Cathedral History

… the (short) play:

A: We’ve got nothing against you personally. We don’t even know you. It’s just that we’re more comfortable restricting club membership to upper-income straight white male English-speaking Protestants.
B: Then you’re not very good Protestants!
A: Damn! You’re right …

January 21, 2015admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations


20 Responses to this entry

  • Cathedral History | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Cathedral History […]

    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 8:49 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    And who is ‘B’?


    admin Reply:

    Could be anyone who knows how to play the game.


    vimothy Reply:

    But who was it in practice?


    vimothy Reply:

    One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”

    That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

    Is that what I’m saying? I actually think that American Jews are in this sense way too quick to label such feelings as anti-Semitism, even when the effects may be anti-Semitic.

    I think you’ve characterized it very well. It’s not 1930s anti-Semitism, but it’s a resentment. It’s a resentment of a particular evil that the Jews have done, which is the Jews have undermined WASP America but refuse to do the same thing in their own country.

    You know, there’s an old joke: Three elderly Jewish Communists in the Bronx are talking. They’re in their eighties. One is in a wheelchair. So they say, “Abie Cohen, have you heard from him lately?” “Abie, he’s had some health problems but he’s living in Los Angeles in a nursing home, still working for socialism.” “All right, what about Mike Abramowitz, have you heard from him?” “Well, you know Mike is in rehab, he fell, he broke his hip, a lot of problems. But even in the nursing home he’s fighting for socialism!” So someone says, “What about Moe Goldberg?” “Oh, Moe, he moved to Israel, didn’t you know that?” “Well, is he fighting for socialism?” The guy answers, “In his own country? What kind of man do you think he is?!”

    So I think as Jewish humor often does, that captures the point that you made. I’ve actually had students say exactly this. They say, “How come in my high school we couldn’t sing Christmas carols; however, in Israel they can establish a religion?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

    — David Samuels, Q&A: Benjamin Ginsberg, the Author of ‘How the Jews Defeated Hitler’, Tablet Magazine, September 2013


    drunkenrabbit Reply:

    There’s a tendency to overestimate the influence of Jews in the propagation of progressive ideologies. As a historically vulnerable minority, European Jews tended to heavily favor the left because that was where they could have a home. A Jew couldn’t truly be secure in the Hapsburg empire because he wasn’t Catholic, a Jew couldn’t be truly secure in imperial Germany because he wasn’t an ethnic German. But anyone in the world can be a good socialist or liberal democrat, because with those ideologies faith and ethnicity are irrelevant. The heavy Jewish involvement in neoconservativism makes perfect sense, because in the post-war America that fully accepted Judaism as part of Eisenhower’s “Judeo-Christian civilization” and fully accepted the Ellis Island generation of immigrants, it was possible to be fully Jewish and fully American.

    But these ideologies needed to preexist and have strong indigenous support in order for Jews to join them. Jewish participation in Bolshevism wasn’t because it was a Jewish creation, it was because it finally offered a way for Russian Jews to be on the same side as the peasants that had previously subjected them to pogroms.


    Lord Auch Reply:

    In re jewish jokes: one of the (several) endearing traits of Zizek’s work is his ability to incorporate jewish and communist jokes to make salient points.


    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 9:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Marxist toady Says:

    Admin, I am (still) interested to see how Milton plays into all of this.


    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 9:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Cathedral History | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 1:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • strelkov Says:

    Catholics aren’t immune to this nonsense either. The problem is with Christianity itself.


    Erik Reply:

    It’s not even limited to Christianity. There were similar things among the Mazdakists, Agriculturalists, and tail end of the Abbasids.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    You see signs of the same thing among the Gracchi and the Stoics. Universal brotherhood, wanting to widen the franchise, equality, etc.

    the problem is with humanity itself


    Hurlock Reply:

    On the Gracchi – you are oversimplifying. The older brother, Tiberius, was simply trying to stabilize the situation in Rome after the Nobles had been able to acquire large chunks of land who before that belonged to the plebeians. This happened during the many wars which Rome wages, when the plebeian soldiers were away of their land and couldn’t properly care for it. It started losing value and soon the patricians started buying it off en masse, thus the plebeians started to lose a lot of property. This of course widened the inequality and the plebeians started feeling resentment towards the patricians, who on their part looked down on the plebeians. The internal tension was threatening the unity of the Republic and Tiberius realized that and tried to pass a reform which would helf redistribute some of the land previously held by the plebeians back to them, thus easing the tension. He was assassinated.

    It was his younger brother who proposed some much more radical reforms which could be termed ‘demotic’.

    Otherwise yes, I agree with the overall point.

    strelkov Reply:

    I’d also add the mohists just for kicks.

    Demotic tendencies can show-up anywhere. I think the difference is that with these other schools, they were one strand of thought among many; whereas, once Christianity shows-up, it kind of takes-over and traps all moral language in a universalist-altruist snare, so that particularist or anti-demotist statements are much harder to articulate.


    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “Demotic tendencies can show-up anywhere.”

    Is demotism really the right word for what we’re talking about in this post?


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    The problem is with Human Nature being fallen.

    Instead of perfect.


    drunkenrabbit Reply:

    Islam is just as universalist and traditionalist, but it hasn’t exhibited the same effects.


    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    the problem is thinking in terms of categorical imperatives, a tendency that has afflicted a great press of humanity far before kant ever came around (though he greatly exacerbated the consequences of the defect once he reified it).


    drunkenrabbit Reply:

    That’s the legacy of the Enlightenment. Kant just exemplified its tendencies (within nominal Christianity). The attempt to find truly pure “first principles” and slavishly adhere to them is the cornerstone of every modern ideology from communism to libertarianism. Even the classical “racism”/imperialism of the late 19th century was based on the same ideas — the attempt to divide humanity into a few distinct groups, and the exultation of a particular national character as an ideology (“mission civilatrice” etc.) Pre-Enlightenment thought was just an amalgam of Christianity, local traditions, and transactional politics, without any attempt to find a grand unified ideology that swept away all the dross.


    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 3:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Garr Says:

    Aren’t we just so freaking fascinating?


    Posted on January 21st, 2015 at 3:22 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment