This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, firstly, you've omitted the context of that disagreement entirely and in doing so changed its meaning. You quoted part of the Aleinu with the implication that it's a call for outright ethnosupremacism - for the supremacy of the Jewish tribal deity over other deities. Per your own comments, you think that Adonai is just 'a metaphor and synonym for the Jewish people'. I thus understand you to be claiming that the Aleinu is an outright call for Jewish supremacy - for the superiority of the Jewish race over other people.
In that context I think it is extremely relevant that the part of the Aleinu you quoted is not only common knowledge but also uncontroversially accepted by billions of non-Jews. I can only assume that the non-Jews who agree with that statement do not see it as a call for Jewish supremacy. Certainly I don't. If so, then it also seems at least imaginable that Jews themselves don't see it as a call for Jewish supremacy. This seems supported by the fact that if I ask Jews directly, they tell me that it isn't a call for Jewish supremacy.
As such I think your claim about the Aleinu is a tissue of nonsense. I invite you to consider that it actually means what it says it means - that it is a statement about God, rather than one about race.
Moving on...
Why is the global success of Abrahamic religion 'without a shadow of a doubt derived from [the Jews'] cognitive profile'?
For a start, 'the Jews' in a macrohistorical sense aren't a single clear genetic profile. Even if for some reason there was proof that Ashkenazim or something have a unique genetic tendency towards subterfuge and malevolence, it is not clear how this would equip you to productively speculate about the genetic profiles of the 'myth-makers' of Abrahamic religion. Bluntly, we don't know anything about the genetics of Abraham or Moses, if they even existed, or David or Solomon, or Jesus or St. Paul. So you're attributing whatever storytelling genius they might have had to an entirely mysterious genetic factor, which there is no evidence they even possessed.
It is worth bearing in mind that, as far as we can tell, the early narrative tropes of the ancient Hebrews weren't particularly unique. If you read something like the Mesha Stele, it is remarkable how similar it is to biblical narratives. Ancient Hebrew stories are often visibly influenced by contemporary stories - Genesis 1 is informed by Babylonian creation narratives, for instances, and indeed in places the Hebrew Bible seems to get mixed up with Babylonian stories. (e.g. Gen 1 itself reads like a response to or parody of the Babylonian motif of Marduk slaying the sea monster and fashioning creation from her remains, but with the sea monster removed, indicating God's absolute supremacy. However, in other places - Job 26, Psalm 74, Psalm 89, Isaiah 51 - the monster-slaying narrative element has crept back in and God is depicted as having killed a sea monster to create the world. Ancient Hebrew narratives don't look like the uniquely genius products of a malevolent culture of subverters - they look like what was going around at the time.
Maybe some Hebrew thinkers brilliantly remixed it all into the perfect combination to survive and spread. If so, I don't see how that's evidence for the unique storytelling genius of Hebrews - after all, they were probably pretty darn similar, genetically, to all their neighbouring peoples. It seems more likely to me that whichever strand of ancient Near Eastern religious thought came out on top, you could accuse it of being the product of a genetic community with a unique gift for myth-making. But that doesn't make it so. Any number of contingent historical factors apply as well.
Moreover, I think the argument about the Jews as supremely good myth-weavers, creating narratives that powerfully spread on their own, has to reckon with the fact that it is not Judaism as we know it that actually spread to half the world. It seems to me that non-Jews deserve some credit for the spread of Christianity and Islam. If judged purely by personal success (and ruling out the possibility of divine intervention), the decidedly non-Jewish Muhammad seems to have been a far superior maker of myth than any Jewish figure. If we consider Christianity, sure, maybe you can declare that Jesus and Paul have whatever mysterious genetic trait you're ascribing to Jews, but the successful spread of Christianity across Eurasia seems to have had less to do with super-capable Jewish Christians and more to do with a vast array of apostles of many different genetic backgrounds. To take a specific local example, the Christianisation of Britain seems to have had more to do with non-Jewish missionaries like Augustine of Canterbury than it did any Jews.
You might reply that even if the standard-bearers and the myth-tellers weren't Jewish, the fundamentals of the narrative had been worked out by Jews, with whatever this unique gift they apparently have is. But by the same logic I might as well say that the Jews themselves deserve no credit at all for Judaism, because the fundamentals were worked out by the Egyptians or by the Babylonians. Judaism modifies many ideas from other ancient Semitic religions, but then, Christianity and Islam modify many ideas from Judaism. (Although to be fully pedantic I should say that rabbinic Judaism in the modern sense is itself a modification of more ancient ideas - Second Temple Judaism was destroyed in the first century, and both Christianity and the rabbinic tradition from which modern Judaism descends are innovative reactions to that disaster. Both had to significantly reformulate what it meant to worship God.)
I'm not sure how you can get past this - if Jews are uniquely gifted at myth-making and the formation of religious narrative, it seems at least a bit odd that Judaism is the least successful of the major Abrahamic religions. When it comes to formulating a narrative memetically optimised for spreading, the Christians and the Muslims seem to have significantly outdone the Jews.
Why were the Abrahamic religions so successful at spreading?
Well, leaving aside the possibility that God wanted them to, there is indeed the possibility that many of the basic elements of the Abrahamic religions are memetically optimised for spreading. But that possibility does not require the hypothesis of a unique Jewish talent for myth! It does not follow.
Who is Thor? If you ask the average person, they will not relate a Germanic tribal deity who was, at one time, a religious symbol of resistance to Christianization. They will say "Oh I love Thor, the last movie where he joined the Guardians of the Galaxy to save humanity from aliens was epic." Stan Lee, who was also Jewish, was a particularly effective mythmaker and storyteller precisely because he appropriated a base of existing myth and archetypes in the creation of a new Pantheon that memetically captured the imagination of Gentiles. The interpretatio romana likewise incorporated non-Roman deities into the Roman pantheon, which served a cultural and civic function. A talent for mythmaking specifically entails appropriating existing symbols and integrating them into a particular cultural and religious consciousness.
Christianity and Islam both belong to the Judaic pantheon, which is deeply meaningful in spite of localized "DLC" to the pantheon, so-to-speak. There is an incomprehensible mishmash of deities in the Hindu religion inspired by local interpretations and "new characters", and likewise Stan Lee hired gentile writers to create new characters and stories for his pantheon, but ultimately it's his universe.
If all prevailing followers of Abrahamic religion (including Jews themselves) worshipped the god Apollo from Greek myth instead of the Jewish god from the Hebrew bible, but also formulated their own innovations- heroes and myths, under the auspices of His Image, we would properly regard the cult of Apollo as the most successful religion. Even if globally influential cults emerged which worshipped some derived heroes like the martyred son of Apollo or warrior-prophet of Apollo... They would still, at the end of the day, be worshipping a European god who is the embodiment of a race of people as the master of the universe. Christians and Muslims worship a Jewish god, so their religions must be considered mythological "success" of the Judaic pantheon in the same way.
Of course, the earliest Christians were Jewish and St. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles - the Stan Lee of his day - was a Jewish pharisee.
Abraham and Moses are heroes in the Judaic pantheon, this is like saying "we don't know the genetic profile of Iron Man so we can't say anything about his behavior in that regard", the storytellers are the Jews themselves who keep these myths alive and propagate them among themselves and others with their rituals and behavior. This often takes esoteric form in modern culture, where a film like Spartacus functions as a mythological homage to Exodus and inspires audiences to root for the slave revolt against Roman civilization. This is sophisticated storytelling, and the Jews are better at it than anyone. They are also able to pick up on it whereas gentiles remain oblivious to deeper esoteric meaning to myths like these (FWIW I agree with the author here that Zach Snyder's Superman is less Jewish and more Apollonian than in the written canon, while the Nietzschean-Übermensch Lex Luthor is more Jewish in Snyder's work).
In order to calibrate our baseline perspectives, would you accept the proposition that HBD provides explanatory power for why Jews tend to be more successful lawyers than non-Jews? I am suggesting that this holds for culture-and-myth-creation, and the cognitive traits that explain this go beyond simply IQ.
You don't see how the global-memetic spread of a myth body, and its survival as a diaspora for thousands of years, is evidence for the power of its storytelling?
Secondly, we should dispense with the absurd claim that the Aleinu is not supremacist, if a group of white people all cited some refrain proclaiming that the master of the universe chose them as his favorite people and made them differently from everyone else, and all else will bow under the yoke of the Creator who made Europeans his chosen people, you would unambiguously call that supremacist. I think the Aleinu is in fact similar to cultural rhetoric like Manifest Destiny or the British Empire which saw itself as the light unto the world, bringing civilization to the savages. Of course it's supremacist.
Judaism is an ethnically supremacist religion, and I don't mean that as a criticism, it is the entire reason it has survived under hostile conditions for thousands of years. Their god is their race, and their race is their god. I have heard Jews, in the wild, say "us being God's chosen people doesn't mean we are superior, it in fact means we are mandated greater responsibility for the world", which is not much different that you would hear from some European colonizer in Africa, we have a responsibility to civilize these savages because of our unique gifts bestowed by God. It is supremacist.
Christianity is a personal salvation cult. There are many theories for why it spread. The decline of Rome undoubtedly played a part, but I think there were also some micro-phenomena, like women being dazzled with the Gospel and then insisting that their pagan husbands convert as a condition for marriage. Bio-Leninism and Nietzsche provide a different explanation. I don't claim to know the how, but there is no question that they were successful at spreading because of their memetic potency. Concluding that the memetic potency is related to the people that created the pantheon, and relates to dynamics in modern-day culture, would be well-supported by taking HBD seriously as more than just "IQ-realism."
Your main problem is this idea of the jews as narrative crafters, that they have a special power to make falsehood appear real. So when a jew makes an argument that appears convincing to you and me, and to gentiles in the past, you can dismiss it as false without evidence, indeed negative evidence. Because within this argument, the truer an argument appears, the more talented the jews are for transforming falsehood into the appearance of truth. This completely destroys your epistemology by erasing the distinction between true and false things. It is the equivalent of the ‘God the Deceiver’ argument and ‘that’s what they want you to think’ conspiracy memes.
If God can create light as if emanating from a star en route or plant dino bones, and if the jews or ‘the government’ can make people believe whatever they want, nothing can be declared real . Your own beliefs are subject to this magical power , pehaps the jews created ethnic supremacy to justify israel, orbecause they want to prop your side up so that it can be resoundingly crushed like Hitler. The ways of narrative crafters will forever remain mysterious.
'God the Deceiver' is a failure mode of engaging myth and narratives with this in mind, sure, but it doesn't mean it's wrong to consider that some people are better at creating propaganda than others. It's the rationalist failure mode to only think about HBD in terms of IQ and not other complex behaviors like deception or telling stories, the IQ-worship creates a huge blind spot for important social dynamics that are likewise predicted in large part by HBD.
Almost everyone here will accept that HBD explains why Jews can solve a puzzle faster than non-Jews, but saying they are better at creating comic-book heroes and they do so with a higher ethno-consciousness than non-Jews is not nearly as big as a leap as you are suggesting, we shouldn't deny that fact just because there's a failure mode that could lead to false interpretation of social narratives.
Obviously any particular idea should be engaged on its merit, but its motive doesn't necessarily need to be guessed at, as in the case with Captain America they are explicitly open about the raison d'être for the mythical hero being ethno-propaganda to influence the population into fighting the Germans in WWII. If they didn't openly admit it, we could still analyze the art and myth on its merit and reach the same conclusion.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but other times there actually are, believe it or not, ethnic motivations to the propaganda we internalize, that propaganda is created to have an intended psychological effect on audiences. It's not easy to do, and some people are better than others- certainly the negation that all people have the exact same ability to create social narratives and propaganda would not be credible in the first place to anybody who takes HBD seriously.
There were valid reasons to oppose nazi germany, aside from jewish ethnic solidarity (not that I would begrudge a jew for opposing nazism on that ground). If Captain America or Superman present reasons and a vision that people can get behind, that is perfectly legitimate, regardless of any “sinister” ulterior motives.
If jews produce arguments, works of art, or scientific theories that appear to be of high quality, then the simplest conclusion is that they are indeed of high quality and true. Just like similar arguments presented by non-jews.
Aside from the apparently deceptive mythmaking, they also heavily contributed to science. If their cultural contributions are suspect, so are their scientific contributions (‘jewish science”). The next stop in your argument is declaring E=mc2
patriarchaljewish.“They’re only saying that because they’re
menwhitecapitalistsjews!” is just your standard unfalsifiable ad hominem. It leads nowhere and I’m sick of it. With your broken epistemologies, it’s no wonder that you and the woke see conflict as the only option. You’re both stuck in the dark and deserve each other.First of all, I do not agree, but that is besides the point. The point is that this is another example of:
The public has one strongly-held belief, like the practically unanimous consensus to not intervene in WWII against Germany.
The Jews in a position of strong influence have a much different, ethnically-motivated opinion.
The Jews write stories and create myth with the conscious intention of cryptically influencing the opinion of the public towards their own agenda.
The myths become popular culture, our own popular "religion" in a way, and slowly the audiences internalize the message such that they believe "Americanism as Captain America as punching Nazis" is simply what Americanism always has been rather than the ethno-political agenda of the mythmakers.
Even saying "there were valid reasons to oppose Nazi Germany" does nothing to challenge the point I am making here.
The last assumption that's needed is that Jews are better at creating myth, stories, propaganda, and social narratives that influence the Gentiles towards their preferred way of thinking, and this is largely explained by HBD.
Of course, they have contributed to Anthropology, where militant Jews agitated against eugenics such that blank-slatism became the basic premise of social science until this day, in a sharp u-Turn from the Protestant Darwinians. They greatly contributed to psychoanalysis, which used pseudoscience to justify ethnically-motivated ideas around the Authoritarian Personality and sexual liberation which form the basis for social revolutions and critique of Gentile morality. Critical Theory today which formulates the basis of criticism against "whiteness" is derived from the ideas Frankfurt School academics, which even Conservatives have picked up on at this point. In those cases there was an underlying ethnic motivation perceived by the contributors.
As in the case of Freud, he said that "Semitic Hannibal" Barca was his childhood hero, and he imagined himself as a young Hannibal swearing vengeance against Rome and described his own work as a mortal conflict with the Catholic Church. It's a very odd thing for an academic to fantasize about, viewing their own academic work as nothing short of warfare against their mortal ethnic rivals, it's not wonder empiricism took a backseat to Freud's own motivated ideology, as in the case of the anthropologists...
That itself is in all likelihood a result of narrative-crafting by jews., since gentiles are apparently too stupid to have legitimate opinions. If their 1945 view bears no connection to the truth, then neither does their 1939 view.
Let me summarize your points. Smart people can create narratives that influence people (also they contribute to science etc) . Sometimes they have specific personal reasons for doing it.
Okay? Who cares? If people enjoy Superman more than conan the barbarian, if anti-hitler arguments win out in the court of public opinion in New York 1945 as well as in practice in Berlin 1945, if ‘jewish science’ produces better results than ‘purely aryan science’, then that is a far better test of their worth than to try to divine the ulterior motives of the creators through their identity. Everyone has an identity and ulterior motives.
You are an avid practitioner of their critical theory and standpoint epistemology. I possess the uncorrupted Truth while you eat the garbage the Jew feeds you.
Freud said a lot of shit, and Hannibal is cool. I dislike the catholic church too. You dislike the church yourself, judging from your ‘paul jewishly corrupted it’ comments. So the church is alternatively a creature of the jews and a pillar of aryanness depending on the needs of your argument. Your broken epistemology can justify anything. As long as jews are involved, and given their long cohabitation with westerners and their intelligence, they are involved in everything, including far right anti-semitism. It allows you to pick and choose what is ‘a jew lie’ and what is the Truth, when they look exactly the same, thanks to their ‘storytelling abilities’.
This is so incredibly feeble. A shard of smug reddit rhetoric.
Argue then, pal. The redditor welcomes your smackdown.
Although your theories of all-powerful elites often venture into the same epistemic trap, I didn‘t think you would take offense to this. I guess they were (((elites))) after all. Disappointing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It must be nice to beat that straw man, of course I'm not claiming omnipotence, I'm recognizing the power of propaganda and myth.
The Jews have been so successful in that arena not, foremost, because they are smarter than us, but because they are more racist than us; they actually worship their own race and even secular Jews frequently hold their ethnic identity in a regard that is completely psychologically foreign to white people. Their content can be decrypted, its meaning can be discerned and it can be countered, it's not all-powerful.
It didn't produce better science, it didn't win because it was smarter or more empirically-minded or better for society, it won because the most influential thinkers involved were consciously thinking about opposing anti-Semitism with the ideas they were promoting, and they won with academically authoritarian tactics we are all familiar with today.
I think there's value in some of their ideas even if I disagree on how they are applied. Certainly the Dissident Right itself is adjacent to ideas in critical theory like the Culture Industry.
That's why the DR is actually avant-garde. Conservatives just whine that Critical Theory has rained on our parade and they want to wind back the clock on collective consciousness which is neither possible nor desirable. The DR is taking the ideas that have merit from the Critical Theorists and applying them against the prevailing culture. That's a feature and not a bug of the DR. The way out isn't backwards, the only way out is through and that does mean using Critical Theory's tools that have merit against the prevailing culture.
Oh come on, 'completely psychologically foreign', total nonsense, what was that Hitler episode then? Besides, your DR friends like to trot out that whites tend to have less ingrained pro-white bias than other races, like say blacks. So if that, and not intelligence, is the main difference, you'll have to explain why the blacks didn't corrupt us.
Generally throughout history, empires who accepted jews more readily(and other persecuted religious groups like huguenots) , tended to dominate in science and war (Holland, then Britain and the US) while those who reject them bite the dust (Spain, nazi germany).
Hitler did run an experiment, and it produced results that weren‘t flattering to his thesis and yours, and they were unequivocal. Turns out if you thoroughly ‚cleanse your race‘, you don‘t get a glorious 1000-year germania, your country turns to rubble in about 10. But at least he understood how discredited his theory was by the experiment. Why are you less capable of updating than Hitler?
Assuming all you say about jews is true, the only reasonable response, and certainly mine, would be to accept to be ruled by the superior race and thank them for not destroying us like they did nazis. A few million jews faced off against 100 million homogeneous aryans, and the aryans had to beg for mercy in the end. You could say the Will of the strong Triumphed, and people respect strength, by necessity. It‘s over, you‘re wasting your time, take the black pill.
What is the difference between you incorporating jewish thought and americans accepting captain america memes?
Blablabla the public had a strongly held belief, the jews are ethnically self-interested, so they created critical theory to manipulate them, and here you are, regurgitating it, unaware of its cryptic power, internalizing the message and passing it off as your own valid opinion, rather than reflecting the ethno-political agenda of the mythmakers .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're muddling quite a few things here.
For a start, I want to clarify exactly which standards you're using. The global spread and popularity of biblical narratives does indeed seem like evidence that those narratives have some merit. But what I would challenge you on is that there's any particularly unique about those narratives, which implies anything sinister about Jews as people.
After all, you mention other highly successful ancient narratives. I suspect most people on the street who recognise the name 'Thor' do know that he's an ancient Norse god, and Thor is actually a pretty weak example because the surviving corpus of religious Scandinavian literature is so small. But I invite you to consider, say, the enduring recognisability and popularity of Hercules. Consider the enduring narrative power of the Iliad and the Odyssey - even when the entire religious culture those stories were embedded in faded away. People may not specifically worship Zeus any more, but even in the Superman comics you reference, Perry White continues to swear by Zeus! ("By Jove!") This seems like an enduring hold on the imagination by these ancient writers. The power of Greek mythological narratives is such that they've even successfully hopped across cultures - you can find the Greek gods popping up even in Japanese media, for instance.
What I want to suggest is that the existence of an extremely successful narrative or set of images doesn't necessary imply anything nefarious about race. Certainly the success of Greek mythological narrative suggests that at some point in history something creatively fecund was going on in Greece, but leaping from this to the assertion of a unique, genetic Greek talent for myth-making that continues to the modern day and makes Greeks a powerful conspiracy manipulating non-Greeks to their advantage is simply ludicrous. As with Greeks, so too with Jews.
I think you're also tending to single out the involvement of any Jew in any creative endeavour as evidence that the whole thing is somehow Jewish, or part of this cross-historical Jewish myth-making scheme. In practice, however, Jewish influences are often only one of many involved in creating the narratives that you're describing. I was just talking about Greeks, after all, and we have to grant that Judaism in the classical world was extremely Hellenised, and Christianity's early growth involved a lot of fusion of Jewish and Greek ideas. You might say that this shows the power of Jewish narrative to co-opt and absorb Greek thought, but why not the opposite? Why doesn't it show the power of Greek narrative to co-opt and absorb Jewish thought? Why are the Jews, in your telling, always the manipulators and never the manipulated?
Thus with the Superman example. The Christian and for that matter Greek influences on Superman seem pretty clear - Superman has been read as an allegory for Jesus but also as coming from the Greek heroic tradition. There is certainly something very Apollonian about him. Greek or Christian memes flowing through the minds of Jewish people are still Greek or Christian memes. A figure like Superman is pretty clearly an aggregate of diverse influences, some of which are related to the Jewish experience in America, and some of which are not.
If Jewish ideas can flow through non-Jews in a way that, to you, is just Jewish influence (as with Christianity and Islam), it seems like non-Jewish ideas can also flow through Jews in a way that retains their power. If so, perhaps we'd be better off thinking of ideas in less of a race-essentialist way.
In this case, there are some foundational ideas that originate in ancient Israel, yes - monotheism is the big one. Those ideas spread between many different peoples, mixed with different other ideas and contexts, and eventually formed several different religious traditions, including rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. At no point in this process do you need a posit a special genetic propensity for myth-making or cultural manipulation on the part of the ancient Israelites.
I'd also suggest that you use the term 'the Jews' in a very vague and general way, such that it's not clear what you refer to or why. For instance:
Who are 'the Jews' in this context?
Read 'Abraham and Moses' as shorthand for 'the people who historically came up with the core ideas and narratives of the Torah'. The point is that we cannot know anything meaningful about the genetics of the community in which the fundamental elements of Abrahamic faith were born.
I note that it is clearly the case that people like Abraham or Moses are revered by people of many different ethnicities. A specifically racialised interpretation seems weak. Muslims say explicitly that Abraham was a Muslim, and reject any significance for race. Christians also say directly that what matters is being a spiritual heir of Abraham, not one by blood (cf. Matthew 3:9, John 8:39, Romans 4:16, Galatians 3:7). Clearly Abraham is a hero and is understood as an ancestor by members of all the Abrahamic faiths - you have to go significantly against how these traditions have understood Abraham to see him as deeply racialised figure.
This even seems consistent with Jewish understandings of Abraham. Converts to Judaism are given the name ben/bat Avraham v'Sarah - son or daughter of Abraham and Sarah. The Jews themselves understand descent from Abraham to be spiritual rather than genetic!
It seems to me that the genetics of Abraham and the other originators of Abrahamic religion are firstly unknown and secondly held to be unimportant by his own heirs, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. So I think you're wrong to racialise this as much as you do.
I'm wary of and try to avoid the term 'HBD'. I think there are probably multivariate reasons why Jews are overrepresented in professions like the law.
I do dispute, however, the claim that there is a genetic propensity for myth-making unique to Jews. I don't think it's even correct to say that Jews (as in a historically distinguishable genetic community like the Ashkenazim) do have a special talent for myth-making above other peoples.
You're taking a very misleading reading of it. What the Aleinu says is that God has called and made a covenant with the Jewish people, differently to all the other nations of the world.
How would we feel if a bunch of other people said something like that? We don't have to speculate. We know, because they do. Americans say something similar to that all the time - that's American civil religion, the unique and special identity of the United States, chosen by Providence to be a beacon of freedom to the world. Americans make this claim all the time.
Judaism is an ethnoreligion, certainly - it is a religion associated with a particular people (though as I have indicated Jews understand Jewish peoplehood to not be reducible to race or genetics). That's not the same thing as being a supremacist religion - as you just admit in the next line, Jews speak very clearly about Jews not being superior to other people.
Moreover, you're taking an interpretation of Judaism here that almost no Jew would agree with. The God of the Jews, as Jews understand him, is the most high and the creator of the universe. They understand God to be a real being, and a different being to they themselves. They have this in common with every other Abrahamic religion.
I would encourage you to consider how the people you're talking about understand themselves. If nothing else, I'd like to suggest that Jews themselves might understand what Judaism is better than you do. Listen to them.
Let me clarify my point, regarding Stan Lee and Thor. My point was that just because Stan Lee used a large body of preexisting symbols and myths to craft them into contemporary cultural signals for receptive audiences does not mean he isn't a talented mythmaker, so your point "Judaism borrows from these other myths so we can't give them credit" doesn't hold. It's the mark of a talented mythmaker to take a symbol, change its meaning in subtle ways, and deliver it to the audience in a way that's compelling.
I don't doubt the success of Greek mythology, and it is another example of the sort of culture-creation I am talking about. I am not saying the Jews are the only ones capable of doing it. Greek mythology was intelligently formulated with a race consciousness. Modern Gentile mythology, like say George Lucas, can be potent and influential but it is not created with a race consciousness compared to, say, Superman whose creators crafted these myths with a Jewish race consciousness that someone like Hlynka could not understand. So the clueless Goy Zach Snyder makes Superman more Apollonian because he isn't in tune with the racial undertones of the character as understood by its creators and fellow, perceptive Jewish audiences. In contrast, with Wonder Woman, who is a Jewish Golem, the racial undertones in her character are much more closely adapted in her films.
I would view Greek mythology as the race-conscious counterpart to both ancient and contemporary Jewish mythology. There are some examples of race-conscious contemporary gentile mythology: Conan the Barbarian, 300, etc.
Can you imagine a world where Jews denounced the Hebrew god as a false demon, all the old laws as superstitious pagan nonsense and then zealously forced all their fellow Jews to convert to the worship of Apollo? I don't think you can imagine that. Even trying to fathom this alternate outcome shows who absorbed who. Of course there are Greek elements in Christianity, but they worship a Jewish god. In this alternate universe where Jews decided to denounce the Torah as Pagan sacrilege in submission to the true master of all Apollo, that cult would also likewise retain some Jewish elements, but there would be no mistake regarding who absorbed who. And the Jewish people, as a genetically identifiable people, would not exist today.
St. Paul, the OG "fellow white people, you must love your enemy and accept Jesus or else suffer eternal damnation by the wrath of Yahweh."
There is basically no distinction between the two. Their spiritual status is a blood covenant and membership is inherited. There was no knowledge of genetics in the ancient world, but the phenomenon was captured conceptually with a blood covenant and inherited ingroup status. It is exoterically "spiritual" but esoterically genetic, a similar pattern exists in Greek myth.
The notion that America was just conceived as some idea open to the entire world, rather than a people, is another example of a clever 20th century mythological revision. Americans make that claim you describe precisely because they have long been denied the ability to assert an ethnic particularity as Jews do. They instead have to embrace a conception of America as an idea rather than a people. I've already compared the sentiment to the rhetoric of the British Empire, which did assert an ethnic particularity and it is universally regarded as supremacist. The Aleinu asserts an ethnic particularity and supremacy, I am going to believe my lying eyes.
I guess that puts you in an odd position because you are left to explain the peculiarly disproportionate representation of Jews in these areas of culture creation, which cannot be explained only by IQ. I am suggesting that this is driven by merit, they are good at crafting these myths, propaganda, and social narratives and they often do so with a race-consciousness that most gentiles do not perceive.
Some certainly do, but others who think "Judaism is not about genetics it's about spirituality", no I actually do understand Judaism better than them and they are fish who cannot tell they are in water. They say that Tikkun Olam means dismantling whiteness and fiercely protecting Jews from any measure of criticism or negative sentiment, no actually, I understand Tikkun Olam better than they do. Believing your own myths doesn't mean you understand them, it usually means the opposite. Someone who truly believes "America has succeeded because it is an idea open to the whole world" does not actually understand the meaning of that myth consciously designed to separate American exceptionalism from racial connotations.
Oh, where to begin...
The problem is that you have defined 'myth-making' so widely as to allow you to declare any involvement of a Jew at any stage of a creative process as evidence that the Jews are uniquely talented myth-makers.
Thus if there's a story involving ideas related to ancient Israel, even if no Jews at all are involved in that story's production, this is for you an example of the pernicious influence of Jewish myth-making.
At the same time, if there's a story involving ideas related to ancient Greece (or any other culture), but a Jew was involved in telling it, this is also for you an example of the pernicious influence of Jewish myth-making.
There's no consistency here. Anything touched by a Jew or Judaism or Israel ancient or modern in any way is evidence for your hypothesis, in a way that you don't claim for other ethnicities or narratives or ideas. I am tempted to ask - is there anything Jews could do, any way that Jews could tell stories, that you would not see as evidence of their subtle infiltration and co-option of other cultures?
I have another take. It goes like this. Ideas created by Jews, both ancient and modern, are frequently taken and used by non-Jews in creative ways. Likewise ideas created by non-Jews, both ancient and modern, are frequently taken and used by Jews in creative ways. This is completely normal and a harmless process of cultural exchange and influence.
What on Earth are you talking about? Greek mythology was certainly not 'intelligently formulated with a race consciousness' - Homer or Hesiod or Pindar certainly had no concept of 'race' analogous to the one you're spruiking. The Theogony or the Iliad are not texts with a strong race consciousness in the sense in which you are using the term.
And I have no idea what you are talking about with Superman. Is it true that one of the influences on Superman was Siegel and Shuster thinking about the experience of Jewish immigrants in America? Yes, probably. To read that as 'created with a race consciousness' is simply dishonest.
Of course I can imagine that, because that has actually happened before. Back when the state of Israel was founded there was actually a small but real Jewish pagan movement, the Canaanites, who believed something like this. They were heavily influenced by Italian Fascism and wanted to restore an imagined past Canaanite identity. They felt that contemporary (i.e. 1940s) Jewish culture had become effeminate and weak due to centuries/millennia of oppression, and came to understand Judaism itself as an enervating parasite, sucking the spirit out of the Jewish people. They wanted to abandon Judaism, return to a sort of Canaanite paganism, and establish a multi-ethnic Middle Eastern empire along fascist lines ruled by a Jewish aristocracy. They wanted to discard Judaism as a religion in favour of a highly aggressive, masculinised concept of Jewish racial identity.
That movement wasn't successful, thank heavens, but the point is that I can very easily imagine Jews rejecting Judaism and attempting to zealously enforce some new religious or ideologial structure by force. Jews are a diverse group and some among them have flirted with such ideas in the past.
I think this is simplified to the point of nonsense, especially if you consider it in light of other cases where there's been substantial religious change in a society - take the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, or the way Persia became Shia, or Islam in southeast Asia. Does, say, the spread of Islam in Indonesia constitute the Arabs absorbing the Indonesians? Did the Jews absorb the Romans? The Safavids brought a new religion to Iran, Shia Islam, and they themselves were probably ancestrally Kurds or Turks - at any rate something other than Persian - and yet it seems absurd to say that the Turks absorbed the Persians.
Cultural assimilation can mean multiple different things. When the Roman Empire came to worship the God of Abraham, yes, there's a certain sense in which something of Israel came to dominate the Roman Empire. But to say that the Jews 'absorbed' the Romans seems nonsensical.
This is a gross distortion of anything Paul actually said. He certainly told people - without distinction as to race - to love their enemy and to fear the Lord, but that italicised part is important. There is no basis for seeing Paul as some agent of Jewish infiltration attempting to weaken or destroy a 'white race' that neither he nor any of his contemporaries would have believed to exist. Paul's message is undoubtedly preached to both Jews and Gentiles, and he sees all people who have received it as fundamentally in the same boat and called to the same standard of behaviour. He could hardly have been more clear about this.
The link I provided there was to a modern Jewish website. Contemporary Jews understand what genetics are, and yet they clearly indicate that descent from Abraham, in the sense that it is matters for being a Jew, is a spiritual rather than a genetic notion. You are making bold assertions about the nefariousness of the Jews without any reference to what Jews themselves actually say or do.
Are you asserting that from at least the 18th century, the Jews somehow prevented the Americans from asserting an ethnic or racialised sense of American identity? Even if that were true, which it clearly is not, that would not even be particularly germane to the point. The Americans are, for whatever reason, an example of a nation who assert a particular 'chosen' status for themselves in the eyes of God and accompanying mission to the world. They were talking about themselves as an 'Empire of Liberty' as early as the Revolution itself! The 'City on a Hill' motif has been deeply significant over the last century, and regardless of any quibbling about the origin of the phrase, I think the notion of America as a destined nation specially chosen by Providence goes back well before it.
As such I repeat that Jews are far from unique in having a sense of a covenant nation with a mission to the world.
I don't think there's anything particularly suspicious to explain, really. Jews are a very well-educated creative minority with very large historical populations in centres of American media, most notably New York. Of course there are lots of them in the culture industry. This seems entirely explainable to me without needing to posit some malicious Jewish talent for infiltrating and destroying non-Jewish cultures.
I'll be blunt here - when you're telling me that you understand Jewishness and Judaism better than Jews, better than Jewish sacred texts, better than Jewish rabbis... I'm going to be very, very skeptical. When it comes down to it, I trust a rabbi to know what tikkum olam means better than I do a random I met on the internet.
It is not completely harmless, because Jews use their station in these cultural institutions to formulate radical critique of Gentile history, culture, and racial identity and use the same influence to protect themselves from any in-kind criticisms. Like I said, imagine an alternative world where every media executive here is Chinese instead of Jewish, but if you Notice that or have anything negative to say about it then you are regarded as mentally deranged at best. Imagine all our social institutions were in complete alignment to punish anybody who has anything remotely critical to say about Chinese influence in media.
This is not an innocuous dynamic of cultural exchange, it is hostile.
Of course Greek Myth is formulated with a race consciousness, gods in the pantheon, as in the bible, are frequently representative of groups of people. The Ionians were said to have been descended from Ion the son of Apollo, who scholars directly relate to Javan son of Japheth in the Hebrew Bible. Both Apollo and Japheth point to ethnic identity. Paul is described as "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews"...
This is nonsense, the relationship between the Jews and Rome was an ethnic conflict, everybody perceived it, both then and now. As Marcus Eli Ravage put it (1928):
Paul's motives are impossible to disentangle, but in the same way that a Jew today may genuinely believe he is healing the world by promoting diversity, dismantling white supremacy, and punishing anybody who has anything negative to say about Jews, there's no reason to assume Paul had malintent. He influenced the gentiles to reject the gods of their ancestors and worship Yahweh, so he ought to be revered by Jews as the embodiment of Tikkun Olam and there's no reason to suppose his motives were "worse" than Hollywood when they give each-other accolades for the Nth Holocaust movie- they really do think they are guiding humanity on the spiritually correct path, and after all, the gentiles must be taught "Never Again" as the most important moral lesson.
I'm not sure how much you know about American history, but racialized American identity was entirely central to the concept of being an American until after the end of WWII. The first Congress restricted citizenship to "Free White men". The Immigration Acts in the 1924 were specifically intended to anchor the racial composition of the country to the 1800s. This all radically changed. Given the enormous amount of Jewish influence in American cultural institutions, it would prima facie be highly dubious to suggest that the elites in our cultural institutions played no part in these cultural upheavals. Of course they did and they continue to do so today.
The entire "It's OK to be White" trolling campaign, why was that effective? Because according to the media and American culture you are not allowed to assert any positive race-feelings as a white person. How did this radical shift happen from 1923 - 2023 if not the culture and those in influential positions to direct it?
When Jews tell me that "healing the world" means the ethnic displacement of my people and the quasi-worship of their own ethnicity with special social and legal protections, and they view that arrangement to simply be the will of Yahweh to heal the world, yes, I am going to claim I understand the latent motivation for this behavior than they do.
Do they? Take the example were just discussing - Superman. Is Superman a 'radical critique of Gentile history, culture, and racial identity'? Surely Superman is best-known as an avatar of 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' - he is a patriotic avatar of American values in a way that is explicitly presented as inclusive of all races and cultures. This does not seem like a radical critique of Gentile identity - on the contrary, it is clearly an affirmation of a particular understanding of American identity that is extraordinarily inclusive of people of different racial or religious origins.
You mentioned Stan Lee as well. Are the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, the X-Men, or Spiderman radical critiques of Gentile history and identity? You're going to have to explain that to me, because it's not obvious.
There are obviously many thousands of Jews engaged in all sorts of creative or ideological activities all over the world, from many different political perspectives, and it's not at all obvious on what basis you can assert that Jews as a group are engaged in a destructive critique of Gentile culture or identity. Is, say, Ben Shapiro involved in such a project? He seems pretty keen on a concept of Western identity that includes Jewish and non-Jewish Westerners on equal terms.
If Chinese people in America had the same history as Jewish people? Then it seems likely they would be treated the same way, no?
Mentioning ancestry in any way is not the same thing as 'formulating a race consciousness'. It's true that ancient Greek writers have some sense of ancestry - all human beings do. But that's a motte-and-bailey.
What does that quote have to do with anything? A writer in the 1920s snarking about the accusation of Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution reveals anything about the history of Christianity in Rome... how, again?
My point is that there does not seem to be any reason to suspect Paul of pushing some sort of racialist or Jewish supremacist agenda - on the contrary, Paul's evangelistic program is famously something that surmounts and crosses ethnic divides. Paul's program is not to convert all Gentiles to following 'the God of the Jews' in an imperial sense - he clearly understands God to be the God of all human beings from the creation. In Acts 17 he is accused of proclaiming a foreign divinity (17:18), and his response is to argue that God is implicitly known among the Gentiles in an anonymous way, that they too are God's offspring, and he even quotes Gentile poets to the effect that God is not far from them and they live in his own being. Likewise the diatribe of Romans 1 only makes sense on the understanding that God should be properly understood as the God of the Gentiles as well of the Jews.
In what way, then, does it make sense to accuse Paul of an agent of this Jewish racial consciousness to subvert and manipulate the Gentiles for Jewish benefit? He himself clearly disclaims that - indeed, in the passage you quoted where he recites his ancestry (Philippians 3:5), his whole point in context is that this ancestry is of no significance, and that there is no cause for being 'confident in the flesh'.
It's the same thing I've been complaining about all along - the mere presence of a Jewish person in any context, no matter that person's actions or plainly-stated agenda, is evidence of this Jewish racial consciousness to you. What could possibly falsify your claims?
If we strip away the spooky language, what this essentially boils down to is that many Jews - like the woke TikTok girl - want to make the world better and believe that they are helping to do this. I am baffled that continue to find this horrifying. Why do many Jews want to make sure the Holocaust is remembered? Is it not entirely plausible that they sincerely (and correctly) believe the Holocaust was something unimaginably horrible and don't want anything like it to happen again, and to the extent that self-interest is involved, it's because they fear being victims again? Sure, I'll buy that Jewish people want to influence the societies they're in in ways that prevent the Holocaust from ever being repeated. What I don't buy is that there's any malevolence in that, or anything that seems particularly hostile to non-Jewish cultures qua non-Jewish cultures. "Please don't try to murder entire cultures, especially if it's us" seems like a pretty reasonable message to push, and there are perfectly obvious, non-malevolent reasons for doing so.
I'm aware that American citizenship and identity has not been available to all people since the beginning of the United States. Over time the circle of acceptable American citizenship in terms of race has expanded.
But what does that have to do with the point? I presented the United States as an example of a nation that regards itself as chosen by God for a special mission to enlighten the other nations of the world. That was true even when American citizenship was heavily racialised.
I don't believe they do tell you that, not least because thus far you have not given a single example of a Jew saying that, to you or to anyone else.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a radical critique of Gentile identity because it subverts the identity of America as a white country. I presume you have some sympathies with Israel, what if a bunch of Palestinians somehow had the wherewithal to take control over Israeli cultural institutions, and they made massively-popular superheroes giving moral lessons to Children about how Israel is not a country for Jews?
How did we get to this point where white people are just totally submitted to their own demographic replacement? Slowly, and with propaganda like this. This propaganda was intelligently crafted with a political motivation, it planted the seeds of our current culture.
You can look at many examples- take Captain America. Who could have a problem with him right? He's a macho Aryan who is a role model for children. He was also created by a Jewish storyteller, Joe Simon, and Wikipedia relates:
It is extremely mythologically significant that "Captain America* was engineered by Jewish storytellers in 1940 to fight the Germans. That is not innocuous, it is not a cultural exchange, it is mythmaking and culture-creation for the ethnically-motivated intention of influencing a mass audience. Here's the cover of the first issue from December 1940 when there was essentially a consensus of public opinion against intervention in WWII. Today, Captain America's identity as a "Nazi puncher" is fully internalized by the mass audience.
Last week I posted that secret report from the Polish ambassador in 1939:
It is interesting to compare this political agenda to craft this myth of an Americanism that exists to "punish trouble-mongers" with the character of Captain America who was created only a few months later.
This is an example of how an apparently innocuous cultural symbol was consciously designed in the service of an ethnically-motivated agenda. Now I'm not that interested in arguing with you about the validity of that agenda, it suffices to show mythmaking as ethnically-motivated propaganda consciously designed to influence public opinion. Joe Simon conceived, in 1940, of Hitler as the "greatest villain in the world", and his comic-book villain soon became engrained in our quasi-religious consciousness with that role.
My argument is no stronger than assigning credit to our popular culture for our popular social movements, and you cannot acknowledge that basic fact without considering the underlying motivations of Jews who have heavily influenced this culture with race-conscious aims.
They fear being victims again, so they cannot allow white racial consciousness or advocacy for the ethnic interests of white people. Their sincerity does not at all alleviate the conflict that is staring us in the face, the conflict that they are conscious of and my co-ethnics are not because they "learned their lessons" from Superman and Captain America, if not from St. Paul and Christ.
I have no particularly strong feelings about Israel one way or the other.
That said, I don't think it's any sort of 'radical critique of Gentile identity' to take the position that people of many different races and religons should be welcome and equal in America. Many Jews believe that, yes. But also most non-Jews in American believe that now, and the social forces that led to that change, that led to the broadening of American identity, don't seem to have had anything particularly special to do with Jews.
See, once again what you're doing is just vaguely gesturing towards the idea that anything that happened in a place that any Jews lived that you don't like is the result of a Jewish conspiracy.
I would say again that you are clearly moving goalposts. You asserted that narratives created by Jews, of which you regard Superman as an example, are used to critique Gentile identity. I reply that Superman firstly is clearly a confident defender of American identity and patriotism, and secondly frames this in a way that regards all races as equally welcome. This sure seems like as a literary creation Superman is firstly pro-American-identity and secondly anti-ethno-supremacy. This is directly contrary to the picture you just painted of Jews as ethnosupremacist and alien from their countries! If you read Superman as metaphor for the Jewish experience (which is only one of many valid ways to read Superman), the thrust of that metaphor is that Jews can be fully assimilated Americans.
Are you asserting that Siegel and Shuster in the 30s and 40s were part of a deliberate, conscious attempt to destroy 'white' American culture?
How is it remotely suspicious that a superhero created and drawn and published by Americans in the 1940s was opposed to one of 1940s-America's greatest overseas enemies?
Okay, sure, Jews in 1940s America didn't like Nazi Germany much. I concede this. What is that supposed to show?
This is the frustrating thing about this entire argument from you - your entire strategy is to pick some totally innocuous incident in history and just because it involves a Jewish person, you present it as if it's clear evidence for some pan-historical Jewish agenda to destroy the white race.
What's missing from all of this is, well, any evidence for anything whatsoever. Okay, Joe Simon didn't like the Nazis and made a hero to fight them. He felt that Hitler was an enemy of everyone in the free world, and Captain America represents that commitment. But there are many conceivable reasons why a Jewish-American in 1940 might hate Hitler that do not amount to a deliberate Jewish racial plot to destroy white people.
What conflict is this?
We've gone from "Jewish people don't want the Holocaust to happen again" (entirely obvious and reasonable) to "therefore Jewish people want to destroy white racial majorities" (do they?) to "SecureSignals' co-ethnics are in a conflict with Jews" (who? how?).
I really wish you'd just be straightforward with all of this - if you could just say it as plainly as "multiculturalism is a deliberate, conscious plot by the Jewish people to destroy whites".
More options
Context Copy link
Test comment will delete
More options
Context Copy link
Test comment - will delete
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a radical critique of Gentile identity because it subverts the identity of America as a white country.
This is perhaps a well-worn point by now, but it bears repeating if you're going to insist on this 'white country' framing; without wishing to be too Whiggish about this, does not, surely, the extension of American identity to all racial groups simply represent the final stage of the steady expansion of the range of that identity to non-Anglos and freed slaves in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? That the 'white country' idea ever emerged among anyone at all is itself testament to the fact that the nativists had had their day long before the middle decades of the twentieth century and before even you could impugn Jewish influence.
Last week I posted that secret report from the Polish ambassador in 1939:
And as last week, uncritically handing us what a contemporary thought is not evidence of anything, even if it is his real thoughts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
St. Paul was preaching tolerance of Gentile Christians to Jewish Christians almost exclusively. The discrimination at the time was overwhelmingly coming from Jewish Christians who believed either that Gentiles couldn't be saved, or that they had to convert to Judaism in order to do so. Hence the arguments over circumcision, foods, the law, etc, etc.
And that's the genius of Paul, he accomplished the integration of the Gentiles into the Judaic pantheon without required subservience to Jewish law, which would have been a complete roadblock to the cult proliferating the way it did among the Greco-Romans. And Paul, despite never having met Jesus, attained the status of apostle in Christian thought.
It is the entire reason Paul deserves his status among the greatest mythmakers of human history, and shows the political power of intelligently crafting myth. He figured out a religious pathway for converting the Gentiles to the Jewish god.
Think of how much foresight Paul had compared to "the Goy can't become Christian unless he gets circumcised," Christianity would have gone nowhere in the latter case...
The notion that Jesus would have been ok with Christians completely abandoning Jewish law as Paul suggests is absurd, as we read in the Book of Matthew. It's Paul's innovation which was a lynchpin to the entire religion.
Is the argument that Christianity is clearly just repackaged Judaism? That certainly would be news to the Jews, then and now. And if it's not repackaged Judaism, then why does it matter if the Gentiles are converting to a "Jewish God"? What does it even mean to convert to a "Jewish God" in a form that Jews vehemently refuse to recognize, requiring none of the rules that Judaism consists of?
If Judiasm and Christianity are essentially the same, why the conflict? If they're essentially seperate, how is Paul converting Gentiles to Judaism? Why is converting Gentiles to Christianity a bad thing, and what would be preferable?
I don't accept that you have any insight into what Jesus would or would not have been okay with. You're simply applying a label to your own beliefs, which is fine as far as it goes, but provides zero evidentiary value. Christians have a well-developed theory about the issue you're gesturing at; you can believe that theory is rationalization if you like, but you have no way of actually proving it, and Christians like myself will observe that our version appears to pay rent in the form of an intellectually coherent faith, and yours does not.
Matthew 5:17:
But the Greco-Romans would not have converted if it entailed following Jewish law: circumcision, strict dietary restrictions, etc. Of course Christians have a theory for why they don't have to follow Jewish law, that theory was created by Paul who was motivated to convert them. Without Paul, there's no Christianization of the Greco-Romans or Europe.
To say the least, the Jewish attitudes towards Christianity are complex and vary. Many see Christianity as a root cause of antisemitism and view it as a hostile faith. Others, like Ben Shapiro, emphasize "Judeo-Christian values" as being some foundation for Civilization.
But other Jews do have a more sophisticated interpretation of Christianity. Marcus Eli Ravage was a Jewish immigrant who wrote a 1928 essay against antisemitism:
Some heavy words, it's a scathing critique of the cognitive dissonance of Christian antisemitism. But the analysis here would not be news to Eli Ravage (who was beat to the punch by Nietzsche), nor many of his more sophisticated co-ethnics who believe this but don't say the quiet part out loud. This critique also doesn't work as well when an increasingly larger number Europeans are indeed outright rejecting Christianity.
For what it's worth, I don't think Paul conceived of destroying Roman civilization or anything, it suffices to assume he genuinely believed he was bringing gentiles into the fold of a more spiritually truthful doctrine, although that motive also underlies most important social revolutionaries, including the social justice advocates of our own age.
The Jewish attitudes towards Christianity are not complex - Jews, even the most secularized and assimilated ones with no interest in Jewish religion, see Christianity as enemy and conversion to Christianity as the ultimate treason.
People peddling "Judo-Christian values" Prager University style are speaking for gentile audience, Jews see them universally as, at best, hacks and fraudsters.
This is not surprising, no one should expect old religion having good feeling towards newer successor religion that claims the old religion is false and obsolete, Christians were historically never too fond of Islam either (nor were Muslims friendly towards Baháʼí faith)
Surprising are the completely unrequited warm feelings American Christians feel towards Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
The Christian understanding is that Jesus's self-sacrifice indeed fulfilled the law, with his final words being "it is finished". This is consonant with Jesus's teachings recorded in the Gospels, where he constantly clashes with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, arguing that the purpose of the law was never to inculcate legalism, but to help people understand the nature of evil and sin. Jesus violates his contemporaries' traditions about and understandings of the law repeatedly, and affirms his disciples doing so as well. Christians do not recognize a discontinuity between Jesus's teachings and Paul's. Maybe we are wrong in that assessment, but you have not demonstrated any reason why your own opinion is obviously more correct.
Indeed not: what they converted to was not Judaism as it was practiced and understood by Jews, then or now. Jews don't actually think that Christianity is Judaism, and Christians don't think Christianity is Judaism. They both think they are talking about the same God, but their respective understandings of that God are quite different, and largely unreconcilable. From the outside objective view, there is nothing useful conveyed in the claim that Christianity worships the Jewish God; this claim is only relevant once one accepts the axioms of the faith, which are flatly incompatible with your claims for other reasons.
I don't see what makes this view "sophisticated" or even colorable. It does not seem to be engaging in good-faith communication, which is about what I'd expect from a communist radical.
The Christians did not seize control of the government and then exterminate a significant portion of the Roman population. They converted the romans peacefully, quite often through their own mass-martyrdom, until a tipping point hit and mundane ingroup-outgroup mechanics enacted by a "cultural Christianity" cemented the new normal. Rome continue on under Christianity for more than a millennium, and smoothly transitioned to the post-Rome west that has built every comfort you've ever enjoyed.
Who's "we", kemosabe?
Again, Christianity split with the Judaism he's appealing to from the start. Jewish contemporaries to the first generation of Christians were actively working to stamp them out with extreme prejudice, a process that continued until the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, at which point the Jewish community was busy merely trying to survive, forming insular communities with minimal contact with or influence over a Christianity which was busy conquering the world. None of that history is compatible with his pretense that Christianity, which my guess is he has nothing but contempt for, owes anything at all to the "Judaism" he claims to speak for.
This isn't evidence for your position, it's a radical jackoff arguing in bad faith in an effort to shock and offend. You're repeating his lies because they're convinient to you, but that doesn't make them less obviously stupid.
Or could it be that people like him have never understood my church's Jewish teachings? That claim would have equal basis, it seems to me.
Yeah, this guy has no idea what Christianity even is, and I'll reiterate that you don't either if you thought an argument this bad was compelling. And that's fine! Just don't expect actual Christians to be persuaded by insights that don't actually engage with anything we believe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link