, 8:19, 9:7, 9:35, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, and 14:8), giving himself an incredibly flimsy excuse to send ten plagues on all of the Egyptians, punishing them for the Pharaoh’s compulsory obstinacy, just to show off. After this fiasco, the Pharaoh is finally allowed to let the Israelites go. Very shortly thereafter, the Pharaoh changes his mind about letting them go and chases them with his army. He almost catches them, but Moses uses his magical powers that God gave him to divide the waters of the Red Sea so that the Israelites can walk through them. There’s also a pillar of fire separating the Egyptians from the Israelites. If you enjoy fantasy epics, Exodus should be right up your alley.

Once the Israelites are through, the fire pillar dissipates and the Egyptians very stupidly charge into the path between the parted waters. The waters collapse onto the Egyptians, drowning them, and the Israelites celebrate the grisly deaths of their enemies before setting up camp in the desert.

This is where the real fun begins. From the remainder of Exodus and all throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the vindictive, tyrannical God establishes a delightfully sinister theocracy under which basic happiness is impossible. He endorses slavery (Exodus 21:2-27, Leviticus 25:44-46, and Deuteronomy 20:10-14), public execution by stoning for failure to worship him on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), stoning of unruly children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and death as punishment for nearly every crime, usually by stoning. (Stoning seems to be his preferred method of execution.)

He also demands that virgin women who are raped marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), calls for genocide (Exodus 23:23-27, Leviticus 26:7-8, and Deuteronomy 7:1-5 and 12:2-3), and condones all sorts of other atrocities. The Israelites, who witnessed his power during the plagues and parting of the waters, have no choice but to submit to this new horrific celestial totalitarian regime.

After the death of Moses, Joshua takes over as leader of the Israelites. In Joshua, the sixth installment, the Israelites fulfill God’s call for genocide by fighting battles with other tribes all throughout the desert, winning them simply because God rigs them in their favor. After some initial victories, the Israelites forget about God’s power and start worshipping other gods.

In the next book, Judges, God, who freely admits to being jealous (according to Exodus 34:14, his very name is Jealous), punishes them for doing so and delivers them into bondage. When they repent, a “judge” is sent to free them. This happens multiple times throughout Judges, making for repetitive reading. (God also allows a man named Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter to him in exchange for a battle victory in Judges 11:30-40; a testament to how much he loves human death.)

After this nonsense goes on for awhile, delaying exposition, the Philistines arrive on the scene and pose a major threat to the Israelites. A guy named David scares them away by killing a Philistine giant by firing a rock at his head with a slingshot. He then becomes Israel’s king. (There’s also a disgusting yet somewhat amusing anecdote in which David slays two hundred Philistines, cuts off their foreskins, and gives them to Saul as a dowry for his daughter, Michal, in 1 Samuel 18:25-27. This seems like a very poor deal to me. I’ll bet that Saul later had buyer’s remorse.)

Some less important, not particularly memorable (save for God’s killing of King David’s illegitimate seven-day-old son in 2 Samuel 12:15-18, a census mishap in 2 Samuel 24:1-15, and an incident involving two she bears in 2 Kings 2:23-24) events take place throughout the next nine books before the reader is forced to trudge through 150 chapters of dull, repetitive, excessively slavish poetry written to God by one of his more abject followers in Psalms.

The author of that book has the audacity to claim that both God and his statutes are perfect (Psalms 119:142, 119:151, 119:160, and 119:172), even though this would mean that God would need to follow his own rules, which he doesn’t. It is also claimed in Psalms that happiness can be derived from bashing children’s heads against rocks (Psalms 137:9), which is a proclamation that thoroughly baffles me. I’m not sure what the author was going for here. Perhaps this verse is supposed to be some sort of black comedy joke intended to express the impaired judgment of those living under the theocratic dystopia depicted in this collection of books, or it might have been included to emphasize the ghastly nature of the aforementioned theocratic dystopia, or it might just be there for shock value.


[Chechar’s interpolated note: I think I have psychoanalyzed well those barbaric Semites in a passage of my book Hojas Susurrantes. Just click on this link and then scroll almost to the bottom of that entry until you hit the subtitle “The historical Israel”.]


Whatever the case may be, it’s far too mean-spirited. The author of Psalms also frequently and redundantly berates anyone who is not a member of the tribe(s) that God favors, making for tiresome and irritating reading.

The next three books provide even more dull reading material. After slogging through these books, the reader arrives at the writings of the Old Testament prophets.

Throughout Isaiah and Jeremiah, God ruthlessly annihilates entire nations that fail to submit to his terrorist demands. Isaiah also mentions unicorns (Isaiah 34:7), dragons (Isaiah 34:13), and satyrs (Isaiah 34:14) and identifies them as legitimate safety hazards, so if you enjoy fantasy novels, you should enjoy chapter 34 of Isaiah.

Furthermore, Jeremiah 10:1-5 forbids cutting trees out of the forest, adorning them with decorations, and displaying them as a holiday custom. A substantial portion of the cult followers who claim to live by this book’s teachings fail to uphold this passage, which is puzzling. (In fact, there are many passages that they fail to uphold.) It’s almost as if they don’t even realize that decorated trees are explicitly forbidden by their highly revered literary work, but that would mean that they haven’t actually read the entire book for themselves and are blindly accepting the subjective interpretations of others, which would be just plain absurd. Right?

The next book in the series is Lamentations, which is just as pathetic as it sounds. (The entire Old Testament is excellently summarized in one sentence by Lamentations 2:21.)

The celestial terrorism continues throughout Ezekiel, in which God sinks to a new low by demanding that Ezekiel eat cakes containing human excrement (Ezekiel 4:12). (The entire Old Testament is excellently summarized in one sentence in Ezekiel 25:17.) Ezekiel also sees creatures that each has four faces, four wings, and straight feet with calf’s soles in Ezekiel 1:5-28, so if you enjoy fantasy novels, you should enjoy that passage.

Some more less important events happen throughout the next ten books, which consist mainly of more divine terrorism and ultimatums. Jonah, in which a man survives being swallowed by a giant fish and is vomited up three days later, is amusing.


The second (much shorter) iteration of the King James Bible, the New Testament, starts off with this guy named Jesus, who is supposed to be God in human form, gathering followers on Earth and spreading his word to them.

Given how much of a tyrannical, ethnic-cleansing maniac God was in the Old Testament, one would most likely expect Jesus to be a Terminator-style infiltrator who goes on killing sprees, but instead he’s a hippie. This almost complete character reversal makes the main protagonist (I use that word loosely) seem even more contrived and unbelievable.

Granted though, traces of God’s evil do remain within Jesus, as he brings his followers the most horrendous news of all; that anyone who fails to accept him as his or her totalitarian slave master will be tortured for all eternity after death! It is the epitome of horror, revamping God’s vindictive, petty, unforgiving nature that was established in the Old Testament.

The inherent problem with the premise of the Jesus story is that a man who is an omniscient deity incarnate would have extremely advanced knowledge; knowledge far beyond that of the humans who wrote this collection of books, called gospels. However, the gospel authors were able to work around it in an extremely clever way. The four authors telling the story of Jesus and his time on Earth all pieced together a generalized account of his life from minor, disjointed details and the four resulting accounts all heavily contradict each other. Brilliant!

Some fans of this book claim that Jesus abolishes the atrocious laws established in the Old Testament, making up for them. This, however, is not the case, as Jesus himself states in Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17 that he came not to “destroy the law” but to fulfill it and that not “one tittle” of the law would fail until “heaven and earth pass.” Once again it seems as though those who claim to admire and adhere to this book don’t actually know it very well. Go figure.

Two of the gospel authors claim that Jesus was born to a virgin, which is rather far-fetched, but then again, it is a fantasy novel. Jesus also claims that anyone who has faith in him will be able to magically transfer mountains and trees into the sea (Matthew 17:20 and 21:21, Mark 11:23, and Luke 17:6), further emphasizing the alternate, fictional universe (where sorcery is possible) in which this story is set.

Also, in this universe, all ailments are caused by demons, which Jesus is able to cast out of the ill and physically deformed.

The end of the story of Jesus and his time on Earth, however, ruins the whole thing, as it is completely nonsensical. Jesus (also God) is there to die for the imperfect nature of all humans (in which God created them) as a blood sacrifice to God (also himself) simply so that he can ask God (also himself) to forgive all humans for involuntarily existing in an imperfect nature in which they were created by God. It is supposed to be a noble sacrifice, but it instead comes across as utterly absurd and obscene.

It isn’t even a sacrifice, because Jesus magically comes back to life three days later, which he knew ahead of time would happen. Besides, given the other resurrections throughout this anthology of books (1 Kings 17:21-22, Ezekiel 37:9-10, Matthew 27:51-53, Mark 5:41-42, Luke 8:54-55, and John 11:41-44), the Jesus resurrection doesn’t seem all that significant. It would have had greater effect if those other completely random resurrections had been omitted. As I’ve already stated, this book would have benefited tremendously from better editing.

The next 22 books describe the actions and teaching of the followers of Jesus. The writings of his followers contradict each other numerous times regarding what is required to attain salvation. (Is it faith or works or both?)

Most of these books are written by some guy named Paul and are comprised of rambling about how faith is the only way to attain salvation (even though Paul apparently was made witness to the spirit of Jesus in Acts 9:3-6, making faith for him impossible, making him a hypocrite) and how sex is evil and women are inferior and must be submissive to men and all kinds of other crap that Jesus doesn’t say in any of the gospels. The writings of Paul are irritating and dull. (Although 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 is good for a laugh.)

After these writings, the final book, Revelation, describes the end of the world when Jesus comes back to kill all nonbelievers. Revelation is replete with cartoonish imagery and prophecies more vague than an astrology horoscope. It feels to me as though it was tacked on as an afterthought so that the book could have a climactic ending, no matter how contrived. What exactly was the point of adding all of this extra material to the end of the book if the savior of humanity was already dead and resurrected?

As far as dystopian novels go, I prefer George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four by a long shot. That book isn’t self-contradictory, poorly written, fallacious, or outright absurd and it doesn’t insult the reader’s intelligence by claiming that Big Brother is good.

Auster’s unpublished chapter

Just in case this chapter is removed from View From the Right (VFR) after Lawrence Auster dies (he’s struggling with cancer), I would like to save it here:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

“Any large number of free-thinking Jews” is “undesirable” if one wants to maintain or develop a society in which a Christian tradition can flourish, said T.S. Eliot in 1934. He was right. —David A. Hollinger, Science, Jews and Secular Culture, 1996

When it comes to Jewish enthusiasm for the great egalitarian project I think we may be grateful that we are such a small people. —Ruth Wisse, If I Am Not For Myself

… the great take-over by Jewish-American writers dreaming aloud the dreams of the whole American people. —Leslie Fiedler, Partisan Review, 1967

[W]e have spent most of our history as a vulnerable minority … That is why Jews both value and insist upon multicultural societies where the rule of law prevails, where distinctive identities can flourish, and where tolerance and respect are values equally applicable to all citizens. —Abraham Foxman, Ha’aretz, February 13, 2006

LarryAuster at VFR dinner
The below is a chapter—written in 1998 and not edited or changed since then—from the vast unpublished book on mass non-Western immigration, its consequences, and related topics that I worked on through most of the 1990s. It was tentatively entitled, The Death of America, and its Possible Rebirth. Recently a right-wing publisher has expressed interest in the manuscript and I am in the process of organizing the long-finished chapters for publication. Meanwhile this chapter may be read as a standalone article. (Note: it is very long, over 11,000 words.)

I read the entire chapter last night for the first time in fifteen years and made some fixes in punctuation and spelling. I see one serious flaw in the piece: that there are not enough qualifications showing that the objectionable attitudes I have attributed to “Jews”—i.e., to the Jewish people or the Jewish community as such—are, of course, not shared by all Jews, not by any means. But at this point I lack the will and the physical ability to re-work the chapter. So I hope that readers will understand that when I speak of “Jews” I do not mean all Jews, or even perhaps of a majority of Jews, but of a large and influential part of the Jewish population.

We could look at the problem this way. The great majority of Jews are extremely liberal and will remain so, but a large number of white gentiles (perhaps a majority) are also liberal and will remain so. To put the point differently, a large majority of Jews do not identify with or support the white race, but a large majority of white gentiles also do not identify with or support the white race. A significant number of Jews are conservative and traditional (I am not speaking of most Hasids, who are simply not part of our country and civilization), and I believe that such Jews are a positive part of our body politic and of the prospective growth of a traditionalist movement, and ultimately, perhaps generations hence, of a reborn America, named by me America 3.0, that will have separated from liberal America, America 2.0, which has now definitively destroyed and replaced the original America, America 1.0.

Also, to understand better where I’m coming from, readers may want to jump ahead and read the last section first, “How to oppose the Jewish agenda without anti-Semitism.”

Here is the article:

Jews: The Archetypal Multiculturalists

We’ve looked at the immigrant and nonwhite cultures that are displacing white America from without, and at the nihilist culture eating away at white society from within. But there is one group that lies at the intersection of these phenomena, an ethnically and religiously distinct group that is of relatively recent immigrant origin, yet is also part—though a largely distinct part—of the white race and a major influence in the mainstream culture. I am speaking, of course, of the Jews. Given the extraordinary role that this extraordinary people has played in modern America, no serious discussion of ethic diversity on American life can ignore them. Yet because of the Jews’ tragic history as a persecuted people, and because of their own ability, through their leading role in American intellectual life, to set the terms of permissible discourse, it is impossible in today’s society to have an honest discussion on the subject of Jewish cultural impact. While every other ethnic group can be spoken of in a critical light, if only to a very limited extent, nothing that is even implicitly critical is allowed to be said or inferred about Jews. An opinion poll by the Anti-Defamation League searching for anti-Semitic attitudes in America perfectly captured the prevailing assumptions of what is permissible to say about Jews. If people responding to the poll agreed even with true opinions about Jews, such as that “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” the poll considered that to be evidence of anti-Semitism. Using such a broad definition of anti-Semitism, the ADL, unsurprisingly, always finds lots of “anti-Semitism” in America. [ADL National Study, May 1992].

If “anti-Semitism” is to be a meaningful word, and not just a weapon used to frighten people into silence, then its usage must pass the same definitional test we have established for “racism.” Just as behavior must be morally bad if it is to be properly considered racist, so it must be morally bad if it is to be properly considered anti-Semitic. Unless to be impolitic is to be immoral, it is no more anti-Semitic to engage in rational, critical discourse about the role of Jews in American society than it is racist to engage in rational, critical discourse about blacks or Chinese or white Protestants or anyone else.

While this sort of honest discussion may imply a challenge to the political and cultural agendas promoted by Jewish organizations, it does not threaten Jews as individuals or as a community. Notwithstanding the Jews’ own exaggerated fears on this subject, anti-Semitism has steadily declined since World War II. Jews do not face any serious bigotry in this country, except from some black nationalists (who are beyond the reach of Western discourse in any case) and from a tiny, though growing, number of powerless and marginalized whites, some of whom are serious anti-Semites. Indeed, it could be argued that the current increase of anti-Semitism at the margins of white society is to a significant extent driven by the fact that no critical opinions about Jewish influence are ever permitted, even while the role of this tiny minority in American politics and culture keeps waxing spectacularly before everyone’s eyes. To forbid people to remark upon such a remarkable phenomenon does not conduce to mental or social health. It leaves the normal energies of criticism—and even of just plain griping—no outlet except for dark and inarticulate resentment, coded hate messages, conspiracy theories, devil theories, Holocaust denial, and so on.

As sensitive as it is, the subject of Jewish cultural impact is unavoidable in a book that purports to deal with immigration and diversity. The Jews are, and have always been, the archetypal minority. For their entire history since the expulsion of Jewish elites to Babylonia in the early sixth century B.C. (the time when the Israelites first began to be called “Jews”), the Jews have lived as a conspicuous, and intermittently persecuted, minority among non-Jewish majorities. For this reason, many contemporary Jews regard the essence of Jewishness as identification with the Outsider (whoever the Outsider might be), combined with hostility, or at least a deeply questioning attitude, toward the majority culture.

The Eastern European Jews entered America as immigrants whose religion, folkways, and characteristics were alien to those of the historic American population. Although they have made phenomenal contributions to American life in many fields, and assimilated to a far greater extent than some conservatives a hundred years ago could have imagined, the Jews also (as few people recognize, because the subject is forbidden) changed America in some profound and not always positive ways. In terms of national identity, Jews were instrumental in the reformulation of America as a universalist society based strictly on ideology rather than on peoplehood, a change that set the stage for mass Third-World immigration and the much more profound redefinition of America as a multicultural society. In terms of morality, many Jewish intellectuals, writers, and entertainers deliberately undermined the older Anglo-American Victorian ethos, a program of moral/cultural subversion that climaxed in the Sixties counterculture and the dominant nihilist culture of the 1980s and 1990s. In terms of politics, Jews were instrumental in replacing the old American order of Constitutional self-restraint with the statist politics of unrestrained compassion.

Thus, even as Jews more or less successfully adapted to America, America—in redefining itself as universal, in giving up its Anglo-Saxon Christian culture, and in adopting a politics of compassion, adapted to the Jews. The pattern of the Jews’ interaction with the majority culture is a textbook case on the effect of ethnic diversification on a host society.


Jews re-made America

The traditional belief is that all immigrants, regardless of their cultural background and numbers, can be equally well assimilated. But even the Jews, now that they’ve reached a position of unassailable power in American life, admit that this notion is false. As the well-known attorney and law professor Alan Dershowitz writes in his 1991 best-seller Chutzpah:

Jews have been extraordinarily successful in America. We have not melted into anyone else’s pot. Instead, we have reshaped the pot to accommodate our unusual dimensions. In the process we too have reshaped ourselves somewhat to fit into our environment. [Emphasis added.] [pp. 6-7]

In other words, the Jews did not assimilate into America (or, as Dershowitz grudgingly concedes, they only assimilated “somewhat”); rather they “reshaped” America to make it “accommodate our unusual dimensions.”

Dershowitz claims a similar right to redefine Judaism:

I do, therefore, precisely what orthodox religions say you can’t do: I pick and choose—hopefully on some principled basis—among the religious practices and select those with which I wish to comply. It’s my religion, after all, and I don’t see why I can’t be the final arbiter when it comes to its content. [p. 12].

Note the all-consuming narcissism. Judaism is his religion, so he can define it according to his whims—a most convenient philosophy for a man who abandoned his family’s orthodox Judaism but still insists on his total Jewishness. In the same way, America is his country, therefore America is anything he feels like saying it is—a convenient philosophy for a man who is openly hostile to America’s historic civilization. “We need not compromise either our Americanism or our Jewishness,” Dershowitz declares. “Nor can anyone else define our Americanism or our Jewishness for us.” (pp. 4-5.) This, in brief, is chutzpah, which Dershowitz defines as self-assertion and boldness in the face of authority, but which most people regard as unmitigated, brazen arrogance. However defined, it is a quality Dershowitz celebrates in his fellow Jews and urges them to cultivate.

Thus he writes admiringly of David Bazelon, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, for whom Dershowitz worked as a law clerk:

Judge Bazelon rarely went to synagogue, but he was a Jewish judge in every sense. He saw the world through his Jewish background. His humor was frequently in Yiddish. His speeches referred to the rabbinical literature. He described himself as a secular American with a “Jewish soul.” If a defendant deserved compassion but no writ of habeas corpus—or other formal legal remedy—was technically available to him, Bazelon would wink at me [italics added] and order that I find some ground for issuing a “writ of rachmones.” Rachmones is the Hebrew-Yiddish word for “compassion.”

Bazelon was always an outsider, a questioner, even as one of the most influential jurists of his time. [pp. 58-59].

In this inadvertently devastating portrait, we see the chief judge of America’s second most powerful court busily reshaping Anglo-American Constitutional law according to his Jewish outsider’s sense of compassion, while conspiratorially winking at his young law clerk. Equally revealing is Dershowitz’s tribute to Bazelon and his other mentor, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg: “[T]heir Jewishness—their rachmones—resonated in me more powerfully than the Jewishness of ritual.” (p. 60). It is clear that these secular Jews, leading architects of the modern omnicompetent state, regard the liberal agenda as an emotionally fulfilling substitute for the religious tradition they have cast aside.

Unfortunately, Dershowitz’s cult of Chutzpah, which we’ve only begun to explore here, cannot be dismissed as an extreme position among American Jews. If anything, the extraordinary popularity of his book and the glowing reviews it received from many quarters of Jewish opinion suggest that his views—particularly his narcissistic claim of a Jewish right to remake America—are representative. Even Ruth Wisse, a harsh critic of Chutzpah, noted with regret that Dershowitz’s outlook seems to resonate deeply among American Jewry. [Ruth Wisse, review, Commentary, September 1991].

Notwithstanding the critical framework of the present discussion, we must always remember that there is a fundamental difference between Jews and other European immigrants, on one hand, and non-Europeans on the other. While the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe changed American culture in some dramatic ways, America still remained, at bottom, a nation. By contrast, the non-European immigration since 1965 has changed America from a nation into a multiethnic empire. At the same time, we must understand that the cultural changes brought by the turn-of-the-century immigrants and their descendants prepared the ground for the more radical changes that came later.

The Public Schools

The dynamic of diversification, which we’ve discussed at length elsewhere, works as follows. Believing that ethnic differences don’t matter and that discrimination is always wrong, a majority culture that had once excluded a minority begins admitting them. But once the minority group are inside that culture, they proceed to alter its identity. In the case of American Jews, this has applied particularly to the public schools, and to intellectual culture generally. Up to the late nineteenth century, writes historian Naomi W. Cohen, there was broad public consensus that the “United States was a Christian nation whose freedoms rested on Christian precepts.” The public schools were nonsectarian—meaning no distinction was made among Protestant denominations—and included readings from the Protestant Bible and moral Christian teachers along with prayers and holiday exercises. While both Catholics and Jews opposed this religious element in the public schools, the Jewish attitude was more complicated. Jews embraced the public schools because they saw them as the great path to Americanization, yet they also hoped that by entering the public school system they could overturn their Christian customs. The problem was that those Christian customs had always been an organic part of the America that Jews were so eager to join.

Conservative Protestants noticed the contradiction, and resented it. In an 1888 editorial, the New York Tribune said that while it appreciated the value and virtues of “our Hebrew fellow-citizens,”

they should recognize … that the Republic which offers a refuge and the broadest religious freedom to all men, expresses, in so doing, the highest teaching of Christ—the brotherhood of humanity. If it had not done so [the Jews] would have had no foothold here. The United States … is Christian in its foundation, its structure and its development, and none … who have taken refuge here have more reason to thank God for its Christian spirit than the Hebrews. [quoted in Jews in Christian America: The Pursuit of Religious Equality, Naomi W. Cohen (NY: Oxford U. Press, 1992), p. 71].

This counsel was not heeded. Far from being grateful for America’s Christian spirit, the Jewish community resented and feared any manifestation of it—particularly the traditional Christmas observances in the public schools.

The conflict came to a head in 1906. During a Christmas assembly at a predominantly Jewish public school in Brooklyn, the principal engaged in what he probably saw as an appeal to America’s religious and ethical foundation, but which Jews saw as a provocation. Basically, the principal’s offense was that he called on his students to “be more like Christ … taking less and giving more.” New York’s Jewish community erupted. Jewish newspapers called for a student strike to protest Christmas observances, with one paper referring to Jesus as the person because of whom “the Jewish people bathed in blood and tears for 2000 years.” The next day, December 24, 1906, tens of thousands of Jewish children stayed home from school. The strike, which was backed by mainstream as well as Jewish newspapers, was successful. The Morgen Journal triumphantly reported that “the principals and teachers were frightened … and removed from their programs everything that pertained to Christendom.” [Italics added.] Ultimately a compromise was reached. Christmas hymns and assemblies were banned, but Christmas trees and pictures of Santa Clause and recitals of the Lord’s Prayer were allowed. [Leonard Bloom, “A Successful Jewish Boycott of the New York City Public Schools—Christmas 1906,” American Jewish History, December 1980, 180-188].

While the principal’s upholding of Jesus as a moral ideal (without any mention of his theological status), does not exactly rise to the level of pogroms and 25-year conscriptions into the Tsar’s army, I do not criticize New York’s Jews for their resistance to Christian preaching in the public schools. What I am saying is that, given the Jews’ religious differences from Christians, given their memories of persecution by Christians, and given their extraordinary activism and intelligence, the mass entry of Jews into America was destined to have the effect it ultimately had—of delegitimizing public expressions of Christendom in what had previously been a Christian country. Mass immigration and integration of a culturally alien group inevitably weakens the historic culture of the host country.

The culturally transforming effect of Jews on the liberal arts universities was more profound. In a groundbreaking study, Science, Jews, and Secular Culture, Professor David A. Hollinger of the University of California at Berkeley, an outspoken liberal, examines the role Jews have played in the de-Christianizing of American universities and intellectual life. At the end of the nineteenth century, he writes, a generic, trans-denominational Protestantism “was taken for granted by nearly all of the Americans in a position to influence the character of the nation’s major institutions, including those controlling public education, politics, the law, literature, the arts, scholarship, and even science.” Over the course of the twentieth century, the view of America as a Christian nation was replaced by the view of America as a universalist, pluralist society, in which Christianity is but one of several legitimate religions. Two principal factors account for this transformation: The first was the loss of Christian belief on the part of old-stock Protestant intellectuals who had embraced the world view of modern science. The second was the demographic diversification brought about by immigration. These two phenomena, though separate, were linked. As Hollinger explains it, prominent Jewish intellectuals “reinforced the most de-Christianized of the perspectives already current among the Anglo-Protestants,” with Protestant and Jewish intellectuals supporting each other in the secularization project. While WASP intellectuals such as Sinclair Lewis and Randolph Bourne lionized Jewish thinkers for leading the Protestants out of their “provincialism,” Jewish intellectuals such as Felix Frankfurter and Harold J. Laski made Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.—who was both an old-stock American and an atheist and relativist—into an American cultural icon, thus building a secular vision of America upon which secular Protestants and Jews could unite.

At the same time there was still much resistance to Jewish influence at conservative institutions. Jewish students in the 1920s and 1930s were systematically discouraged from going into academic fields involving the transmission of culture, such as philosophy, history, and literature, and were urged instead to enter technical and service fields such as business, engineering, economics, medicine, and law. There were also quotas limiting the number of Jewish students at elite universities. Ernest M. Hopkins, the president of Dartmouth, was frank about the reason for this policy: “Dartmouth is a Christian College founded for the Christianization of its students,” he unapologetically told the New York Post in 1945. Hopkins’s straightforward comment suggests that his views, while controversial, were not considered shameful, but at least reasonable. [“Dartmouth Reveals Anti-Semitic Past,” New York Times, November 11, 1997, A16.]

This situation changed dramatically after World War II, when all boundaries to Jews in the liberal arts were dropped. The Yale College faculty, which had no Jews in 1945, became 18 percent Jewish by the 1970s. A 1969 study found that Jews, who then accounted for three percent of the U.S. population, made up 17 percent of the faculties of the 17 top-ranked universities. During the same period, these universities also became aggressively secular, eliminating Christian symbols and practices (such as obligatory chapel) and discouraging any open profession of Christian belief by faculty members. Hollinger suggests that this secularization was not just due to the general trends of the academic culture, but specifically to the presence of Jewish professors. [“Jewish Intellectuals and the De-Christianization of American Public Culture in the Twentieth Century,” in David A. Hollinger, Science, Jews, and Secular Culture, Princeton University Press, 1996].

Thus the American institution that had been the chief defender and transmitter of the older Protestant culture, not only in terms of an official religious identity, but in terms of manners, literature, a cultured way of life, the ideal of the Christian gentleman, and so on, had become—in no small part because of the entry of Jews—the most secularized institution in America. The elite universities had changed from guardian of the old Western order to its subverter. This transformation in the universities then reverberated through the rest of the culture, stripping America’s public institutions, entertainments, symbols, and manners of the Christian and bourgeois values they had once embodied. America’s transition from a Protestant culture whose public institutions, celebrations, and symbols reflected Christian belief, to a pluralist, secular society with no identity at all, was complete. When the next waves of change came—the Sixties radical left, black power, feminism, and multiculturalism—the universities and other institutions had no remaining cultural identity to defend against the onslaught, which explains why the radical movements triumphed so easily.

Hollinger, himself a secular, liberal Protestant, explains the frankness with which he discusses the Jewish role in secularization by pointing out that he approves of it. Indeed, he barely conceals his pleasure at Christianity’s being pushed aside. In what may be a reflection of our thoroughly radicalized times, some Jewish spokesmen are also acknowledging, without embarrassment, their own anti-Christian agenda. In a letter to the Harvard Magazine, Rabbi Abram Goodman, from the Harvard class of 1924, recalls the Harvard of the 1920s when the enrollment of Jews in Harvard College was strictly limited, and adds: “Now I witness a Harvard that has been thoroughly cleansed and Judaized. [Italics added.] My reaction [is] to recite the ancient Hebrew blessing: Blessed art thou, oh Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has kept us in life and sustained us, and caused us to reach this (happy) occasion.” [Abram Vossen Goodman, Harvard Magazine, September/October 1997, p. 6]. Thus an American Jew in 1997 unselfconsciously boasts of eliminating America’s former Christian culture, describing this elimination in terms (“thoroughly cleansed and Judaized”) not unlike those once used by the Nazis about the Jews. Goodman’s apparent lack of fear that his remarks may provoke anti-Semitism—like Hollinger’s lack of fear of being charged with anti-Semitism—is a signal that the long march of ethnic minorities and the cultural left through America’s institutions has triumphed. Now that their enemies have been scattered and silenced, the left and the minorities can admit that their real agenda all along was not simply inclusion, equality, justice, or tolerance toward Jews and other minorities, but the destruction of the Christian culture.

Even worse, Jewish spokesmen have repeatedly attacked Christian evangelism, if it was directed at Jews, as hateful and anti-Semitic. But to say that evangelism is hateful is to say that Christianity is hateful. We must be frank about the fact that a deep animus against Christianity and Christian culture is found among both religious and secular Jews. Here is Philip Rieff, author of the influential book The Triumph of the Therapeutic, writing in 1972:

I am no advocate of some earlier credal organization. In particular, I have not the slightest affection for the dead church civilization of the West. I am a Jew. No Jew in his right mind can long for some variant of that civilization. Its one enduring quality is its transgressive energy against the Jew of culture… [Italics added.] The gospels were not good news; the ungospelled present has its supremely pleasant feature, the death of the church. [Philip Rieff, “Fellow Teachers,” Salmagundi, no. 20 (Summer-Fall 1972), p. 27; quoted in John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility, p. 172.]

Just as black novelist Toni Morrison believes that the defining trait of white Americans is their hatred of blacks, so Philip Rieff believes that the one enduring quality of Christianity is its anti-Jewishness! For Rieff, Christianity seems to have no meaning or value apart from the harm it does to Jews. But this, in effect, is to deny the collective identity and the subjectivity of Christians.

Similarly, as John Murray Cuddihy writes in his classic study The Ordeal of Civility, Freud felt that basically all gentiles were anti-Semitic, and he interpreted Gentile politeness as nothing but a polite form of anti-Semitism:

This is one root … of the ethnic-specific animus of Freud and Eastern European Jewry generally against Gentile civility: they defined it as a (middle-class) mask concealing anti-Semitism. They defined it as refined anti-Semitism … [The Ordeal of Civility, pp. 78-79.]

Just as nonwhites and white multiculturalists see Western ideals (e.g., individuality and truth) as intrinsically oppressive, earlier Jewish intellectuals saw Gentile ideals (e.g., courtesy and self-control) as intrinsically anti-Semitic. In both instances, reform is impossible. The only way the “oppressive” culture can stop being “oppressive” is to be deprived of its being.

The Jewish role in open borders

The majority culture is deprived of its spiritual being through cultural transformation, and of its physical being through demographic diversification. The latter was the ultimate aim of the American Jewish Committee’s 40-year-long campaign to repeal the 1924 National Quota Act and open America’s borders to the world. Significantly, Jewish immigration reformers of the 1950s and 1960s were no longer concerned with augmenting the number of Jews coming into the U.S., but with increasing all immigrants from non-traditional sources. Their purpose was not to help any particular group; their purpose was to eliminate any sort of preferences for immigrants whom the restrictionists thought would be more assimilable to America’s existing culture. To do this, it was necessary to create a sense of resentment among the America ethnic groups whose fellow ethnics in their home countries were being excluded under the National Quota.

This intention was made clear in an article by immigration historian Oscar Handlin in the July 1952 issue of Commentary, the journal of the American Jewish Committee. In the article, titled “The Immigration Fight Has Only Begun.” Handlin repeatedly complained about the “widespread apathy in sectors of the population that ought to be most actively concerned” about the exclusion of their fellow ethnics by the national quota. The problem from Handlin’s point of view was that most Italians, Poles, and other recent immigrant groups accepted the immigration restrictions, did not feel insulted by them, and did not seem to feel that America was obligated to keep admitting large numbers of their own national-origin group. In other words, the problem was that the white ethnics identified more with America than with their own ethnic group and its chances for further immigration. Literary critic Carol Iannone offers an anecdote about her Catholic high school in the 1960s which seems to confirm this impression:

One day in school we were shown a film about all the immigrants and what they had done for America. The next day our teacher Sister Eustacia said: “What did you think of the film? I didn’t like it. Immigrants! Immigrants! You’d think there wasn’t a whole society here before the immigrants came! Nothing but immigrants.” In our class, many of whom were offspring of immigrants, we were not offended because we knew there was a country here before our families came. And that was totally the ethos.

My father, who immigrated to America in 1923, always talked about how he came here to be an American. It wasn’t what we immigrants have done for America, but how great America was for taking us in. That was the ethos then. [Carol Iannone, conversation with author, 1997].

It was precisely such feelings of gratitude, and even more the lack of a sense of grievance or entitlement, that Handlin wanted to uproot. The key to immigration reform, he argued, was to wake up the mass of contented white ethnics to the real injustice of the existing restrictive laws:

The laws are bad because they rest on the racist assumption that mankind is divided into fixed breeds, biologically and culturally separated from each other, and because, within that framework, they assume that Americans are Anglo-Saxons by origin and ought to remain so. To all other peoples, the laws say that the United States ranks them in terms of their racial proximity to our own “superior” stock; and upon the many, many million of Americans not descended from the Anglo-Saxons, the laws cast a distinct imputation of inferiority.

In other words, as long as there are immigration laws designed to preserve a nation’s historic ethnic majority, then all people not related by blood to that majority are, by that very fact, being categorized as inferiors, making a mockery of America’s democratic pretensions. By Handlin’s logic, moreover, it is not just immigration restrictions that are offensive. If an immigration law that is designed to preserve the nation’s ethnic majority is racist (because it implicitly puts down other groups), then the same must be true of any manifestation of the ethnic majority, including its very existence. After all, if a nation still has an ethnic majority, and a culture that reflects that majority, doesn’t that impute inferiority to all people not related by blood to that majority? Therefore the only way to procure real democracy is to turn the ethnic majority into a minority, which is to be accomplished (and since 1965 has largely been accomplished) by immigration.

Question: Why did Handlin bristle at the supposed second class citizenship of white ethnics, including Italians, but the Italians didn’t? A theory: The Jews feel they can never assimilate, that they will always be outsiders. Since they will always be outsiders, they must valorize the outsider status. Italians by contrast don’t feel like outsiders, and do feel that they can assimilate, so they were not disturbed by the majority’s reduction of Italian immigration in the 1921 and 1924 laws.

In 2000, 48 years after Handlin’s article, Ron Unz wrote in Commentary about the coming nonwhite America and said that the main thing to be concerned about was—no, not what all these non-Western immigrant groups would do to America, but that there might be a white backlash. The problem in Commentary’s eyes was still America’s white majority and what it might do.

The 1965 Immigration Act, the culmination of a forty-year, largely Jewish-led campaign, was not simply a piece of “liberal” legislation (i.e., an act aimed at formal equality) which later turned out to have unforeseen, radical consequences. As early as 1952, the liberal idea of equality before the law was already linked in the minds of Jewish immigrationists with the radical project of dispossessing America’s white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian majority.

Aim is to destroy the majority culture

As was the case with the campaign against Christianity in the public schools, there is a vanishingly thin line between the Jewish desire to be protected from the majority culture, and the Jewish desire to destroy the majority culture. For many Jews, white gentile society, in and of itself, is a threat. Earl Raab, of Brandeis University’s Institute for Jewish Advocacy and a columnist for the Jewish Bulletin, welcomes the prospect of whites becoming a minority in the U.S., because it means that “[w]e have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.” [Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, February 19, 1993, 23, quoted by Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation, p. 120.]

We should not ignore the implications of this appalling comment. In Raab’s mind, a white majority, by its very existence, poses a never-ending threat of Nazism. White gentiles, left to themselves, are all potential Nazis. When Patrick Buchanan criticized President Clinton for welcoming the end of America’s “dominant European culture,” New York Post reader Joshua Sohn wrote:

The most tragic events in American history have surrounded the attempted entrenchment of the majority European culture at the expense of non-Europeans. If Mr. Buchanan is right and the dominant European culture … is on the way down, I would like to thank Mr. Clinton for his immigration policy and wish it nothing but success. [Italics added]. [Joshua Sohn, letter to editor, New York Post, July (no date), 1997.]

If any effort to preserve a European majority culture is wicked and harmful, it follows that the European majority culture itself is wicked and harmful. Therefore Sohn applauds its coming demise.

For some Jews, the desire to destroy white society is not based on any perceived threat posed by that society, but on pure animus. When Charles Moore of the London Spectator described how his Muslim neighbors prayed loudly next-door during the Gulf War in 1991, and spoke of his worries of what would happen to England if the number of Muslims kept increasing, an enraged Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, fired off this riposte:

Three cheers, I say, for the neighbors. I hope that they pray noisily, and that they pray five times a day, and that the evening prayer comes just as the Moores and the Mellors and turning to the claret … It is amusing to watch the colonizers complain about being colonized. [The New Republic, January 6, 1992.]

Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.

All of which brings us to a disturbing question which, unfortunately, no honest mind can ignore.

As everyone knows, Jews are deeply interested in their collective survival as a people. This is reflected both in fears that the growing Israeli-Arab population may threaten the Jewish state, and in fears that intermarriage is shrinking American Jewry. In his book Fear or Faith: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America, Elliot Abrams has argued that if Jews don’t want to go extinct, then, when it comes to choosing a mate, Jews must care not just about the contents of a person’s character, but about whether that person is Jewish. Most Jews (and most Christians) take it for granted that these are legitimate concerns. The Jews feel that they have a right to homogeneity and collective survival. But, as we have seen, the Jews deny this same right to white gentiles.

Alan Dershowitz, for example, mercilessly blasts gentiles who excluded Jews from historically gentile institutions. As a Yale law student he discovered that many Wall Street law firms deliberately limited the number of Jews they hired, an experience he describes as

my introduction to the world of bigotry, discrimination, racism, and anti-Semitism called the American bar. Its distinguished leaders—who are still honored by law school scholarships, in paintings in law libraries, and in the mastheads of the great firms—were operating an apartheid-like system of law practice, nearly a decade after Brown v. Board of Education and nearly two decades after the Nuremberg trials. [p.52.]

Yet having equated the social selectivity of old-line Anglo law firms with apartheid and Nazism, Dershowitz describes his own lifestyle as a Yale law student during the period when he was applying for a job in those firms:

I ate only kosher food and therefore could not eat lunch with my classmates in the common dining room. My wife packed me a sandwich each morning and I ate with a few married friends who also brown-bagged it… I was an active participant in the class at Yale Law School, and yet as an Orthodox Jew I remained apart from its social fabric. [p. 57.]

He lived a life apart as a Jew, yet at the same time he expected high-society lawyers to staff their firms with people who couldn’t socialize with them. And he calls them bigots for not wanting to do this!

Dershowitz practices a similarly brazen double standard in his attack on past Ivy League administrators for placing ceilings on the number of Jewish students they admitted in the 1920s:

The “great” men who administered this systematic discrimination today have buildings named after them in Harvard Yard. Their names are honored by students who have no idea that these men were a pack of dishonest bigots unworthy of respect or emulation. Whenever I am asked to speak in any of these buildings, I go out of my way to educate the students about the awful men whose names are memorialized by these edifices… [President A. Lawrence Lowell] should be honored by no one other than the Ku Klux Klan. [Emphases added.] [pp. 69-70.]

While he wants is to make Harvard’s past leaders into non-persons for the sin of preserving the predominantly gentile character of a historically Protestant institution. Dershowitz defends the exclusively Jewish character of Israel. In a debate some years ago with the leftist Noam Chomsky, Dershowitz dismissed Chomsky’s proposal that Israel be made into a half-Jewish, half-Arab state:

“[W]hy do not considerations of self-determination and community control favor two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab? Isn’t it better for people of common background to control their own life, culture, and destiny (if they so choose), than to bring together in an artificial way people who have shown no ability to live united in peace? I confess to not understanding the logic of the proposal, even assuming its good will.” [Chutzpah, p. 199.]

Dershowitz regards Jewish homogeneity is natural, normal, necessary, and unquestionable, while he regards gentile homogeneity as the equivalent of absolute evil. Similarly, he presents a nuanced treatment of the Arab refugee problem, arguing that the departure of Arabs from Israel in 1948 was a minor matter compared to the much worse refugee situations that have occurred in the twentieth century. He concludes (entirely correctly in my opinion) that it is better for the Arab refugees to be relocated in Arab countries that to have them return to their old homes in Israel.

But when it comes to Harvard’s past policy of limiting the number of Jewish in order to maintain that institution’s historic cultural character, Dershowitz cries “bigots” and “awful men” and wants A. Lawrence Lowell’s statue removed from Harvard Yard. The deft moral nuance with which he dealt with the Palestinian refugee problem has vanished into air.

All of the above should make it clear that the Jewish double standard as embodied by Dershowitz is no mere ethnocentric bias. It is a blind, unreasonable, unappeasable force.

It is time to face the uncomfortable truth that this double standard has deep roots in Jewish culture, and in the Jews’ long history as a hated and persecuted people. According to the Talmud, which is followed by Orthodox Jews (and until two centuries ago all European Jews were orthodox), there is no common ethical standard for mankind. The Jewish laws regarding fair and humane behavior only apply to dealings with other Jews, not to dealings with gentiles, or “goyim.” A Jew, for example, is required to desecrate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Jew. But a Jew is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath to save the life of a gentile, unless there is a likelihood of the event become known by the gentles and thus endangering the Jews themselves. The key point is that the gentile’s life has no value in itself, but only in relation to the welfare of the Jews. [Tractate Yoma, p. 47.]

This deeply tribalistic mode of thought runs through the Talmud. If a Jew finds an item belonging to a gentile, he may keep it. If a gentile accidentally gives a Jew extra change, the Jew is not required to tell him. If a Jew has been near a dead body, he is contaminated and must be ritually cleansed. But he is not contaminated if the dead person is a goy, because the Torah commandment in this instance refers to “adam,” man, and a goy is not “adam.” As shocking as it may be to realize this, the Orthodox Jews, like many ancient or primitive peoples, only regard members of their own tribe as “man.”

In bringing these disturbing facts to light, I am not suggesting that Jews are consciously following a Talmudic program in their relations with gentiles. The Talmud is strictly followed only by traditional Orthodox Jews, a group which comprises about ten percent of American Jewry and which has no influence in the larger culture. Most modern Jews know nothing about the Talmud and the Talmudic double standard, and believe that Judaism is about universal values. What I am suggesting, however, is that this tribalist code, studied assiduously by the Jews for over two thousand years, has been unconsciously internalized in the Jewish psyche and value system, even among modern Jews who may be entirely unfamiliar with Talmudic teaching. Further, I would suggest that what makes this tribalism so enduring—and so effective in subverting other tribes—is that it sees itself as universal. Ancient Israel was never simply a tribe like others, but a tribe that had been chosen by the Creator of the Universe to bring his truth to mankind. In the same way, modern Jews employ “universalist” ideals to justify what is often a tribal agenda. What else can explain the fact that so many secular Jews, who see themselves as the champions of the “Other,” have no regard for the subjectivity of the Other if the Other is a white Christian? What else can explain the fact that Jews demand homogeneity and group survival for themselves, and deny the same to others?

This pervasive double standard is the heart of the “Jewish problem,” and there is nothing anti-Semitic—i.e. there is nothing immoral—about pointing it out. Just as it is not racist to say that a significant part of the black community has wrong and harmful attitudes which blacks need to amend and which whites should no longer accept, it is not anti-Semitic to say that a significant part of the Jewish community has wrong and harmful attitudes that Jews need to amend and that others should no longer accept.

Why Jews fear America

These insights into the tribalism and the (often unconscious) double standard that lie at the core of the Jewish psyche, including their (unconscious) disregard for the subjectivity of the white gentile, help us understand other Jewish attitudes. In advancing their anti-majoritarian and countercultural agendas, Jews of various political stripes have been driven, not just by peculiarly Jewish ideals, but by peculiarly Jewish fears. Their main fear is that if America defines itself as a nation, and not just as a democratic or capitalist ideology, then the Jews will be excluded from that nation, or at least be forced into second-class status within it. While the fear is understandable given the Jews’ history of persecution and exclusion in the Old World, it is totally unjustified in America.

Consider the belief of Alan Dershowitz and his friends that that the Jews are second class citizens in America and will always remain so:

All of my friends have personally experienced the second class status they feel. They have been passed over for jobs that were given to less qualified non-Jews. They have felt the sting of rejection in some social settings. They see the real America in which they live. [And what is the “real” America—a Klan rally?] They point to the fact that we have never had a Jewish president, vice president, speaker of the House, or chief justice… “How many Jews anchor the national, or even local news?” Carl asks. [Dershowitz, p. 324].

In addition to these preposterous “proofs” of second class status, Dershowitz adduces the “shocking” fact that, despite Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish writings (for which the Protestant churches have apologized), “Luther’s ignoble name is still honored rather than forever cursed by mainstream Protestant churches.” [Emphasis added.] [p. 107.] Apparently, unless the Protestant churches abjure the name of their founder, and thus their very identity, they will still be, in Dershowitz’s view, bigoted. Similarly, he attacks Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for having affirmed that past Supreme Court decisions called America a Christian nation: “Justice O’Connor should be ashamed of herself for aiding and abetting religious bigotry.” [p. 323.] Thus to call America a Christian nation, or even to state the historical fact that America was once called a Christian nation, is “bigotry” in Dershowitz’s mind. Meanwhile, Jews can maintain a distinct Jewish peoplehood in the midst of America and can define America any way they like.

When we hesitate to embrace American nationhood out of fear that it would reduce Jews to second-class citizens, we should recall the Jews’ ongoing indictments of American and Christian “bigotry.” We must take cognizance of the amazing fact that many American Jews see themselves as second-class citizens even today. If they can believe such an absurdity, when they are already the most powerful group for their numbers in the country, then it is safe to conclude that they will always complain that they are second-class citizens, that they will always see America as bigoted and anti-Semitic—until, that is, America ceases to exist as a predominantly white, Christian country.

To take the analysis one step further, one reason many Jews have this ungrateful and ungrounded suspicion of America is that Jews, even patriotic Jews, have never truly identified themselves with America. It isn’t so much that gentiles have excluded them, but that many Jews, even after anti-Semitism (as mild as it was) virtually disappeared from this country following World War II, and even after Jewishness became enshrined at the center of American culture in the 1960s, have continued to see themselves as a people apart. The columnist Richard Cohen once remarked that Jews are like “foreign correspondents” in this country. [Silberman, A Certain People.] In his 1967 memoir, Making It, Norman Podhoretz wrote that until he was in his twenties he never thought of himself as an American, but as a New Yorker. In his later years Podhoretz has spoken of his two loyalties—to his nation (America), and to his people (the Jews). [“A History of Commentary,” 1995.] This sounds very uplifting, until the inference sinks in that Podhoretz does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as “one nation, many peoples”—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.

Thus Jews distance themselves from America even as they embrace it. In a testimonial in the New York Times paid for by the American Jewish Committee, a West Point cadet named Avraam Isaacson spoke about “What Being Jewish Means to Me”:

I am heir to two great traditions—Jewish and American—which, in my view, stand for the same basic principles: the building of a more just and equitable society; the importance of caring and compassion; the defense of liberty. That’s why Jews have had a love affair with America. And that’s why I’m proud to be an American Jew and to serve my country.

While this seems terribly patriotic at first glance, there is something forced in Isaacson’s notion of having a “love affair” with America. Patriots don’t normally speak of having a “love affair” with their country. They belong to their country, they are linked to it by ties of history and loyalty and devotion. To declare publicly that you have a love affair with America is to place America outside yourself. In Isaacson’s case, it is to see America as the object of an ideological passion, an object one seeks to possess as the fulfillment of (or rather as the instrument of) one’s left-liberal ideals. While this may be an admirable impulse, it is not the same thing as love of country. It also implies that if America did not practice those left-liberal ideals, then Isaacson wouldn’t love it. But then a love affair by its nature is a temporary thing.

Movie critic Michael Medved made a similarly revealing comment when he was asked by an interviewer why he did not follow his father when his father moved to Israel some years ago. Medved answered: “I believe the future of mankind depends to a tremendous extent on what happens in this country.” [Interview on C-SPAN, Dec 27, 1992.] In other words, Medved chose to stay in America, not because it is his country, but because he sees it as an instrument to help mankind.

Over and over, Jewish-American patriotism seems to be based on some factor extrinsic to America itself. According to a history of neoconservatism written by the editors of Commentary, non-Marxist leftist Jews in the 1940s, the ideological forebears of the neocons, abandoned their former hostility to America (which they had seen as a sterile land of Babbitry) when they saw America’s effectiveness in combating Nazism. This strikes me as an unconscious admission that the neoconservatives don’t love America for itself, they love America because it advances global causes that the neoconservatives support. Similarly, the 1960s radical David Ifshin, who had once given an anti-American broadcast over Radio Hanoi, suddenly converted to pro-Americanism when President Nixon’s arms shipments helped save Israel during the 1973 War. As Eric Breindel put it in an admiring column at the time of Ifshin’s death in 1996, Ifshin had “experienced an awakening: The righteous might of the United States of America was a force for good. In fact, Ifshin had concluded, it was the greatest force for good on earth.” [Eric Breindel, “David Ifshin: 1949-96,” New York Post, May 2, 1996]. Thus Ifshin began to like America because it was a force for “good”—and it was a force for “good” (notice the unconscious narcissism) because it helped Israel. While Ifshin’s new-found affection for America was entirely understandable, I would suggest that it was not the same thing as love of country as that phrase is normally understood.

It must also be admitted that a significant number of American Jews don’t seem to regard America as their country at all. After one of the suicide bombing attacks in Israel in 1995, in which an American girl studying in Israel was killed, other young American Jews told the New York Times why they planned to go back to Israel despite the danger. Matthew Binstock of Mamaroneck, New York said: “It’s Israel. I belong there.” Miss Sivan Gottlieb, also of Mamaroneck, said: It’s my home. It’s my country and I love it. I’m not going to leave.” While these young people are to be admired for their courage and devotion to their country, the inevitable question from an American point of view is: If Israel is their country, what are they doing here? Like many immigrants from Latin America and Asia, some American and Israeli Jews regard the United States as a place to stop off, visit friends, go to school, make some money, or enjoy some R&R, while their real life and loyalties remain centered in their ethnic homeland. [Robert Hanley, “Study in Israel: Shaken Youths, Unshaken Resolve,” New York Times, April 15, 1995, A. 21,22.]

An even more pronounced sense of disengagement from America can be seen in Jewish schools. In Hasidic yeshivas in this country, young Jews learn nothing about American history, lore, and literature; indeed, many American-born Hasids barely learn how to speak and write English. Even in modern Orthodox day schools, the pictures, poems, maps, and displays—everything that symbolizes the collective identity and mythopoetic life of a school—is exclusively about Jews and Israel. America—its history and heroes, its wars and tragedies, its great controversies and accomplishments, its geography and political system—is literally not on the chart.

The Jews are not, of course, alone in this shameful neglect of American identity. Even in mainstream, predominately white gentile schools, the stories and songs and observances that used to connect young people with our nation’s past have been replaced by multiculturalism, feminism, minority rights, consumerism and one-worldism. How can Jewish schools be blamed for failing to transmit a sense of American identity when the American majority has done the same?

The answer is that the Jews played a leading role in stripping the altars of American nationhood. Just as nonwhites have forced racial diversity on formerly all-white, mainstream institutions while maintaining their own, ethnically exclusive organizations, Jews have stripped the public schools of their Christian customs and American national traditions, while maintaining exclusive Jewish schools with Jewish traditions.

Subversion through popular culture

In addition to transforming American ideology and national identity, Jews have also, through their extraordinary influence in entertainment and media, changed the style and soul of American popular culture and manners. This is a vast and complicated subject, and all I can do here is try to suggest a few aspects of it.

Here is one glimpse into this phenomenon. Up to the 1950s, school yearbooks and student newspapers were rather serious affairs, without the smiling photographs and self-mocking humor that began to appear in the late 1950s. Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, this style of self-mockery and put-down, which had originally percolated into the general culture from Jewish comedians and entertainers, became a dominant feature in the general culture. The harm that was done to the culture, at least in the earlier stages of this process, was not deliberate. The Jews could indulge in in-your-face schtick without harming their culture because it was part of their culture. But its effect on WASPs was quietly devastating. The pop Freudianism of Jewish humor, in which each attitude of the self is immediately exposed as a cover-up for some craven or sexual impulse, has fatally weakened the Anglo-Protestant self, undermining virtues of modesty and self-control, respect for authority, and other values of the older American ethos.

Over and over, Jewish attitudes that had first appeared in mainstream entertainment in the form of harmless comic relief evolved into dominant cultural modes. In 1971, Woody Allen’s brilliant romantic comedy Play it Again Sam, with its insecure, fumbling protagonist, made it socially acceptable for a grown man to be a neurotic. Yet the movie was still basically affirmative, since Allen’s protagonist, despite his angst, nobly gives up the woman he loves, successfully imitating his screen hero Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. The Jewish neurotic becomes a man by modeling himself after an Anglo-Saxon stoic. But by the 1980s, neurotic, hysterical men (who no longer emulate strong men but resent them) had become an accepted norm, not only in innumerable movies and TV shows, but in life. A sign of the times was the man with the pony tail at the 1992 Presidential debate who asked the candidates: “As our symbolic father figure, what are you going to do to meet our needs?” An even grimmer sign was that none of the candidates, including World War II veteran George Bush, rebuffed the fellow for his infantile remark. Woody Allen’s own descent, both artistic and personal, from off-beat humorist to full-blown, self-absorbed nihilist also reflects this decline.

Up to the early 1960s, Jewish comedians pushed the envelope of bourgeois selfhood without trying to destroy it. They remained loyal to, if at the edges of, middle-class normalcy. But by the 1970s, the comic puncturing of the bourgeois had turned into a deliberate program of subversion. In such programs as MASH, the straight, up-tight, pro-authority characters served as contemptible foils for the irreverent, anti-authoritarian, sexually liberated protagonists. In several of television’s most successful sitcoms over the years, the main object of contempt has been a handsome, mentally defective WASP. What John Murray Cuddihy called the “ethnic-specific animus of Freud and Eastern European Jewry generally against Gentile civility” had moved from the esoteric world of the academic literary culture into the world of mass entertainment.

The anti-WASP campaign has been even more pronounced in drama and suspense genres, where it has also intensified over the decades. In every episode of the 1970s detective series Columbo (written by Steven Bochco, later the producer of such flamboyantly decadent programs as L.A. Law and N.Y.P.D. Blue), the slovenly ethnic hero exposed a cool WASP patrician as a murderer. The ethnic-specific animus, partly concealed as a class animus, remained relatively low key, even humorous; the murder was never performed on camera; and Colombo’s prey remained polite if increasingly irritable, even as Columbo zeroed in on him. But by twenty years later, the anti-WASP animus in film and TV had evolved into a formalized demonology. The cold-hearted, inhuman WASP—the WASP as super-Nazi—has been a regular fixture in one suspense/action movie after another, providing second careers for such middle-aged actors as Donald Sutherland and John Voigt. In the 1994 movie Outbreak, Sutherland plays a top U.S. Army general with an inhumanly cold voice and inhumanly sinister features, who turns out to be the leader of a monstrous conspiracy to kill thousands of American civilians with biological weapons. But never fear: Dustin Hoffman—the Jew now cast as action hero—and his brilliant black sidekick heroically foil the plot. A particularly common device in these movies, reflecting the Jewish-liberal obsession with uncovering WASP evil, is to have an apparent good guy revealed as a villain. Thus handsome, courtly John Voigt, as Tom Cruise’s mentor and friend in Mission Impossible, turns out to be a cold-hearted murderer. Then there are the innumerable made-for-TV movies, most of them written by Jewish women, in which a normal-appearing husband becomes a pathological monster. Indeed, if any character in a drama or suspense movie nowadays seems upright and strong, or is an older authority figure, or is tall, regular-featured, and fair, you can be sure that before long he will be revealed as a devil. Yet this ongoing, ethnic-specific, assault on the white or WASP man, like so many other appalling things in our nihilist society, is never even remarked upon, let alone protested, not even by conservatives (conservatives are only offended by entertainments that are patently pornographic or anti-religious). Imagine how Jews or blacks would react if one big-budget movie after another featured an obvious Jewish or black proxy as a caricature of absolute evil.

The pop-kulturkampf against manhood, against authority, and against the Anglo-Protestant ethos, are all part of the same campaign, largely led and inspired by liberal Jews.

The above discussion, brief and unsatisfactory as it has been, illustrates once again our theme of inclusion leading to destruction. Eastern European Jews, with their discontented, irrepressible temperament, were admitted as equals into a culture that had been formed by Anglo-Saxons and other northern European-origin people, with their pacific, self-controlled temperament. The former outsiders then proceeded to make their own sensibility the center of the culture, while diminishing and demonizing the Anglo-Saxon.

Hoist by their own petard

As they work to dismantle America’s majority culture through mass immigration, diversity, the subversion of mainstream values, and the mainstreaming of countercultural values, those Jews who are waging the Kulturkampt have failed to realize that they are cutting off the civilization they are sitting on. Leftist Jews in particular are dumbfounded when the anti-Westernism they have been promoting recoils back upon themselves. Michael Lerner, for example, has repeatedly portrayed America as an evil oppressor nation—a “social system whose current distribution of wealth and power is based on the stealing of land from the American Indians, the enslavement of Blacks, the degradation of women, and the systematic exploitation of many generations of immigrants,” as he put it in a typical diatribe in his journal Tikkun. Yet elsewhere Lerner has expressed horror at the fact that nonwhite multiculturalists see the Jews as part of this oppressive white system. Blinded by his anti-majority passion, Lerner cannot understand that in contemporary America, where Jews (for their numbers) are the most wealthy and powerful group, nonwhites are hardly likely to see the Jews as an “oppressed” minority like themselves. [“Six Days Shalt Thou Work,” Michael Lerner, Tikkun, Nov/Dec 1993, p. 35.]

Similarly, Professor Susannah Heschel, writing in Tikkun, was shocked that among liberal Germans who are friendly to Jews, there is a broad acceptance of anti-Semitic ideas. It seems that these contemporary Germans view the Old Testament as the fulminating source of contemporary injustices, including Nazism, since the Jewish Bible condones authoritarianism, exclusion, racism, and genocide. But Heschel has it all wrong. She assumes that leftist Germans are asserting anti-Jewish ideas, when in fact they are only repeating the generic anti-Westernism that has been disseminated so effectively by progressive Jews such as Heschel herself. Since Germans have been taught to see the West as hegemonic, warlike, and racist, isn’t it only natural that they would also view one of primary sources of the West—the Hebrew Bible—in exactly the same terms?

While the absence of self-awareness among Jewish leftists is only laughable, the blindness of the mainstream Jewish community is a serious matter. In their tireless campaign for mass immigration and cultural diversity—motivated by conscious or unconscious hostility to the white Christian majority—Jews are helping destroy the very way of life that made a happy Jewish existence in this country possible. Despite some anti-Jewish prejudice and social exclusions in the early twentieth century, Jews found in America a stable environment where they were protected, where they prospered, and where they felt fully comfortable for the first time in two thousand years. That environment was a white society with a Christian religion and an Anglo-Saxon code of conduct. As America becomes nonwhite and non-Western, will that code, and those protections, endure? As Alan Mittleman argues,

The breakdown of a common culture and the drift toward multiculturalism, which Jews support, pose real hazards for American Jews, because they weaken the citizenship on which Jewish participation in modern society is based… If people revert to more primordial forms of belonging, civil society will dissolve and American Jews might find themselves in what the prophet Ezekiel called a midbar hammim, a wilderness of the peoples. This would be a nightmarish denouement. [Alan L. Mittleman, “Jews in Multicultural America,” First Things, December 1996, p. 17.]

One notable feature of this coming “wilderness of peoples,” in which Jews will lose all security, is the black racialism that is rising as the dominant white culture declines. In the lawless Third-World America of the coming century, do Jews think they will be able to count on Dominicans and Chinese and Arabs and Mexicans to protect them from black anti-Semites?

Another prospect emerging from the wilderness of peoples will be an upsurge of anti-Semitism among marginalized whites, many of whom will blame the Jews (not without cause) for the ruin of white civilization. Having acted all along on the ludicrous and hostile assumption that the white American majority is a potential neo-Nazi force that must be dispossessed, Jews will hardly be in a position to complain about real anti-Semitism when it appears among whites who have actually been dispossessed.

In failing to consider these possibilities, pro-immigration Jews are as unthinking as pro-immigration blacks. Both blacks and Jews support a policy that is leading to the end of white America, even though that will remove from power the only group that has a cultural bond or moral obligation to them. In the case of both blacks and Jews, a combination of ethnic Ãclan, anti-majority resentment, and old-fashioned will to power are blinding them to their true, long-range interests.


How to oppose the Jewish agenda without anti-Semitism

Even though Jews will ultimately benefit from a politics of white self-defense, such a politics necessarily means opposing the current Jewish agenda and power structure, and therefore will inevitably provoke false charges of anti-Semitism. However, it also involves the possibility of sparking real anti-Semitism. To prevent that from happening, we must provide a moral framework in which to place this issue, a framework that applies not just to Jews but to all groups and all human beings.

The classical philosophers taught the virtue of sophrosyne, or temperance, by which the respective parts of man’s being or of society restrain themselves to their proper tasks and function harmoniously within the whole. In terms of minority-majority relations, this was the situation that obtained in America in the pre-Sixties period, when minorities happily accepted the fact that they were minorities and deferred to the majority culture. But in the post-War period, culminating in the Sixties, American Jews came into their own. Jewish writers and intellectuals were celebrated as exemplary Americans, their ideas and obsessions no longer seen so much as Jewish as simply American. Jewishness lost its otherness and was planted at the center of American politics and culture. Jews became fully “comfortable” in America for the first time, free to “be themselves.” While there were positive aspects to this development, the down side was that the Jews became too comfortable, and fell into the egoism and arrogance to which all human nature is subject. Judge Bazelon’s winking request to his law clerks to come up with a “writ of rachmones” in place of U.S. Constitutional law is an example of such arrogance. Of course, in Allan Dershowitz’s view, not having to worry about what the goyim think is the mark of first-class Jewish citizenship. Yet, as we can see in Bazelon’s case, the practical result of being free of that worry was that the Jews began to treat their own ideas and sensibility—the Jewish sense of righteousness, the extravagant Jewish concern for the underdog, and the age-old Jewish resentment against the white Christian majority—as the model for all society. Thus a tiny minority began to act as though it were the majority, subject to no law outside itself. In this manner, a polity governed by sophrosyne was replaced by a polity governed by chutzpah.

The problem is not the Jewish sensibility. The Jewish sensibility has its own integrity and its own value as a minority perspective within Western civilization. The problem is that the Jews, in the absence of healthy majority resistance, have virtually made their sensibility the ruling sensibility of America. The problem is not Jews or Jewish characteristics or Jewish culture or even “Jewish influence.” The problem is the excess of Jewish influence which has manifested simultaneously with, and has been a principal contributing factor to, the spiritual collapse of America’s former majority culture.

What is needed, then, is not an attack on Jews but rather a counterforce to excessive Jewish influence. Just as a child becomes spoiled if its parents automatically yield to its whims, so a minority group becomes spoiled if it faces no counterforce from the larger society. Jews face no such counterforce, being literally the only group in America about whom nothing critical can be safely said. (Note added in 2013: While this statement was true up to ten or twenty years ago. it no longer is true, because with the ever-increasing abasement of white America before blacks, nothing critical may be safely said anymore of blacks.) When Ben Wattenberg effuses dythrambically about America’s becoming a Universal Nation; when Julian Simon brags about getting tears in his eyes when he tells people about America’s new immigrant groups; when Abe Rosenthal calls for ticker tape parades for illegal aliens and declares his solidarity with illegal aliens against the Border Patrol; or when Allan Dershowitz, after attacking as “awful men” and “bigots” the honorable men who sought to preserve America’s historic Anglo-Protestant culture and identity and insists on the right of Jews to maintain a collective Jewish culture and identity, we need to understand that Wattenberg, Simon, Rosenthal, and Dershowitz are not simply putting forth false and harmful sentiments—they are putting forth prototypical Jewish sentiments, and anointing them as the governing principles of America. To seek to transform America into a Messianic project, to identify with the Other (whoever the Other may be) at the expense of the native majority, to deny to the native majority its ethnic identity while indulging in one’s own ethnic identity—this is not just a bad agenda, it is a Jewish agenda, and it is entirely moral for citizens of a free country to criticize it as such. Just as it is not racist to oppose a Hispanic or black or Asian agenda that weakens America, so it is not anti-Semitic to oppose a Jewish agenda that weakens America.

The moral and civilized solution to the Jewish problem is the same as it is for all minority and immigrant groups. Minorities must realize that they are minorities. Immigrants must realize they are not running things. There used to be a majoritarian force of resistance against immigrants, telling them they had to defer to the rules of the majority culture if they wanted to be accepted as full members in it. But with the advent of mass nonwhite immigration and other cultural upheavals, that opposing force has been taken away. Now even brand-new immigrants are openly contemptuous of America. Their American-raised children are worse. Immigrant college students deny there is such a thing as an American culture to which the owe deference. The same loss of deference is seen among some Catholic immigration advocates, who openly seek to use mass immigration to turn America into a Catholic country. The same has been true of blacks, who instead of having to pay deference to the standards of white majority, now have whites pay endless deference to them—with the resulting unleashing of an exaggerated sense of black entitlement, of immorality, violence, racialist juries, and all the rest of it. And the same is true of Jews, who, no longer facing any resistance from the majority, feel that their sentiments, their extravagant humanitarianism, their contempt for authority, deference, and restraint, and most of all their animus against the white gentile culture, must be the model for all society.

There is no question here of an enforced conformity. People in this country are free to identify with America’s historic culture to whatever degree they like. Jews and other minorities have the right to maintain their ethnic identity and promote their ethnic interests. But if they choose to do so, then they should also accept the proper consequence of that choice—which is that their sentiments and policy preferences will seen as those of a minority, not as authoritative for the country as a whole. If America is to be restored as a nation, we must put to an end the pious fraud we have practiced since the 1960s, of simultaneously granting ethnic minorities the right to assert their distinct identity, and the right to speak for America as a whole, in which capacity they have stripped America of its identity.

Published in: on March 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm  Comments Off on Auster’s unpublished chapter