Of Popes and Jews

Dennis Mangan asks, Is the Pope Catholic?, and notes:

Some conservatives and Catholics seem to believe that non-Catholics shouldn't criticize the Pope and his opinions.

I made several comments there before realizing it was more appropriate to recast them, and some further comments, into a post here.

The trick is to frame your critique in moral terms, taking for granted that the sensibilities and interests of your group trump all others. It also helps if the media is in your pocket and takes your side.

Revised Catholic prayer troubles some rabbis, Sun Journal, Feb 2008.

Pope under fire for Yad Vashem speech, Jerusalem Post, May 2009.

US Jewish leaders denounce Catholic sermon, The Guardian, Apr 2010.

Jews Worried By Vatican Gesture To Traditionalists, Huffington Post, Sep 2011.

Anti-Semite is among papal candidates, MiamiHerald.com, Feb 2013.

Why the new pope matters to Jews, Fox News, March 2013.

Jews will be even less of a priority for the next Pope, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, March 2013.

You should never be put off from criticizing another group just because you don't belong. But remember you can always join a more universalist group to pursue your more particularist agenda from within.

The role of Jewish converts to Catholicism in changing traditional Catholic teachings on Jews, The Occidental Observer.

I have spoken before about the important distinction between universalism versus particularism (Morals, Morality and Moralizing and Universalism and Particularism).

One particularly popular jewish trope is that the jews have no pope. Like most jewish tropes about jews, this is a distortion of reality. The relationship between jews and popes is fascinating, and telling, specifically because the pope supposedly isn't a jew, because of the pretense that jewishness is entirely about religion (ideology) not peoplehood (biology), and because the usual jewish rhetoric about mutual respect and tolerance is, in practice, entirely one-sided.

First of all, the fact that the Catholic pope isn't a jew does not keep jews, big or small, from criticizing him, or other religious leaders for that matter. The underlying presumption is that even non-jews can and should be doing more to serve the best interests of jews. Second, there is organized jewry, a vast collective network that is in many ways more powerful, and more likely to use that power to promote particularist ends, than organized Christianity is. More broadly, there are thousands of jews who act, with and without the consent of organized jewry, as if they were superpopes, in the sense that they advocate more tirelessly and vociferously for the best interests of their group than any recent pope does for his.

Consider, for example, Alan Dershowitz, the author of the letter to the editor in the Miami Herald linked above. Dershowitz is usually described as a lawyer or professor and claims he isn't particularly religious. Yet his passion and efforts in favor of his own people (as a people, not as a religion) is so strong that, like thousands of other jews, he feels morally capable, entitled even, to publicly pass judgment on Christians and their leaders. In the minds of jews like Dershowitz, no Christian or pope comes before, or even equates, to them or their group.

New pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, has Jewish connections, JTA Jewish & Israel News.

A good pope, from the shamelessly particularist point of view of jews, should have "a personal connection to the Jewish people".

Note that JTA, aiming at a jewish audience, didn't pretend it was about a spiritual connection to the jewish faith.

This is just one jewish answer to the question, implicit in this case, "Will this new pope be good for the jews?" Right now many other jews are undoubtedly asking and answering this same question more or less explicitly. Two jews, three opinions about what the pope could do to better "connect with the jewish people".

Society of Jesus, Wikipedia:

Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuit conversos (Catholic-convert Jews),[50] an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus.[51] The 16th-century Decree de genere remained in exclusive force until the 20th century, when it was repealed in 1946.[52]

The Jesuits, Jew or Not Jew:

The Jesuits, a Catholic order that was established in 1534, emphasized education, and tried to draw the brightest academics. (You know what that means: Jews!) They welcomed conversos with open arms, and, as a result, many prominent early Jesuits had Jewish heritage. The list includes Juan Alfonso de Polanco, the secretary and ghostwriter of the order's founder, as well as the second Superior General, Diego Lainez.

"Conversion" didn't used to fool Christians into thinking that jews stopped being jews. It still doesn't fool the editors at Jew or Not Jew.

I think it's safe to say that the influence of crypto-jews/conversos/marranos, whether on Jesuits or Christianity as a whole, has been greater than most contemporary Christians are aware of. The Occidental Observer article linked above makes a good case that the relatively recent shift in popular perception of morality, specifically in favor of jews, is both evidence of and a product of jewish influence.

The image source is GreenKeit hits the Vatican?, Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog. Paranoia disguised as mockery, or vice versa, this is yet another perfectly typical example of jewish attitudes regarding popes and Christians. HaShem is a reminder how distinct the jewish and Catholic conceptions of god are.

Path to National Suicide Discussion at Mangan's

Path to National Suicide

A long discussion was triggered when Mangan contrasted GOI's immigration and naturalization policy with USG's. That discussion recently bumped into a Blogger limit, so consider this one place to comment on or continue that discussion.

A Monomaniacal Concern for Jewish Interests and the Infiltrating, Hijacking and Marginalizing it Inspires

Read about it in the comments at Mangan's.

Javerting Attention

Mangan's The One-Man NAACP of the Right links Pat Hannagan's Purging the Faux White Right. Mangan and Hannagan dismantle Lawrence Auster's latest attempt to pathologize "the anti-semites" who see jewish ethnocentrism in the defense of Polanski and attack on Gibson.

What makes Auster notable is that he's the tip of a little jewish iceberg of Polanski defenders, sticking out more than others due to his usual pose as an traditionalist anti-"liberal" convert to Christianity. The clear jewish pattern emerges from the long list of people quoted in my series of posts concerning Polanski. In a nutshell, Polanski is a jewish OJ. His plight neatly polarized jews, who tend to view him as a victim, wronged and hunted by a cruel, puritanical system, and everybody else, including Whites, who tend to see him as a celebrity pervert who has long escaped justice.

When Polanski was first arrested, the immediate, morally outraged reaction from a number of jews with various social and political orientations was generally sympathetic to Polanski, and in some cases, like Auster's, they went so far as to condemn broad swathes of people misperceived as Polanski's "persecutors". From the comments their own reader's considered this behavior shocking - probably because they generally did not see the ethnocentric connection. It is fair to presume that the early defenders did not coordinate their arguments, though they nonetheless shared a number of transparently bogus excuses, and conveniently overlooked or minimized the most damning facts. More than a few made an issue of Polanski's status as a special kind of jew - a "holocaust survivor". Applebaum called it a "mitigating circumstance". Many used language indicating a deeply emotional state of mind - even those, like Auster, who claimed to have never met Polanski. Patrick Goldstein was as eagerly defensive as Applebaum and Auster, and also alluded to Javert. Bruce Crumley, at Time, went beyond Javert, invoking Dreyfus, the poster child of jewish persecution. See my original posts for many more examples.

After the nature of this initial defense and the reader backlash started to gel, many jews either shut up, moderated their defense, said something vaguely disapproving about Polanski, or tried to divert attention and blame elsewhere - to the Swiss, the French, the British, Puritanism (a swipe at "WASPs"), America, Hollywood, "liberals", "the Glenn Becks" (a swipe at Tea Party Whites). First and last come "the anti-semites" - the eternal scapegoats for jewish misbehavior. Evidently, broadly bad-mouthing these groups of people is ok in the "Javert Nation".

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, gets drunk, is alleged to beat his mistress, and says a few politically incorrect things about jews and niggers. For that Gibson must be shunned and his career must be over, because, after all, the blacks who run Hollywood say so.

What explains this behavior if not jewish ethnocentrism? From their terms and themes it's perfectly reasonable, obvious really, that what the Polanski apologists and obscurantists share is a view of jews, collectively and individually, as blameless victims. Even the ones who happen to be absconding pedophile rapists, like Roman Polanski. Recognizing this fact is "anti-semitic", just like the Tea Party is "racist", and wanting a government that isn't biased against Whites and doesn't impose genocidal levels of immigration is "hate". These are terms of abuse. The purpose is to pathologize, intimidate, and manipulate. They are fighting words used by arrogant and dishonest enemies whose chutzpah knows no bounds.

Suicide vs. Competition

In Auster vs. Sailer Dennis Mangan and guests discuss Sailer's view that "WhiterPeople" compete for status and Auster's criticism of that idea.

Auster writes (my emphasis):

The West's suicide process could not have happened as a result of just one "bad" element in our society, say, the liberal elites. No, all the leading elements of our society, all the significant factions of the West, including elements normally thought of as very conservative, such as the Catholic Church and evangelicals, have signed on to an idea, the belief in non-discrimination, that spells the doom of the West, since it leads people to support, or to refuse to oppose, policies leading to the Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West.

In today's Britain, as I realized to my shock after the July 2005 bombing, tolerance--unconditioned tolerance--is the guiding principle of society, the touchstone that is constantly appealed to on every issue. It was tolerance that led the British to allow millions of Third-World people including Muslims into Britain, and it was tolerance that has led the Brits to allow the Muslims including terror supporters free rein of their Island, and it's tolerance that keeps the British from reacting against the enemies in their midst. The main reason for the surrender of Britain to Islamization is tolerance.

I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I've argued at length why I think that's incorrect. Namely, anti-Semitism is such a damning word that I don't think a person should be called that unless he has specifically expressed bigotry toward the Jewish people as the Jewish people. For example, though I've condemned Patrick Buchanan for his bigotry against Israel. I've never called him an anti-Semite, for the simple reason that in my view he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Now I think it's entirely possible that in his inner thoughts Buchanan really is driven by an animus against Jews as Jews. But the fact is that he has never expressed such an animus outwardly. He has never attacked Jews as Jews. Never. And I insist that when it comes to such a damning word as anti-Semitism, there must be an actual expression, not a merely likelihood about what a person may be thinking.

Auster often characterizes challenges to his ideas as attacks, so his hairsplitting about what he thinks does or doesn't constitute anti-jewish racism or what precisely he has said about Buchanan or Sailer is pathetic. The important point is that Auster attacked these men for what he perceives to be their attacks on jewish interests. He uses "anti-semite" and phrases like "bigot against israel" for the same reason that so many of his supposedly non-discriminatory "liberal elites" do. Because they can and do discriminate jews as jews, as they do in unabashedly placing jews as jews on a pedestal above everyone else.

In discussing his idea that non-discrimination spells the doom of the West Auster is willing to discriminate Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims as Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims - and even to attack them. He is not interested in delving into where the multi-culti politically correct "liberalism" pushing "non-discrimination" comes from, how this ideology came to dominate in the West, or whose interests it serves. Good thing. It involves lots of jews.

The "non-discrimination" and "unconditioned tolerance" Auster claims to see is the opposite of reality. Non-discrimination is the sales pitch. It serves to mislead many good-hearted fair-minded people into misunderstanding what is happening. Even in Mangan's thread everyone seems to accept it as the explanation. But as Auster well knows, "liberal" "non-discrimination" never ends up that way. For many liberals, and especially the non-Whites, anti-White and pro-non-White discrimination is what it's all about.

The West's media, academy, and laws are discriminatory. It is easy enough to see. What has changed in the last 150 years and especially over the last 60 is that the discrimination has been inverted. A healthy and normal preference for everything White and Christian has been transformed into a preference for everything non-White and non-Christian. This is so abnormal and unhealthy that in a single human lifetime Whites are being reduced from the dominant majority to a despised minority in every country we previously controlled. The kicker is, according to Auster, that it's all our fault. We're "suiciding" because conservatives "support, or refuse to oppose" their enemies.

Unlike Auster I do not characterize the inversion of discrimination as "suicide". Nor do I pillory those who "refuse to oppose". Nobody wants to lose their job, be shunned by their community, or be sent to prison, but this is what is in store for anyone who opposes anti-White discrimination in any substantial way. Men like Henry Cabot Lodge, Madison Grant, Henry Ford, William Dudley Pelley, Charles Lindbergh, Francis Parker Yockey, Gerald L.K. Smith, and Carleton Putnam (to name just a few) saw where things were heading. They described and opposed this future more clearly than the media permits to be said out loud now that we are here and living with it.

The inversion began in earnest with the emancipation of jews in the wake of the French revolution. This is when the idea that White Christian Europeans shouldn't discriminate themselves from jews took root and when dissent from this position came to be pathologized as "anti-semitism". Thereafter the attack against healthy and normal European racial discrimination was generalized into a pathologization of "racism" and eventually mutated into a variety of "anti-discrimination" movements opposing "sexism", "xenophobism", "homophobism", and "islamophobism". What began as an ostensibly well-intentioned assertion of equality always ended as naked aggression against what Auster euphemizes as "the majority" (White, male, heterosexual Christians) coupled with the defense and celebration of all that is alien and deviant. This phenomena, this racial-culture war, has been fueled financially and intellectually by a preposterous disproportion of jews, to achieve goals that have been in their collective self-interest and against the interests of "the majority".

The reality, contrary to Auster, is that the "unconditioned tolerance" of the "leading elements of our society" defines thoughts like mine as "hate" which is not tolerated at all. Yes, the rationale is claimed to be "non-discrimination". No, that is not the real motivation. This is trivially demonstrated by the behavior of both Auster and "leading elements of our society" in discriminating jews as jews, distinguishing them and exempting them from criticism while at the same time discriminating, criticizing, and even subordinating Whites as Whites in myriad ways.

It seems to me that Auster opposes liberalism because he sees it is driving Whites to extinction, and he judges the continued existence of a generally pro-jew White majority to be in the interest of jews. This explains his race-realist, tribe-denying obtuseness as well as his hypocrisy, smearing, and thought-criminalizing whenever he's challenged on it. In pursuing his interests he feels free to reason about anything, including calling on others to ignore or stifle their own interests, and discriminates anyone he pleases, as demonstrated by his blog full of musings about "the majority" as "the majority", black savages as black savages, and muslims as muslims. He opposes the "Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West". He wants "the majority" to do this and do that, but especially to save ourselves so we can continue to protect jews from blacks and muslims. He calls for pro-Whites like myself who discriminate our interests from those of jews, criticize jews, and oppose the judaization of the West to be shunned and silenced. He does not call for such treatment for even the most anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western "liberals".

Even if there is a discussion of a legitimate topic, the low-lifes and anti-Semites will show up and ruin it.

Besides imagining himself as the arbiter of legitimacy Auster sounds just like Ian "Urge to Purge" Jobling. Again my reality differs. Just about every news item or blog thread I read is incomplete or dishonest, written and guarded by pro-jews whose goal in life seems to be suppressing any mention of jewish influence, even when that influence is plain to see and the bullying pro-jew bouncers only make it plainer.

The notion that I go around calling people racists is an off-the-wall lie.

An off the wall lie? He did this in the very thread in which he denies it. Of course it wouldn't suit Auster's interests to admit that in common "liberal" usage, including his own, "anti-semite" is just a more specific form of the "racist" smear. Thinking about that special phrase and the special damning power Auster is well aware it carries only calls attention to how perfectly acceptable it is to discriminate jews as jews in placing their concerns above everyone else's. Contrasting this with the ineffectiveness and even negative reaction to "anti-White" ("you racist!") is also telling. The prevailing regime is definitely not "non-discrimination", and Auster definitely does not hesitate to smear.

Recognizing that jews and Whites have separate interests and speaking openly about it drives Auster to distraction more than any other subject. It puts the lie to his "non-discrimination" and "suicide" rhetoric and contradicts his pro-"white", pro-Christian, pro-West pose. It reveals him for the pro-jew pro-israel ruthless commissar he is. He cannot tolerate any recognition of the White-jewish fault line, and a discussion of "WhiterPeople" status competition comes dangerously close. Such talk might lead more Whites to recognize the race-based jewish aggression against us. So instead Auster tries to distract and deflect, selling a combination of guilt-tripping, lies, and threats: "Bad majority, so stupid you're suiciding yourself by not discriminating and remaining silent - oh and the low-lifes who discriminate jews and say they have something to do with this must be silenced".

I see through Auster's nonsense, but some of the semi-aware people at Mangan's seem willing to buy it. This includes Mangan himself, who closed his comments with effusive praise for Auster, and Hesperado, who made many incisive points before attributing Auster's belligerence, obfuscation, and logical inconsistencies to his being thick-skulled and thin-skinned. He sure is. The path to suicide-competition enlightenment is to try and understand why.

Original image.

UPDATE 21 Nov 2008: Today in Why I fight (other conservatives) Auster reiterates his belief that "non-discrimination is the crux of liberalism and its destructiveness, and thus opposing non-discrimination is the only effective way to oppose liberalism." He quotes a reader quoting himself getting "right down into the marrow of the problem" (my emphasis):

But WHY do they want to destroy it? What is BAD about reality that makes them want to destroy it? For my answer I return to the traditionalist analysis that I have advanced in various formulations: the rejection of God, the transcendent, the higher, the notion of an inherent structure in existence. Once the higher or the sense of being part of a larger whole is rejected, then the world is reduced to selves and their desires, with nothing above them, no "holarchy" (to use Arthur Koestler's term) of which they are a part. Therefore all selves and their respective desires are equal, therefore any distinction between selves is a horrible attack on the worth of the "less equal" or excluded self and must be banned.

However, as I'm thinking about this, I don't know that the non-discrimination and the destruction can be separated. Since the structure of the world consists of distinct things, each of which has its internal order or structure (even an alternative hair salon has its internal order), to ban discrimination is to destroy each individual thing and its order. Non-discrimination is destruction, perhaps the most efficient and thorough-going destruction ever known to man.

This to the applause of a fastidiously manicured peanut gallery who just love his clarity and directness.

I realize I repeat myself, but doesn't it get more to the crux and marrow of the WHY of "liberalism" to acknowledge that when Europeans first began to reject God during the Enlightenment that jews were the particular minority group who really got them thinking along the lines that eventually became "anti-racism" and "non-discrimination", that jews themselves are openly proud to have since done so much in this regard to help other groups benefit as they themselves have, and that jews also happen to be the only particular group that even anti-"liberals" like Auster dictate we absolutely must not discriminate from ourselves?

Doesn't that question, however distasteful jews and philo-semitic gentiles might find it, get closer to the WHY Auster will only dance around? For a more clear and direct view of "liberalism" I suggest Whites consult Kevin MacDonald. Why We Write would be a good place to start.