What are you currently reading?

[Mono no aware]

P.S. I don't have any grammatical suggestions, Bernadette, as your writing seems impeccable.  I have only an aesthetic suggestion: perhaps put a space (or, a "carriage return," as we used to say with typewriters) between the quote box and your text.  Otherwise it can look like the quote box and your text are kind of "squished together."  It looks cleaner and more spacious and more readable with a space there.  Such a minor thing, I know.  But since you are open to one kind of suggestion, I venture to dare another kind.  Pax.

[Kaesekopf]

I mean, do Jews not dominate the media and entertainment industry?  Is it somehow "anti Semitic" to point out their gross over representation in these positions? 

I keep reading that we have too many white males in varying industries.  No one ever is permitted to say we have too many Jews leading corporations, etc, though.  If you do, as you said yourself, you're just a short skip away from hook noses, and so on and so forth.  Why is that?  What makes the Jews so special as to be immune from any and all criticism, much less notice/attention?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Bernadette]

On second thought, I should maybe make that book recommendation with reservations.  One of the questions being teased at on this forum as of late seems to be, "is anti-Semitism Catholic or un-Catholic?"  I think the author's response to that question would be that it is (Catholic).  So, caveat emptor, depending on your position.

Seriously?! Anti-semetism as was commonly expressed/practiced back in the day (and is commonly expressed/practiced now)?! Or the actual Catholic anti-semetism (which obviously isn't what the term has come to reflect), that says that Jews need to convert?

Definitely the former.  If the only Catholic anti-Semitism was the opinion that "the Jews need to convert," then the book would never have been written.  Surely there is an historical Catholic attitude toward the Jews which is more than just a demand to convert.  From the Roman pogrom instituted by Pope Paul IV ("Cum Nimis Absurdum") to the Judensau to the inclusion of St. Simon of Trent in the Roman martyrology, there is a palpable thread of hostility and distrust going on there.  It's also one of the ongoing debates between the Novus Ordo Catholics (who believe that the Church ought to apologize for this history, as John Paul II did) and the traditional Catholics, who feel that there is precious little to apologize for, and that the cultus of St. Simon ought not to have been repressed, &c.
CINO, at its finest. That's disgusting. Distrust should be confined to individuals. Extending it to entire groups of people by default shows a lack of goodwill. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy for a reason. Untrustworthy Jews aren't untrustworthy because they are Jews: they're Jews who are untrustworthy.

Even on this forum, I think a person can see a kind of casual anti-Semitism in random comments like "the Jew York Times."  The reader immediately understands the implication: that Jewish influence controls the mainstream media (and the banks, and the entertainment industry).  From there, one is a short skip away from ideas of dirty, bearded, hook-nosed old men gathering together in a cabal in the dead of night to plot the demise of the West.  Like the old French cartoons of the "Jewish octopus" with his tentacles in every cultural and political situation.  In fact, The Prague Cemetery is liberally peppered with illustrations in the form of such actual vintage drawings.  It's really a well-put-together novel, as are many of Eco's books.

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

[Bernadette]

I mean, do Jews not dominate the media and entertainment industry?  Is it somehow "anti Semitic" to point out their gross over representation in these positions? 

I keep reading that we have too many white males in varying industries.  No one ever is permitted to say we have too many Jews leading corporations, etc, though.  If you do, as you said yourself, you're just a short skip away from hook noses, and so on and so forth.  Why is that?  What makes the Jews so special as to be immune from any and all criticism, much less notice/attention?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If the people who gain positions of influence and responsibility, gain them unjustly, then hate the injustice. Why go any further?

[Kaesekopf]

I mean, do Jews not dominate the media and entertainment industry?  Is it somehow "anti Semitic" to point out their gross over representation in these positions? 

I keep reading that we have too many white males in varying industries.  No one ever is permitted to say we have too many Jews leading corporations, etc, though.  If you do, as you said yourself, you're just a short skip away from hook noses, and so on and so forth.  Why is that?  What makes the Jews so special as to be immune from any and all criticism, much less notice/attention?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If the people who gain positions of influence and responsibility, gain them unjustly, then hate the injustice. Why go any further?

Maybe they're getting the positions from Jewish privilege?

At least, that's how "some" explain white males being "overrepresented" in given fields.  Clearly the Jews are discriminating against the goyim and exercising "Jewish privilege"!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Bernadette]

I mean, do Jews not dominate the media and entertainment industry?  Is it somehow "anti Semitic" to point out their gross over representation in these positions? 

I keep reading that we have too many white males in varying industries.  No one ever is permitted to say we have too many Jews leading corporations, etc, though.  If you do, as you said yourself, you're just a short skip away from hook noses, and so on and so forth.  Why is that?  What makes the Jews so special as to be immune from any and all criticism, much less notice/attention?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If the people who gain positions of influence and responsibility, gain them unjustly, then hate the injustice. Why go any further?

Maybe they're getting the positions from Jewish privilege?

At least, that's how "some" explain white males being "overrepresented" in given fields. Clearly the Jews are discriminating against the goyim and exercising "Jewish privilege"!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If those "some" are right, then it's injustice (which can be hated, because it's a defect in virtue). If they're wrong, then they're wrong, and nothing more needs to be said. 

[Bernadette]

P.S. I don't have any grammatical suggestions, Bernadette, as your writing seems impeccable.  I have only an aesthetic suggestion: perhaps put a space (or, a "carriage return," as we used to say with typewriters) between the quote box and your text.  Otherwise it can look like the quote box and your text are kind of "squished together."  It looks cleaner and more spacious and more readable with a space there.  Such a minor thing, I know.  But since you are open to one kind of suggestion, I venture to dare another kind.  Pax.

I tend to want to conserve space, by default. To me, it looks...compact. But I do appreciate your feedback. 

[Mono no aware]

I mean, do Jews not dominate the media and entertainment industry?  Is it somehow "anti Semitic" to point out their gross over representation in these positions? 

I keep reading that we have too many white males in varying industries.  No one ever is permitted to say we have too many Jews leading corporations, etc, though.  If you do, as you said yourself, you're just a short skip away from hook noses, and so on and so forth.  Why is that?  What makes the Jews so special as to be immune from any and all criticism, much less notice/attention?

It's definitely an interesting discussion to have.  It's almost fascinating that Jewish people are, in fact, over-represented in certain industries.  For some reason I can't read enough about it; I especially like the "Jewish magician" subculture (since this is a books thread), from Isaac Bashevis Singer's The Magician to Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay.  Houdini, of course, was Jewish.  Stanley Kubrick is my favorite film director; Bob Dylan is one of my favorite singer/songwriters.  Then there's the question, "do Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any population?"  Bobby Fischer was almost certainly the greatest chess mind there ever was; his own story is particularly fantastic as he himself became an anti-Semite* (Bobby Fischer Against the World is an engrossing documentary on the subject; it was directed by a Jewish person).  The Jews of Eastern Europe have flourished in the United States.  So what exactly is going on here?  It's a provocative question.

I don't know if the above paragraph, though, which does acknowledge the over-representation of Jews in certain areas, is a short skip from hook-nosed caricatures.  Saying "the Jew York Times" seems the shorter skip (even though, truly, the New York Times is factually owned by a Jewish family).  I think it's a matter of the whether the over-representation is incidental or something more nefarious.


* The most extreme version of Fischer's case is probably that of Daniel Burros.  Burros was born into an observant Jewish family, but he appears to have been something of a pudgy weirdo and temperamental misfit as child.  He ending up passionately rejecting his Hebrew heritage as a teenager—but not, as one might imagine, to switch religions or become an atheist.  Instead (professing a fond admiration for Adolf Hitler) he joined, of all things, the American Nazi Party.  There he distinguished himself by venting his countless fantasies involving the torture and murder of Jews.  He was nonetheless deemed a dubious character by some of his American Nazi confreres, who suspected his secret identity and therefore his motives.  Subsequent to leaving that movement, Burros aligned himself for several years with various other Nazi revival and white supremacist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, where he was actually made the Grand Dragon of New York.  Burros committed suicide in 1965, aged 28, after a reporter for the New York Times "outed" his Jewish background.  His biography was the inspiration for the 2001 film The Believer, starring Ryan Gosling, and directed by Henry Bean (who is Jewish).

nypress.com | The Death of Daniel Burros: A Jewish Klansman who did more than just hate himself

[Mono no aware]

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

I'm not sure if I take your meaning.  I think the history of the Catholic attitude toward the Jews is more than just "we find you untrustworthy."  For many centuries, it included a strong emphasis on Jewish witchcraft and ritual murder.  Popes, even, variously ordered that the Talmud be confiscated and burned for containing blasphemies, and surmised that Jews carried out the sacrifice of Catholic children in religious ceremonies.  It seems more widespread and widely-attested-to than just an innocent misunderstanding.  I'm not sure if I take a particular side in the debate, but the traditional Catholics who argue for what might be called "the anti-Semitic stance" do have an established timeline they appeal to.

[Bernadette]

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

I think the history of the Catholic attitude toward the Jews is more than just "we find you untrustworthy."  For many centuries, it included a strong emphasis on Jewish witchcraft and ritual murder.

A justifiable emphasis? Or fear-mongering/lack of evidence?

Popes, even, variously ordered that the Talmud be confiscated and burned for containing blasphemies,

Yeah, that's going to make them want to convert. I understand that the Pope has a duty to protect his flock, but that's why the Index was created. This just seems like it would create distrust and bad blood. How did they think the Jews would react, to having what they consider their sacred book burned? Just because someone takes the Lord's name in vain, doesn't mean that it would be a prudent course of action for the Pope to punch him in the mouth, authority or no authority.

and surmised that Jews carried out the sacrifice of Catholic children in religious ceremonies. 

Surmising is also imprudent: retaliation shouldn't be carried out without strong evidence or a firm conviction. There's a reason why justice is only guaranteed to be perfectly executed by God Himself: because all other authority is capable of error.

It seems more widespread and widely-attested-to than just an innocent misunderstanding.  I'm not sure if I take a particular side in the debate, but the traditional Catholics who argue for what might be called "the anti-Semitic stance" do have an established timeline they appeal to.

I didn't mean that it was an innocent misunderstanding. I meant that pogroms were an excessive use of force. I don't see how a case can be made that terrorizing people is an appropriate, virtuous reaction to a dire situation. Seems downright vengeful, on the surface at least.

[Mono no aware]

I understand where you're coming from now, Bernadette.  You are taking, more or less, the "John Paul II stance."  Essentially you are saying that the thread of hostility, distrust, and hatred aimed at the Jews by the Church was a gross collective error, full of unwarranted excess and unvirtuous prejudice. 

One wonders whether the other side has a point, though, when they say that maybe an isolated incident or two could be excused as an aberration.  But when they notice that the attitude was hallowed by time and nearly ubiquitous, they are wont to question whether this is something that can or ought to be disowned in a single latter-day swoop—in much the same way, basically, that Vatican II equivocated on certain "uncomfortable" theological points.  What they are saying, to be fair, is that the traditional Catholic attitude toward the Jews is the traditional Catholic attitude.

[MilesChristi]

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

I'm not sure if I take your meaning.  I think the history of the Catholic attitude toward the Jews is more than just "we find you untrustworthy."  For many centuries, it included a strong emphasis on Jewish witchcraft and ritual murder.  Popes, even, variously ordered that the Talmud be confiscated and burned for containing blasphemies, and surmised that Jews carried out the sacrifice of Catholic children in religious ceremonies.  It seems more widespread and widely-attested-to than just an innocent misunderstanding.  I'm not sure if I take a particular side in the debate, but the traditional Catholics who argue for what might be called "the anti-Semitic stance" do have an established timeline they appeal to.

Does not the Talmud contain blasphemy?

[martin88nyc]

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

I'm not sure if I take your meaning.  I think the history of the Catholic attitude toward the Jews is more than just "we find you untrustworthy."  For many centuries, it included a strong emphasis on Jewish witchcraft and ritual murder.  Popes, even, variously ordered that the Talmud be confiscated and burned for containing blasphemies, and surmised that Jews carried out the sacrifice of Catholic children in religious ceremonies.  It seems more widespread and widely-attested-to than just an innocent misunderstanding.  I'm not sure if I take a particular side in the debate, but the traditional Catholics who argue for what might be called "the anti-Semitic stance" do have an established timeline they appeal to.

Does not the Talmud contain blasphemy?

It does. It is an evil book.

[Mono no aware]

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

I'm not sure if I take your meaning.  I think the history of the Catholic attitude toward the Jews is more than just "we find you untrustworthy."  For many centuries, it included a strong emphasis on Jewish witchcraft and ritual murder.  Popes, even, variously ordered that the Talmud be confiscated and burned for containing blasphemies, and surmised that Jews carried out the sacrifice of Catholic children in religious ceremonies.  It seems more widespread and widely-attested-to than just an innocent misunderstanding.  I'm not sure if I take a particular side in the debate, but the traditional Catholics who argue for what might be called "the anti-Semitic stance" do have an established timeline they appeal to.

Does not the Talmud contain blasphemy?

Yes.  It does.  I had disagreed with Bernadette, who was saying that just because a Catholic had an encounter with an untrustworthy Jewish person, that was not grounds for treating all Jews as deceitful. 

In the post you quoted (my reply to her), I was trying to point out that the traditional claims about Jews made by Catholics were based, not on individual misunderstandings, but on such things as the content of the Talmud and the alleged rituals performed by Jews in secret on Passover.  The Talmud, as you indicate, is a text which a person can read and determine fairly easily whether it has blasphemous content.  The ritual murder claim cannot, perhaps, be determined with the same surety, but it enjoyed a broad acceptance, and was endorsed by several popes, and there were saints in the Roman martyrology who were said to have suffered such deaths.

[MilesChristi]

That's another example of an inability to distinguish the underlying quality from its "package." The untrustworthiness happens to be wrapped in a "Jewish package." But it's the untrustworthiness that one ought to hate, in order to be virtuous, not the Jewish part. They're not inseparable.

I'm not sure if I take your meaning.  I think the history of the Catholic attitude toward the Jews is more than just "we find you untrustworthy."  For many centuries, it included a strong emphasis on Jewish witchcraft and ritual murder.  Popes, even, variously ordered that the Talmud be confiscated and burned for containing blasphemies, and surmised that Jews carried out the sacrifice of Catholic children in religious ceremonies.  It seems more widespread and widely-attested-to than just an innocent misunderstanding.  I'm not sure if I take a particular side in the debate, but the traditional Catholics who argue for what might be called "the anti-Semitic stance" do have an established timeline they appeal to.

Does not the Talmud contain blasphemy?

Yes.  It does.  I had disagreed with Bernadette, who was saying that just because a Catholic had an encounter with an untrustworthy Jewish person, that was not grounds for treating all Jews as deceitful. 

In the post you quoted (my reply to her), I was trying to point out that the traditional claims about Jews made by Catholics were based, not on individual misunderstandings, but on such things as the content of the Talmud and the alleged rituals performed by Jews in secret on Passover.  The Talmud, as you indicate, is a text which a person can read and determine fairly easily whether it has blasphemous content.  The ritual murder claim cannot, perhaps, be determined with the same surety, but it enjoyed a broad acceptance, and was endorsed by several popes, and there were saints in the Roman martyrology who were said to have suffered such deaths.

Ah ok