Joe Sobran will be much missed. I met him only once, but I am a great admirer of his writing. The American Conservative wrote this:
The 20th century produced many great conservative writers, but none brought together wit, erudition, and humanity on a single page so well as Joseph Sobran.
At VDARE.com, Steve Fulford included this very appropriate quote from Joe:
Most prejudices aren’t created by official doctrines; they result from popular experience and the slow spreading of a group’s reputation. The first gypsy I ever met — on a street in Rome — grabbed a wad of money out of my hand. I’d been too naive to be wary of her, though my companions had warned me against her.
(Editor’s note: Readers of this post have posted many other wonderful quotes from Sobran in the comments section. Well worth reading. Joe clearly understood exactly what was going on and who are enemies are.) My own favorite quotes, culled from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, include the following:
In comments reminiscent of those of Heinrich von Treitschke, columnist Joseph Sobran has also raised the issue of Jewish media control and how it shapes discussion of Jewish interests versus those of the Christian Right:
The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)
This quote ended with the following footnote:
In another column, Sobran (1996b) quoted an essay, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote, “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” Sobran comments that “in a single phrase—‘in our hands’—Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk.” Sobran lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel.
As indicated in the last line, Sobran paid for his honesty about the Israel Lobby. His departure marked the rise of neocon domination at the Buckley’s execrable National Review and the equally execrable Republican Party. It was a huge loss for conservative thought in America.
The following may be called Joe Sobran’s Dictionary. These are quotes attributed to Joe. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these, except for the definition of an anti-Semite (which has become a classic). But they certainly fit his character. A particularly insightful comment, not included in the dictionary, is the following — very appropriate in an age where the courts routinely overturn popular referenda, such as the recent Arizona immigration law: “Our constitution has never been an impediment to those who rule us.” The same thing happened to California’s Proposition 187. As Thorborne Richardson notes, the American legal system is a fraud.
Joe Sobran’s Dictionary
anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews
association, freedom of: discrimination
bigot: one who practices sociology without a license
bribe: an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government
civil rights: government power used in behalf of large groups
guilt: the deepest vested interest
isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries
opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors
political correctness: the felt pressure of enlightened public opinion, under which we sense that certain thoughts, though technically legal now, are already destined to become taboo.
psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people
public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks
rich: politicians’ nickname for “other people” (as in “tax the rich”)
rights: authorizations for new areas of government control
rogue nation: a country that behaves like America
voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth
Rest in Peace.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
What did Joe Sobran do after being fired from the execrable National Review? Wonderful dictionary.
Joseph Sobran was, for decades, the writer whose columns and articles provided me with the greatest amount of information and understanding of world events: he had one equal, and that was Pat Buchanan. These two men brought to their writing a density of contextual historical detail that made reading their work thrilling–-patterns and insights emerged as I read. Here is a small Sobran sampling. Though not in special order, The Friends of Uncle Joe, might actually be my #1 choice, since it was, for me, such an eye opener into WWII. Because of length, I’m submitting this in two parts. MOB
http://www.sobran.com/friends.shtml
THE FRIENDS OF UNCLE JOE (Sobran’s Vol. 7 No. 2 February 2000)
The year 2000 has brought a predictable flood of retrospection, with several equally predictable nominees for Man (or rather “Person”) of the Century. These include Albert Einstein (chosen by Time), Winston Churchill (the choice of The Weekly Standard), and Franklin D. Roosevelt (the choice of several, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the New York Daily News).
The gushing encomia deal very lightly, as one might also have predicted, with one fact common to all three: their fondness for Joseph Stalin, perhaps the Mass Murderer of the Millennium. Time fails to mention that the saintly Professor Einstein, a man of “humane and democratic instincts,” was a relentless fellow-traveler who defended even Stalin’s macabre 1938 Moscow show trials; the anti-Communist philosopher Sidney Hook recalled in his autobiography, Out of Step, that getting Einstein to criticize the Soviet Union was like pulling teeth.
Roosevelt’s eulogists likewise avoid the subject of Stalin, for whom FDR had the highest regard, calling him “a Christian gentleman” during the Yalta conference. He had befriended Stalin from the first year of his administration, when he extended diplomatic recognition to the murderous pariah state. Time and again he chose to help “Uncle Joe” when he didn’t have to, appeasing him from a position of strength. Even Neville Chamberlain never idealized Hitler as “Uncle Adolf.” When FDR asked Pope Pius XII to condemn Hitler, Pius sent back word that if he did so he would also have to condemn Stalin; Roosevelt withdrew the request.
As for Churchill, we are assured that he had no illusions about Stalin, which only makes his wartime indulgence of the tyrant harder to excuse. His 1946 complaint (in a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri) about the “Iron Curtain” falling on Eastern Europe after World War II is treated as prophetic, when it was just the opposite: a totally hypocritical gesture. Anyone who didn’t know what to expect of Stalin by 1946 — or who could believe his guarantees at Yalta in 1945 — was a moron. And Churchill was no moron, only a cynic feigning alarm at the obvious.
Stalin had shown his true colors long before Roosevelt and Churchill took on as their ally the brave, bluff “Uncle Joe.” Had they never heard of the forced famine of Ukraine, the NKVD mass arrests, the Gulag camps, the purges and show trials, the murder of Trotsky, the invasions of Poland (with the Katyn Forest massacre of 15,000 Polish officers), Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? All these things, and more, revealed not only the brutality of Stalin but the logic of Communism itself, which had begun its reign in Russia with the mass murder of Orthodox priests under Lenin. Communism was in essence a reversion to the principles of primitive warfare, directed not only against external enemies but against its own subjects if they resisted (or were even suspected of a disposition to resist) its tyranny.
The alliance with the Soviet Union is a permanent bloodstain on the Western democracies. It was part of what F.J.P. Veale, a British jurist, called the Allies’ “advance to barbarism” in his mercilessly trenchant book of that title. Long out of print, Advance to Barbarism is now available only from the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance, California. The book is both essential to read and difficult to obtain. It’s remarkable for the iron logic with which Veale seizes on the damning casual admissions, and even the occasional twinges of conscience, of the victors of World War II. (He finds such twinges far more often in Churchill than in Roosevelt.)
______________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/issuetexts/2002-05.htm
THE OBSESSION
Now and then I get letters and e-mail messages asking why I am so “obsessed” with Jews and Israel. The question amuses me. It would be one thing if I often wrote about Mali, or Honduras, or Borneo, or any other nation or country most people remember only as a name from geography class.
I should think it’s obvious that I’m *responding* to an obsession — an obsession of contemporary culture, politics, the media, the arts. We have been getting 24/7 coverage of Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel for years now. The front pages, the evening news, the magazine covers devote so much attention to Israel — a country the size of New Jersey on the other side of the world — that you could get the impression that it spans several time zones and includes much of the world’s population (plus a few gentiles). Many columnists write about it more often than I do: Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Paul Greenberg! , Mona Charen, and George Will, to name a few. Of course they write uncritically about Israel, so they aren’t considered obsessed; Eric Alterman of THE NATON has compiled a list of more than 60 well-known pundits who “reflexively” support Israel, while finding only 6 who are frequently critical.
Every American president has to spend a disproportionate amount of his time coddling Israel and denouncing or actively fighting Israel’s enemies. It’s become part of the job description, as much as if it were written into the Constitution — or more so, since constitutional obligations have become optional and *this* obligation is definitely not. At the same time, no president or any other politician may suggest that the American-Israeli alliance imposes undue risks, costs, or burdens on the United States.
Journalism still devotes so much attention to the Holocaust that, as I once quipped, “The NEW YORK TIMES should be renamed HOLOCAUST UPDATE.” Books and movies about it continue to pour forth; bookstores have whole sections on the Holocaust, and universities consecrate entire departments to “Holocaust studies.” Holocaust memorials spring up everywhere. Elie Wiesel preaches that we *should* be obsessed with the Holocaust, as he is. Churches, accused of silent complicity in, and even ultimate responsibility for, the Holocaust, do their best to repent and atone.
Current Jewish sufferings are treated as specially tragic facts, extensions of the Holocaust itself. When Arab terrorists seized an Italian ship, the Achille Lauro, and threw a Jewish passenger overboard, a leading American composer, John Adams, wrote an entire opera, THE DEATH OF KLINGHOFFER, about the incident.
“Anti-Semitism” has become the chief of sins. It’s seldom helpfully defined, but it seems to take a thousand forms, from outright genocide to indiscreet bons mots about Israel. Many gentiles live in dread of being labeled anti-Semitic, a charge against which there is no real defense or appeal: to be accused is to be guilty! The burden of proof, as I’ve often pointed out, is on the defendant – and a difficult burden it is, since he hardly knows what he’s being accused of. How can you prove your innocence of an undefined crime? By the same token, there is no penalty for false charges of anti-Semitism, since a meaningless charge can’t be proved false anyway.
No gentile is quite safe from the charge. The Gospels, Catholicism, and the papacy have been indicted; so have Chaucer, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Edmund Burke, Dickens, Henry James, Henry Adams, Dostoyevsky, Mark Twain, Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Hemingway. (So far Jane Austen and Emily D ickinson seem to have escaped the accusation.) Then there are whole anti-Semitic nations, among them Russia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Germany, France, and Spain, lately joined by most of the Arab nations (thereby proving it is possible to be Semitic and anti-Semitic at the same time).
. . . The plague-carriers, so to speak, are the secularized, liberal, middlebrow Jews whose vulgarity sets the tone for American politics, public discourse, and popular culture. Some of them, like Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand, have real talent, of sorts; most of them are good at making money and aggressive in using it for their pet causes. Above all, they have a low genius for propaganda — for shaping the popular mind and its characteristic platitudes.
This is the prevalent body of Jews, our unacknowledged third party — the party of Zionism, Holocaust promotion, secularism, sexual license (including “gay rights” and legal abortion), and an aggressive U.S. foreign policy (in the interests of Israel, not the United States itself). The Jewish Party, only a small fraction of the U.S. population, donates more than half the! money received by the presidential candidates of the two major parties. It also dominates the major news and entertainment media.
_______________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/articles/faction.shtml
THE JEWISH FACTION (Expanded from SOBRAN’S, May 2004, pages 3–6)
As with other “minorities,” the Christian habit with the Tribe is simply to pretend not to notice obvious and distressing things. This, we assume, is just their nature; they aren’t going to change; maybe they can’t help being this way.
This is what “interfaith dialogue” has come to: Christian despair and surrender.
http://www.sobran.com/establishment.shtml
THE JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT by Joseph Sobran
In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in the Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers.
. . . It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others – you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.
. . . Power openly acquired, openly exercised, and openly discussed is one thing. You may think organized labor or the Social Security lobby abuses its power, but you don’t jeopardize your career by saying so. But a kind of power that forbids its own public mention, like the Holy Name in the Old Testament, is another matter entirely.
______________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/articles/leads/2006-07-lead.shtml
FEAR OF THE SMEAR (SOBRAN’S, July 2006, page 1)
As you probably already know, Israel is the only “democracy” dedicated to the proposition that all men sure as hell aren’t created equal.
More than sixty years after Hitler’s death, this seems to be the golden age of anti-Semitism, judging by the frequency with which the charge is made. Apparently anti-Semitism was the first word Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and the neoconservatives learned to pronounce right after mama and dada. An anti-Semite used to be a guy who hated Jews; now he’s a guy whom Jews hate.
_______________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml
FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS (Expanded from SOBRAN’S, September 2002, pages 3-6, taken from a speech given at the IHR Conference held in Los Angeles, June 21û23, 2002.)
The news that I would be addressing the Institute of Historical Review came to some people as … well, news. It was mentioned in the Jewish newspaper Forward and on the Zionist Wall Street Journal Online. The editors of two conservative magazines called and wrote me to express their concern that I might damage my reputation, such as it is, by speaking to “Holocaust deniers.”
I’m not sure why this should matter. Even positing that I was speaking to a disreputable audience, I expect to be judged by what I say, not whom I say it to. I note that my enemies have written a great deal about me, yet they rarely quote me directly.
, , , The charge of anti-Semitism doesn’t have to be proved; and it can’t be disproved. It’s an assertion about motives, not actions. That’s the beauty of it: its unfalsifiability. Joe McCarthy was ruined for calling too many people Communists, even card-carrying Reds; but has Norman Podhoretz paid any penalty for calling too many people anti-Semites?
, , , Any number can play, including gentiles. Taki was accused by his Catholic publisher. My fate was crueler: I was defended by mine. Bill Buckley denied that I was anti-Semitic, but wrote a sentence, or a chapter (with Bill, the difference may be unclear), adding that though I was innocent of the crime, I somehow deserved to be falsely accused of it. That was a little like saying, “True, he was a guard at Auschwitz, but let’s give him credit: he always showed up for duty on time.” Thanks, Bill!
. . .In a peculiar way, the Holocaust story has promoted not only pity, but actual fear of the Jews. It has removed them from the universe of normal moral discourse. It has made them victims with nukes. It has made them even more dangerous than their enemies have always charged. It has given the world an Israel ruled by Ariel Sharon.
_____________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2007/070319.shtml
THE NEW TABOOS (SOBRAN’S – February 1998)
A French court recently fined the nationalist leader Jean-Marie LePen a quarter of a million dollars for belittling the Holocaust — a hate crime, under French law. Other countries have similar restrictions on speech; the dissident historian David Irving has been prevented from visiting some countries because of what might be called Semitically incorrect things he has written in England. A new twist on international law, I suppose. And I suppose we might escape such penalties by announcing that we believe the Nazis killed whatever the minimum number of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others the law permits you to believe in the, er, democracies. Just to be on the safe side, we could even profess to believe the actual number of victims was double the permissible minimum.
. . . Ours is a golden age of taboos. They surround the Holocaust and other Jewish sensitivities, race, “gender,” and, just as much as ever, sex. The old taboos have been reversed, not abolished: it’s the concept of perversion that’s forbidden now, not perversion itself. Even conservative Christians feel compelled to mention that they have gay friends.
. . . Among the strongest of the new taboos are those imposed on public religious expression. The courts have outlawed many traditional religious observances in public schools and on any public property. The “holiday season” bears witness to the growing prohibition on the very mention of Christmas (though not Hanukkah or “Kwanzaa”).
The “multicultural” agenda professes equal tolerance for all cultures. But at its core is a fanatical hatred of Christian culture.
_____________________________________________
http://www.sobran.com/equal.shtml
CREATED EQUAL (SOBRAN’S, January 2000, page 3)
“Stereotypes” may contain sound sociology.”
. . . The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal; the Constitution forbids titles of nobility; it eventually outlawed chattel slavery; “civil rights” has come to mean that even private employers must not hire according to ethnic criteria; racial prejudice, “racism”, has become a social taboo; and even generalizations about ethnic groups are frowned on (unless they flatter the “contributions” of this or that group). The only trait it’s now safe to ascribe to whole races is victimhood.
And yet common sense tells us that groups and nations do have distinct characters, with characteristic vices as well as virtues. When we aren’t on our guard against the thought police, we may discuss such things freely. American individualism is balanced by the earthy sociology of stereotypes, which, as the great sociologist John Murray Cuddihy assures us, “are more or less accurate.”
How does a group get a reputation that lasts over centuries? Is any such reputation a “prejudice”? A “prejudice” need not be a prejudgment; it may be the settled conclusion of long experience. In Europe Jews and gypsies were unpopular for centuries. Many Jews blame this fact – which they call anti-Semitism, on Christianity, which they consider superstition, thereby denying any empirical foundation to the gentiles’ distrust. The word anti-Semitism itself implies that all frictions between Jews and gentiles must be blamed on the gentiles.
But the slang words jew and gyp tell another story–the bad reputations of both groups have less to do with religion than with practical experience and word-of-mouth tradition. Notice that the unpopularity of such groups has more to do with distrust than with simple hatred. The verbs jew and gyp imply sharp dealing and low ethics. The Middle East bears witness that the Jews may be unpopular even where most of the population is non-Christian. They haven’t endeared themselves to Muslim Arabs; just as they were unpopular in the ancient pagan world. As a matter of fact, most of the world’s Jews have chosen to live in Christian countries. Would they have done so if Christians were always hostile to Jews?
Hilaire Belloc’s book The Jews, published in 1922, should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand what used to be frankly called (even by Jews) “the Jewish problem”. Belloc addressed the problem from the Christian point of view, but he did it in an even-handed way, acknowledging that the vices of the Jews are often the obverse of their virtues. He wrote at a time when Jewish Bolshevism, based in Russia, menaced Christendom. The Jewish Communists in every country seemed to embody, in extreme form, every bad trait ascribed to the Jewshatred of the majority and its religion, duplicity, materialism, lust for power.
. . . Of course most Jews no longer believe in Judaism; many are hostile to any religion, including their own. In substituting Zionism for Judaism, they have adopted a self-exalting modern nationalism, rejecting all criticism as “anti-Semitism”. The state of Israel practices every form of discrimination against non-Jews that secularized Jews reject when they are a minority anywhere else in the world. But this obvious fact is mentioned publicly at one’s own risk. Zionist jingoism, forever casting Jews as innocent victims, has taken its toll on the ancient Jewish capacity for rigorous self-criticism. Just as gentile criticism of Jews has become “anti-Semitism”, Jewish self-criticism has become “self-hatred”.
. . . “Israel’s right to exist” really means the right of Jews to dominate non-Jews. That is the foundation – the virtual constitution – of the Jewish state, and Jewish courts have ruled that non-Jews may not claim the same rights as Jews. Under the “right of return”, any Jew in the world may “return” to Israel (even if none of his ancestors ever lived there) and immediately claim rights denied to Palestinians whose ancestors have lived there for untold centuries.
Such facts, along with Israel’s heavy dependence on American aid, confirm the very stereotypes Jews constantly protest, of Jews as duplicitous “parasites” who recognize no moral obligations of Jews toward gentiles. So do Israeli espionage and technology theft against this country. The convicted spy Jonathan Pollard is widely celebrated as a national hero in Israel. And yet we are told, not only by Jews but by our own native prostitute politicians, that Israel is our “reliable ally” as well as a model of democracy.
. . . Until the heroic Alexander Solzhenitsyn published his great trilogy, The Gulag Archipelago, in the 1970s (excerpts of which, be it noted, were carried in the New York Times under its Zionist editor Abe Rosenthal), the heavily-Jewish U.S. liberal media still maintained that the Russian people were far better off under Communism than under the despotic tsars.
In Germany, especially after Jewish-led Communist insurrections there and in Hungary and Romania, Hitler could argue plausibly that Soviet Communism showed what the Jews meant to do to other countries. . . In America, Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest, warned of Jewish Bolshevism too, cataloguing the real Jewish names of the Soviet ruling circles and accusing the Soviet regime of murdering 20 million Christians (a figure that later turned out to be far too low, according to Solzhenitsyn and others). Nevertheless, Stalin enjoyed widespread support from Jews around the world, even after his bloody purge of most Jewish members of the Soviet hierarchy.
Is there a “Jewish problem” in the United States today? In the media age, Jews prevail in the media – in television news, punditry, major newspapers, and Hollywood entertainment. They also constitute a powerful lobby, devoted to a range of liberal causesfeminism, “civil rights,” legal abortion, banning religion from public places – whatever seems to irritate the Christian population. Many ethnic Jews (as well as many nominal but effectively apostate Christians) still carry what might be called the Bolshevik gene code. But Jews are so powerful in this country that any mention of the Jewish angle in liberalism is taboo . . . a journalist may endanger his career by discussing Jewish interests in any light except a highly favorable one. An especially vivid illustration is provided by the media’s concerted hate campaign against Pat Buchanan. Jewish power is such that even Jews in the media are themselves afraid of it.
. . . The chief reason is that they are serious. As the great Jewish polemicist Maurice Samuel explained, Jews have a general contempt for sports and games and don’t waste their time on these gentile frivolities. Try to imagine a Jewish couch potato sitting in front of the television with a six-pack watching three football games in a row! It’s hard to picture.
People who don’t hate the Jews are nevertheless afraid of them, afraid of crossing them. Given their inordinate power in the media, this means that the general public hears very little criticism of them, even when they deserve it. . . It amounts to private censorship. Jewish power inhibits free speech even when the press is absolutely free from government control.
The general public has become accustomed to judging everything from a Jewish point of view. This is most striking – to me, anyway – in the constant harping on World War II, which has long since ceased revolving around Pearl Harbor and Japan and now centers obsessively on the “Holocaust” – a word never used during the war itself. We are taught that it is good that the United States won, because Hitler was destroyed. In fact, the real victor was Stalin, who quickly took ten Christian countries under Communist rule; but since Communism enjoyed a good deal of Jewish support and most of its victims were Christians, its role in the war is barely acknowledged. Even Jewish anti-Communists (of whom there are now many) say next to nothing about the savage Communist persecution of Christians. In contrast to the endless hunt for old Nazis, there has been no campaign to find and punish aging Communist criminals, or to exact reparations for the cruelty and suffering they inflicted.
http://www.sobran.com/jewid.shtml
THE CHURCH AND JEWISH IDEOLOGY (Sobran’s – May 1999)
The prevalent Jewish myth today is not the founding myth of Abraham or Moses on Sinai, but the story of Jewish persecution. In our time the Jews are defined less by ancestry than by “anti-Semitism,” which is cited for many purposes, including the legitimation of the state of Israel. Most Zionists no longer claim that God gave the Holy Land to the Jews; instead they contend that the Jewish state is necessary as a haven for world Jewry.
According to this modern myth, the Jews are in no way responsible for their own unpopularity from ancient times. What, then, is the source of such persistent hostility to this fundamentally innocent people? Why, the Catholic Church, of course!
. . . In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. Their tendencies, especially in modern times, have been radical and nihilistic. One thinks of Marx, Freud, and many other shapers of modern thought and authors of reductionist ideologies. Even Einstein, the greatest of Jewish scientists, was, unlike Sir Isaac Newton, no mere contemplator of nature’s laws; he helped inspire the development of nuclear weapons and consistently defended the Soviet Union under Stalin.
. . . Jews have generally supported Communism, socialism, liberalism, and secularism; the agenda of major Jewish groups is the de-Christianization of America, using a debased interpretation of the “living Constitution” as their instrument. When the Jewish side of an issue is too unpopular to prevail democratically, the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make the issue a “constitutional” one, appealing to judicial sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters. Overwhelming Jewish support for legal abortion illustrates that many Jews hate Christian morality more than they revere Jewish tradition itself. This fanatical antagonism causes anguish to a number of religious, conscientious, and far-sighted Jews, but they, alas, are outside the Jewish mainstream.
. . . Clearly, it is futile for the Church to try to mollify a hatred so ancient and so deep as the Jewish animus against Christianity. Despite all the sentimental rhetoric to the contrary — such as pious nonsense about “the Judaeo- Christian tradition” — Judaism and Christianity are radically opposed over the most important thing of all: Jesus Christ, who commands us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, and to love our enemies, which does not mean mistaking them for friends.
___________________________________________________
Joe Sobran :
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call ‘minorities.’
This sums it up really,he got it,and when I read it, I got it..
Arne
We acknowledge the passing of Joe Sobran but deeply regret that younger generations might be unaware of our eternal powerlessness as this columnist was.
We hope this will remind them to not cross the line.
Maybe they need to realize we really don’t give a damn any more about “The Holocaust,” which is the healthiest attitude to taek.
Sure we hypocritically pay public lip service toward caring, but ultimately, having seen so many other holocausts in the last century, many greater than the sideshow initiated by Hitler and many subsequent to his, we really do NOT give a damn anymore.
They need to suck it up, grow up and be forced to stop continuing to use it as a “get-out-of-jail” free card.
Sobran was a good Roman Catholic of the old school. This is one of his best columns, albeit not on the BIG Question, rather the effects of their actions on the host:
“. . . Clearly, it is futile for the Church to try to mollify a hatred so ancient and so deep as the Jewish animus against Christianity. Despite all the sentimental rhetoric to the contrary — such as pious nonsense about “the Judaeo- Christian tradition” — Judaism and Christianity are radically opposed over the most important thing of all: Jesus Christ, who commands us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, and to love our enemies, which does not mean mistaking them for friends.” – Joe Sobran
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This can’t be repeated too many times. Christians need to get past this dishonest philo-semitism, (yes, even the pope) and recognize that beyond a few superficialities, they have philosophically little common with Judasim. The world they seek to create, where all men are brothers, cannot be reconciled with the one the Judaism seeks to create, where the Jews rule and everyone else is subordinate and exists as cattle, i.e. primarily for them.
Here is a collection of some of my favorite quotes and articles by the great Joseph Sobran:
http://www.4forums.com/political/civil-rights-debates/3123-words-wisdom-joe-sobran-true-conservative.html
The “Fear of the Jews” is widespread indeed. An article by that title submitted to a religious publication created so much consternation that the publication ceased existence, rather than deal with the consequences of actually considering publication! The neo-con/zio-con mentality is overwhelmingly prevalent among traditionalist Anglicans, for instance. Think also of Mormons like Glen Beck.
Sobran will be sorely missed. An eloquent. adroit, and graceful speaker of the truth–an inspiration for us all.
Jared Taylor remembers Sobran for treating “the heaviest subjects with the lightest touch.” Jared won’t touch them at all.
Thanks MOB, those are some great excerpts of Sobran’s writings. He certainly was knowledgeable about the F.O.J. Syndrome, and very good at articulating it. Perhaps someone will now publish an anthology of his incisive articles as a memorial to his intellect.
I’m so glad to have discovered Joe Sobran ! So sorry to hear he has left this material world.But his writings will live on. RIP Joe !