What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

"Jews...more or less invented modernity..."

So, at any rate, media personality Jeffrey Goldberg, going about his daily business of attacking media personality Glenn Beck, informs us:

"It's become clear to me that the Fox commentator Glenn Beck has something of a Jewish problem. Actually, he has something of a modernity problem, and people with modernity problems tend to have problems with Jews, who more or less invented modernity (Einstein, Marx, Freud, Franz Boas, etc.)..."

And so on and so forth.

Long story short:.from Goldberg's point of view, if you've got a problem with modernity, you've ipso facto got a "Jewish problem" - cause Jews "more or less invented modernity." Either you love modernity, or you hate Jews.

At least, I think that's his point. Kinda sorta. More or less.

Sailer has some fun with all this nonsense, here and here.

Comments (63)

This is a terrifically uncharitable interpretation of what Goldberg said. As you quote, Goldberg says that having a modernity problem "tend[s] to" go with having a problem with jews. He makes no claims about necessary or sufficiency relations. So your "Long story short" is fantastically uncharitable.

Tod - what's more "uncharitable?" My interpetation of Goldberg, or his interpretation of Beck?

But I strongly suspect you're just joshing me.

The funny thing about this entire episode is that Beck is a Mormon Chiliast who always succors Israel and takes its side in all controversies - as well he might if he desires to remain on TV.

If anyone can find one negative thing Beck has said about Jews or about Israel then he'd have been jettisoned from FOX long ago.

One can search for one word of discontent about Jews or Israel from Rush, Beck, or Hannity and they will discover zip.

Steve, that's a classic tu quoque! Even if Goldberg's interpretation of Beck is uncharitable, that's irrelevant to how uncharitable your interpretation of Goldberg is. As the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Vermont Crank, what about Beck's claim that the Jews killed Jesus? Or his rant against Soros?

Vermont Crank, what about Beck's claim that the Jews killed Jesus? Or his rant against Soros?

Well, the Jews did have Jesus killed and Beck rants against Soros because Soros is a Progressive. None of that makes Beck anti-semitic.

Tod, the record that we have about Jesus' death that ascribes any kind of cause is this: the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.


At least get your facts straight. Here is what Beck said:

"This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus wasn't a victim, he was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death. He chose to give his life. Jesus didn't come back from the dead and make the Jews pay for what they did. That would have been an abomination."

As Chris and Tony already explained, this is factually correct in the sense that it was the Jews who asked the Romans to put Jesus to death in the first place. Pilate didn't just wake up one morning and say to himself, "hmmm, that Jesus chap seems like trouble, I think I'll order his crucifixtion."

Goldberg also freaked about the above statement from Beck, along with the recent innocent comments from the Governor of Alabama which seem to have liberals freaked out; which just goes to show that Goldberg's moral sense is out of whack. I still get the print version of "The Atlantic" which still features some excellent long-form journalism (remember Goldhill's article about healthcare), but their website is a joke.

This was an uncharacteristically stupid blog by Goldberg. Way below standard, and it deserves all the ridicule it got. Goldblog is usually funny and enjoyable, even if we don't always agree with what it says.

Re Vermont Crank's hobby horse: I second Tod's point. Professional Jews such as Goldberg can't stand Glenn Beck. From their point of view, he's said lots of anti-Semitic things. And yet, for some reason Rupert Murdochstein hasn't fired him yet. (I stole the "Murdochstein" from Goldberg.) No one denies that Murdochstein is pro-Israel, but why isn't he more in control? Is Jewish control of the media beginning to slip?

There's also a cute little logical fallacy in the comment. Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity are all pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Apparently that's supposed to be evidence that they'd be jettisoned for one critical word about Jews or Israel. It must be fear of getting fired that explains their positions.

Even if Goldberg's interpretation of Beck is uncharitable, that's irrelevant to how uncharitable your interpretation of Goldberg is.

That has to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. If Goldberg is being uncharitable, then Burton's point is entirely correct and he's not being "uncharitable" at all. In this case, one wrong would make the second wrong nonexistent.

I'm starting to notice a pattern, as the left goes further and further off the rails with their crazy jihad against conservatives actually speaking. They make bizarre and hateful claims, such as practically putting the gun in Sarah Palin's hand, then cry foul whenever their accusations are shown to be utterly indefensible and libelous. So it's somehow uncharitable for Burton to point out the ways in which Goldberg is being uncharitable. It's somehow engaging in finger-pointing, as Nina Totenberg said last week, for Charles Krauthammer to point out that liberals never had any basis in fact for their risible claim that the Tea Party caused the Tuscon shooting.

So in essence, whenever a liberal makes a stupid and outrageous accusation against a conservative, it's the conservative who is engaged in something nefarious by point this out.

If all the people Beck lists as having had deleterious ideas are also Caucasian, does that mean that Beck "has a problem with" Caucasians and must harbor a deep self-loathing?

There's something like affirmative action about this ("You can't criticize a set of people if I can group them in a certain racial way and then tell you that you are really biased against that racial grouping") and, as sometimes happens in the case of affirmative action, the liberal speaker gets to make up the racial grouping for purposes of whatever silly point he has in mind to make.

E Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine stated in his book "Degenerate Moderns" that modernity is rationalized sexual misconduct. While I believe many Jewish individuals did contribute to the rise of modernity, Jones shows both Jews and Christians who lost their faith were equally responsible for modernity's rise. However, Jews stand out a little more in the crowd of modernists becase they tend to be more outspoken, and overrepressented in the media, and because of both factors, they are perceived rightly or wrongly as the leaders of modernity.

"This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus wasn't a victim, he was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death. He chose to give his life. Jesus didn't come back from the dead and make the Jews pay for what they did. That would have been an abomination."

The City of Deicide, Jerusalem, was destroyed as a punishment for The Jews rejecting Jesus.

Mr. Beck is not a Christian. He is a Polytheistic Mormon and Mormons believe that God has a Body and that God had physical sex and that is how Jesus was born.

Dear Aaron. As to me having a Hobby Horse, presumably about Jews, perhaps that is the case. I mean, far be it from me to be able to identify my own motivation for writing what I did which was simply a direct reply to a post about Jews.

I do know that unless one has been falsely accused of being an antisemite, one can hardly claim to be a Traditional Christian Catholic.

St. John's Gospel has, for example, repeatedly been described as antisemitic by both Christ-Deniers and liberal Christians.

Letting Jews lead them around by the nose is one way a modern Christian tries to prove to the world his not an antisemite. And I am not a modern Christian.

I noticed that all of the folks cited by Goldberg are, well, human. Spieciesist! People who eat dead lamb for "passover" will never get it. Animals are people too.

Step2 - Razib is, of course, right, given what he means by "modernity."

Trouble is, there have been some really *good* bits of "modernity," and, later, some really *bad* bits. Razib focuses on the former. Goldberg focuses on the latter.

VC - I admire your willingness to bite the bullet.

"...unless one has been falsely accused of being an antisemite, one can hardly claim to be a Traditional Christian Catholic."

Well, ain't that the truth?

When you come right down to it, Judaism and Christianity are, fundamentally, at least as much at odds with one another as both are with Islam.

Sailer basically nailed it. Remember, you are supposed to notice that people are Jewish, except when you are not supposed to notice this. Got that?

Glenn Beck is a boor. Somehow he is allowed a national audience. He seems to be a nice man. But he is a rambler. I don’t know what he is talking about. So if he has said something demeaning about Jewish people, he could very well be clueless. He just isn’t someone to pay attention to.

Oh, come on, I didn't accuse anyone here of anti-Semitism; I just referred to someone's hobby horse. What's going on in this thread, is everybody suddenly losing the ability to read? Not just my comment, but those by Steve Burton and Tod - everything's getting misread here.

When you come right down to it, Judaism and Christianity are, fundamentally, at least as much at odds with one another as both are with Islam.

Dear Mr. Burton. Absolutely true. And thanks for the compliment.

Sadly, for the last past half century, my Church has been engaged in what I consider to be a questionable approach to The Jews. I do not know how many apologies have been made for the malign behavior towards Jews on the part of long dead Christians nor can I count the number of times we have had meetings between us where we have bent over backwards in an effort not to speak to them about the necessity for them to recognise and accept Jesus as The Messiah.

And of course there have been the visits to Synagogues by Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict, where they have chosen to bow and scrape and praise the Christ-Deniers.

Look, I am all for cordial relations twixt men of different Faiths to the extent to which that is possible but it must be done without us denying who we are and what we are about.

One identifiable fruit of our modern approach to Judaism is that since it has begun there has been a noticeable increase in the frequency and intensity of their public attacks against the Church.

Oh, and then there was the seemingly material heresy about the Jews having a valid Covenant (Dual Covenant Theory) that the USCCB published in their Catechism but was forced to change after pressure from "Culture Wars."


I have heard Rush, Hannity, and Beck talk candidly about their dislike of particular policies of their own govt/country and virtually every other govt/country on earth, save one.

Joe Sobran one noted that antisemitism used to describe a man who hated Jews but now it has become a label to apply to those Jews hate (paraphrase).

All I know is that I have never heard a putative conservative criticise Israel

VC, I am puzzled about the Dual Covenant theory and what is the correct Catholic view of the Jewish covenants. First off, I reject wholeheartedly that any serious Christian can believe the Jews can be saved by the Mosaic covenant - for one thing, that covenant could not save to begin with, as Paul makes clear over and over. For another, the New Testament is replete with the Apostles telling the Jews that they must believe in Jesus to be saved. Duh.

On the other hand, God's express promise to the Jews in His covenants, (including the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic) are in the language of permanence, forever, etc. I don't think we want to say that God revoked the covenant He made with Abraham.

Naturally, one way to help deal with the problem is to point out that Christ is, in Himself, the fulfillment of the promises. Abraham's faith was "accounted" to him as salvation, not on account of the covenant, but because Abraham had faith in God's promise of a Redeemer yet to come. Effectively, Abraham was saved because he believed in Christ and adhered to that faith.

But since Christ not only fulfilled the old covenants, but established a new one, what does that mean about the older covenants? That they are dead words? No, they cannot be dead, because then Christ's fulfillment of them would also be dead (or, at least, utterly past tense), instead of a living reality.

Isn't it correct to say that God's covenant with Abraham, and his covenant with Moses, still exist? But if they still exist, then God's promises to Israel are still valid. They do not (of themselves) save Jews, because they never did to begin with. Faith in the One from God is the only path of salvation, and always was.

I have heard Rush, Hannity, and Beck talk candidly about their dislike of particular policies of their own govt/country and virtually every other govt/country on earth, save one. . . . All I know is that I have never heard a putative conservative criticise Israel.

They don't know enough about Jewish politics to criticize individual policies, nor do most of us or myself. They know there are things that go on in Israel that are to be criticized, as do I, but we don't know enough about it to criticize intelligently so we don't. It is an outsiders view. But we know the basic facts that they respect the dignity of those within and those non-hostile without (though this is obviously in dispute) and allow for religious freedom and non-Jews to serve in the government. They know that those who attack them do not share these qualities, and that the hatred for them is not rational.

We share a religious heritage in part and even aside from that we share so much. Why conservatives defend Israel is no mystery at all.


Was Robert Novack a conservative? If so, that's one who criticized Israel.

You've never heard a putative conservative criticize Israel? How about Pat Buchanan? Condoleezza Rice criticized Israeli policies and actions as Secretary of State. Peter Hitchens (a conservative who's Jewish) supports Israel but is sometimes extremely critical. If your criterion is expressing "dislike of particular [Israeli] policies", even Commentary does that!

I suspect this is a new twist on the old "true conservative" maneuver: "No, Pat Buchanan is not a putative conservative, he's a real one." Why? "Well, for one thing, he's critical of Israel."

Obviously there's a lot of truth in what Vermont Crank says. (Israel is a hobby horse of mine too, if you haven't noticed.) His underlying argument has been a paleo standard for the last twenty years, and I basically agree with it. Conservatives in America are very pro-Israel, and you're not going to see them take a substantively anti-Israel position on Fox News. My disagreement is with the rhetoric. Lots of the rhetoric in this whole thread is hyperbole and misrepresentation, starting with Steve Burton's jokingly uncharitable interpretation of Jeffrey Goldberg in the original post. My own opinion: if you want to exaggerate or misrepresent, it's better to do it with a wink and a smile the way Steve Burton did.

When you come right down to it, Judaism and Christianity are, fundamentally, at least as much at odds with one another as both are with Islam.

Theologically, that is absolutely true. Socially, yes, but the antagonism is mainly with liberal Jews (whose influence is wildly disproportionate to their numbers). Politically, in the USA 2011, Islam is the greater threat - in numbers, militancy, and in its deadly alliance against Christianity with secular Jews and liberals across the board.

From TFA (since no one quoted it directly here):

It is fair to ask if Beck knows that these people are Jewish (It is not widely-known that Rendell is Jewish, I think). But Beck is a smart person, and has researchers at hand with access to Wikipedia. Further, most of these people on Beck's "big lie" list are already the targets of straightforward attacks in the dark, anti-Semitic corners of the Web, so an extended Google search, in some cases, would show that much of the opposition to some of these people is motivated by anti-Semitism. That said, Beck has not crossed a certain line, by identifying his targets openly as Jewish. Nevertheless, this, to me, is a classic case of anti-Semitic dog-whistling. Beck is speaking to a certain constituency, and the thought has now crossed my mind that this constituency understands the clear implications of what Beck is saying.

I think the Internet needs a corollary to the Godwin Rule. We'll call it the "Foxman Rule." Whenever a Jew references anti-Semitism where it clearly doesn't exist, they automatically lose the argument. It doesn't matter what they say after that, everything they have said and are trying to say gets a giant "EPIC FAIL" stamp.

Dear Tony. You're right. It was The Mosaic Covenant that was superseded.I can't improve on the piece by Mr. Sungenis.

Dear Mark, The men I identified have similar levels of ignorance (or greater levels) about other countries yet they criticise those countries/govt. The men I identified do not ever criticise Israel.

I stopped reading the Neo-Con publication when I got to this howler - Both are pick-up nations created out of ideas, with populations drawn from all over the globe;

As a Christian Catholic living in America I can truthfully write that I love America, Italy, and France, and Spain, and Portugal, and Germany, and England, and Switzerland, and Sweden, and Ireland, etc, infinitely more than I even minimally value the existence of Israel.

It were better that that crappy nation was never forced upon the legitimate settlers then living in Palestine and whose progenitors had been living there, generation upon succeeding generation, for a millennium prior to my birth.

Dear Aaron. You're right about the individuals you named. I was thinking about Radio,mainly, and TV (which I don't really watch very much)


We're all grown-ups here. You can use the verbatim quote "that shitty little country" if you like.

Bruce, I ask you please not to take upon yourself to tell commentators what swear words they may or may not use on this site. You have no status to do so. Thanks.

Please excuse me. The intent was to show the extremity of VC's description of Israel and his lack of originality. The full quote with swear word helped in this regard.

Also, I forgot that there's a lady present. Again, pardon me.

Just to be clear. The intent was to criticize VC's words not encourage WWWtW commenters to use potty words.

Just to be clear. The intent was to criticize VC's words not encourage WWWtW commenters to use potty words.

What, like porcelain?

I know, don't fuel the fire.

The Chicken

italics, off.

The Chicken


Tell us how you really feel about Israel...I sense you are holding back because you don't want to offend. You're among friends, it's safe here ;-)

P.S. What's with the modifier "Christian" in front of Catholic -- is there another kind of Catholic I don't know about?

P.P.S. I love the Chicken.

Dear Mr. Singer. I use Christian Catholic for several reasons.

I use it because I am a Christian who follows Jesus in the Universal Church He established.

I use it because in this Protestant Country a distinction twixt Christian and Catholic exists and many Non-Catholics really think Catholics aren't Christians.

I use it most of all because the previous Pope Benedict asked that we do so.

There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.


Bruce, thanks for the clarification. I apologize for misunderstanding you. VC, this isn't my thread, but I for one am getting darned tired of your rants on this thread, given their nature. My own personal request, which I have no authority on this thread to enforce right now, would be that you bag it.

We're all grown-ups here. You can use the verbatim quote "that shitty little country" if you like.

The French Ambassador is the author of the quote you are referring to, right?

I use Crappy Country because, in the words of Abraham Lincoln; " Alliteration sounds mo better "

Lydia, has VC crossed a line I'm not aware of?

Dear Lydia. I understand and I am happy to cease my commentary about Israel; although, I don't consider what I wrote a rant. I consider it the sort of frank commentary one could have about every single Faith or Country on this Planet - except Judaism and Israel.

But I do admire, and I am in agreement with, the vast amount of what it is you write about and the way you write it and I have never confused myself with a man adequately acquainted with philosophy so I am not in any way disturbed about your request to "bag it," which is a phrase I haven't heard since I was smoking a joint and listening to Long John Baldry singing, "Don't Try to Lay no Boogie-Woogie on The King of Rock and Roll" :)

I'm pretty sure that I invented modernity, but let's just keep that a secret, hmm?

The Chicken

Chicken, you absolutely crack me up. I'm with Jeff Singer. We'd be so much poorer without you.

Jeff C., I think the repetition of "Christ deniers" over and over and over again got to be a bit much. Other than that, it's mostly the feeling of somewhat off-topic repetition and ranting on certain topics that has gotten old. I don't recall anyone's _asking_ VC whether he wants Israel to exist, much less how that compares with his feelings about Italy, etc. But I made it clear (did I not?) that this was merely a personal request as this is not my thread.

VC, I knew I could count on you to pick up on the way that one dates oneself by using the phrase "bag it." I suppose "put a sock in it" would be about from the same era. Thanks for understanding.

Lydia - for the record, I have no objection to commenter Bruce's reference to the notorious words of Daniel Bernard.

On the other hand, neither do I have any serious objections to VC saying anything that he has said, here.

I don't think that there are many children reading this site.


Even though I find your opinion of Israel loathsome, I appreciate your answer to my question above. I always consider it a great honor to learn something interesting from a Papal Encyclical.

Jeff C., I think the repetition of "Christ deniers" over and over and over again got to be a bit much

I could have gone New Testament on them and referred to them as members of The Synagogue of Satan but I was feeling generous.

Do you ever tire of Jews labeling others antisemites when they clearly are not?

Do you even tire of Jews labeling others a holocaust-deniers when they clearly are not?

A Jew is one who denies Christ; he is a Christ-Denier. What a Jew does is what defines him. It is not a matter of DNA or who whether or not their Mother was a convert to Judaism.

In the new Testament (Gospel of John, Chapter 8), Jesus corrects The Jews who try and claim that Abraham is their Father. He tells The Jews who are denying Him that Abraham is not their Father; Satan is.

I totally disavow any such thing as a Judaeo-Christian continuity of culture. There was a clear, clean, and dramatic break at the time of Jesus.

The Jews who accepted Christ became Christians and they were tossed-out of The Synagogues and attacked and persecuted by Jews. The Catholic Church is the New Israel and there is only a faux political accommodation twixt we and The Jews that has been papered-over in the last half-century by modernists and their sympathisers in the Magisterium.

It has been said that the Funeral Rite is the answer to many problems in the Church and as more of those sympathetic to modernism have that Rite celebrated for them the faster it will be that Holy Mother Church will return to acting on its traditional doctrine.

Pope John Paul II was the first Pope since Peter to go to a Synagogue and he did not preach Christ to them as Peter did and Pope Benedict has gone to Synagogues even more than Pope John Paul II did and he has not preached Christ to them and if a Pope is not going to fulfill the Gospels, what'n'hell is the point of going to a Synagogue?

Politics, I guess.

I am not an enemy of the Jews but I reccognise them as enemies of Christ in that they are Christ-Deniers who ought have Jesus preached to them; they must convert if they are to be saved and the idea we Christians have to bend over backwards to mollify them or to get their approval is a scandal.

And if you think my attitude is bad, wait'll the latest E Michael Jones review of The Pope's, "Light of the World," becomes available I'll scan and email it to y'all.

He calls for the Pope to do public penance and he is dog-tired that the modernist-sympathisers in the Magisterium are publicly attacking Islam while giving Jews a pass.

And that is my final commentary on this thread.

VC, about the "Christ-denier" moniker, I think it's a needlessly hostile approach in most contexts. One is not likely to get very far with Jews if one refers to them constantly as Christ-deniers, or thinks of them only in this way, as though Christ-denial were the sole and definitive criteria of Jewishness. It isn't. Are all the Jews enemies of Christ? Yes and no. Objectively we can say this about all the non-baptized. Subjectively, however, knowledge and culpability vary greatly, so much so that even good Catholics are enemies of Christ at times. So, once again I think this kind of language is unhelpful and often alienating when applied to Jews qua Jews. If used at all, it's best reserved for specific individuals and groups who have taken conscious and public stands (ACLU, ADL, etc.) against the Church. Just my 2 cents.

the modernist-sympathisers in the Magisterium are publicly attacking Islam while giving Jews a pass.

Well, that would be me, since Jews aren't trying to kill me.

I am not an enemy of the Jews

You sure sound like one.

And that is my final commentary on this thread.

How about on any thread? Stay off of mine.

Steve, maybe not many children read this site, but do you care if even one does? I know for a fact that teenage children of friends do occasionally read it. If your threads are to become safe harbor for Jew-haters, I can advise them to avoid your posts.

Dear Mr. Culbreath. What makes a Jew a Jew is denial of Christ. If a Jew accepts Christ, he becomes a Christian.

By using Christ-Denier I was trying to get folks to open their eyes to reality and to dramatically highlight the fact that acceptance/denial of Christ is the most important event in one's life.

I do not see how it is that it can be said that Jews are our elder brothers in the Faith when they deny or reject Jesus the Christ. I mean, I can see how such rhetoric is used politically and tries to paper-over the truth but it is 100% wrong when it comes to Theology.

Maybe if The Magisterium said that the Jews are our elder brothers like Esau that'd be one thing but we know they won't say that.

But, I do, as usual, agree with what your advice and I will apply it in my life.

Thank you.

Dear Mr Luse. Since 33 AD, Jews have been revolutionaries destroying Christian Culture. They are destroying you, as a Christian, through the variegated revolutionary movements that succeed one another and of which they are always influential participants in and the reason they are such is due to their denial and rejection of Jesus the Christ.

As per your request, I will not comment on any of your threads and if I do, remind me to stop. I am getting old and forgetful.

Vermont Crank,

How do you explain St. Paul, who said of himself (Acts 22: 3):

"I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cili'cia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gama'li-el, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day.

Notice that he didn't say, "I was a Jew," but rather, "I am a Jew."

It seems as though not all Jews are Christ-deniers. St. Paul reckoned himself a Jew who had found Christ (or, technically, been found by him). I am not saying that most Jews are ignorant of their need for Christ, but should such a broad-brush be applied?

The Chicken

Should be:

I am not saying that most Jews are not ignorant of their need for Christ...

The Chicken

p.s. VC, if answering is going to get you in even more hot water, then don't. I would rather you have be able to post on other topics rather than get you tossed off of the blog by answering my question.


VC's comment above crossed a line and has been unpublished. Ed.


I went to the link up above and I must say, you are really crawling around in the fever swamps. I doubt 95% of that book is true. Which is not to say that there aren't profound theological differences between Jews and Christians, but still...

Also, apparently you get your history from Kevin McDonald. I've got news for you -- the Jews are about #99 on a list of 100 things that are destroying Christian Civilization.

You need some better reading material! I suggest you start with Barzun and then work your way through a couple of good European histories of the 20th Century.

Well then, my latest comment won't make much sense, but that's O.K. The link and comment was indeed, over the line.

It seems to me that people are operating under the assumption that the Jews can either be the enemies of God or victims of anti–Semitism, but they can’t be both. This is false, because they clearly are both. Firstly, to deny that the Jews are the enemies of God is to simply deny the Scriptures. I could cite passages, but everyone already knows I’m right; so what’s the point? On the other hand, to deny that the Jews are also the victims of irrational hatred and violence is to deny the plain evidence of recent history. Just look at the all unhinged fury vented toward the “occupation of Palestine.” These people who claim that it is somehow forbidden to criticize the State of Israel and that it is rarely done are just being ridiculous. Israel is the most criticized state in the world. What other state is there whose own capital is recognized by no other states? None. What other state is there whose nation, not only its regime, is widely considered to be the illegitimate rulers of the country? None. (I won’t even get into the massacre of six million Jews under Hitler, and the insane cottage industry that has arisen claiming that the whole episode was nothing but a fable cooked up by the Sanhedrin.)

Anti-Semitism exists, and it’s ugly. But Christ also exists, and those who find themselves on the wrong side of His cause are worse.

Dear Mr. Singer. I got the information on my own doing a google search re The Talmud, about which knowledgeable Christian Catholics are quite aware.

But, it is true I read "Occidental Observer."

I have read Hilaire Belloc's book, "The Jews"


and Dr. E. Michael Jones' "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History"


As far as I know, I am the first Christian Catholic to identify the source for Larry David's despicable and execrable attack on Our Lord and Saviour and I have sent the results of my search to Dr. Jones at "Culture Wars."

Had the modern Catholic Church not erred by treating The Jews as their elder brothers (a term The Jews hate because it reminds them of Esau, btw) there would exist far less Fear of the Jews in The Church and the lay Christian Catholic would not be reduced to searching the internet, and Talmudic Sources, to inform his instincts by factual data and then have those facts described as being located in the fever swamps.

Start publishing facts on "acceptable" web sites and one won't have to be digging around on his own.

What you are writing about me is what I used to write about others before I began to read The Early Church Fathers. I can flat out guarantee you that if I posted some cut and paste paragraphs from St John Chrysostom without attribution, you'd have them deleted.

Catholics do not understand that for Jews The Talmud is of equal importance, if not more so, than is The Pentateuch.

Don't believe me, search The Jewish Encyclopedia online.

The fact is that since 70 A.D. the definition of what it means to be a Jew is to be one who rejects Christ. A Jew who accepts Christ becomes a Christian. And, of course, this has been well-documented by Dr. Jones in his great book, citing examples of Israel and its law of return applied to the convert children of Mothers who were Jewish (convert to Christianity and you ain't a Jew); and innumerable articles at "Culture Wars."

BTW, I am still the only Christian Catholic who charges The New Catholic Catechism with causing grave scandal and I am the only one I know know who upon reading one particular section of the Catechism cursed and threw it across the room.

Since that first happened, back in 1997 I have sent copy and pastes of the scandalous entries along with my objections and every single response has been of the well-it-doesn't-really-mean-what-it-says variety and then that reflexive gainsaying is followed by lengthy non sequitur paragraphs, all of which are far superior to the actual Catechism entries.

Is this antisemitic?

And in Christ's condemnation, whatsoever wrong was done either by Pilate's judgment or by the cohorts carrying out of his commands, makes you only the more deserving of the hatred of mankind, because the impulse of your fury would not let even those be free from guilt who were displeased at your unrighteous acts.

Do you know who said it?


It isn't clear to me that Kevin MacDonald's history is wrong (I haven't read everying he's written). I think his interpretation of that history is wrong or, at best, partially true.

I think it's understating to say that the Jews (or, at least, their elites) are 99th on the list of things destroying the West and I think it's an exaggeration to say that the Jews are 1st on the list of things destroying the West.

Right-wing Jews like Paul Gottfried and Larry Auster don't claim that MacDonald's makes his history up. They just claim that his interpretation is wrong. Gottfried calls MacDonald an "over-the-top critic of the Jews."

MacDonald's focus suggests that he thinks they're number 1 on your list.

If Larry David stands as the representative for Jews, what fool or charlatan will be the Christian delegate to this picture show?

Bishop Spong?

Maybe the celebrity priest who was found out with a woman in compromising circumstances, decided to make the best for myself out of a bad situation, and promptly married her, left the Church, began open agitation against celibacy, which the media has gobbled up and will soon earn him a fortune (no doubt) -- maybe that guy will be our Roman Catholic delegate?

Perhaps the "fellow-traveling" agnostics like Steve will have to send the atheist agitators who desecrated the Host in their stead?

We'll sure have a fine Republic for ourselves with these guys as our representatives.

I hope my comments, above, did not cause VC to get in trouble. I realize that he holds the opinions he does independent of anything I say, but still, one ought not fan the flames.

VC, I would be happy to discuss the matter elsewhere, but would it be possible to limit the discussions in this thread to the cultural contributions of Jews vis-a-vis modernity?

[Oh, Oh, I actually got to use the words, vis-a-vis, correctly, in a sentence, I'm such a big boy.]

The Chicken

Dear Mr. Cella. I did not write that Larry David is representative of all Jews but he has not suffered sufficient obloguy for his heinous attacks on Jesus.

His show has won all manner of awards and HBO publicly defended the show during which Mr. David splashed urine on a photo of Jesus which was hung, as such photos of Jesus almost always are, a few feet above and beside the Toilet Bowl.

If a Christian had done a similar thing to a photo of Moses there'd have been hell to pay and everyone knows it and if the comedian who did such a thing was not fired then he would have been forced to apologise and you can bet that HBO would not have publicly defended that particular episode.

Now, there is no theological or speculative history in Christianity about anyone urinating on Moses but there is just such a history of savage and execrable attacks on Jesus in Judaism and I cited a Talmudic source as a likely source for Mr. David's "humor."

It is a link that objectively exists (Judas urinating on Jesus); as to whether or not Mr. David or his writers are conversant with it is an open question as far as I am concerned.

It is known that The Talmud teaches that Jesus is the bastard son of a Jewish Whore and a Roman Soldier and that Jesus was conceived during menstruation and that He was justly killed because of Blasphemy and that He is now in Hell covered in boiling excrement but we are not supposed to know such things exist or to write about them or we are the ones who are mean and cruel and antisemitic.

As for The Jews and The Talmud, when are they ever called to account because of its existence and have demanded of them that they repudiate it, along with their hatred for Our Lord and Saviour?

VC, I would be happy to discuss the matter elsewhere, but would it be possible to limit the discussions in this thread to the cultural contributions of Jews vis-a-vis modernity?

That is exactly what I was doing and your questions did not entice me to write anything that I thought bordered on the impermissible.

I need no enticing to do that :)

When I wrote what I wrote I assumed it would be read and deleted which is fine with me because I have no authority over this site and if there is one thing that I am it is one who is cognizant of and willing to live under and abide by authority.

But, that does not mean that authority cant be challenged for a good or sufficient reason and my good and sufficient reason was to supply for other readers a possible source for Mr. David's "humor."

[Comments on this thread are now closed. -Ed.]