Anti-Christianism

US Politics
on 77 Comments

I’m sensitive to Jewish prejudice against Christians because I married one. After my future wife met my family 28 years ago, and my father kept referring to her as Brenda Frazier (an airhead deb who drank herself to death), she said, “I’ve always known about anti-Semitism; I never knew about anti- anti-semitism.” Christians were the Other for my family; and we never differentiated among them.

So I can’t help calling attention to Eli Valley’s cartoon about evangelical voters in Alabama ahead of the Roy Moore-Doug Jones election last Tuesday. I have the greatest respect for Valley as someone who paid the price for taking on the Jewish establishment over its mindless support for Israel (he does it again this week), but here he is reducing all evangelicals to the very worst attitudes of some of them, ignorance and racism and Islamophobia, and using religious imagery to do so. When people do this to Muslims over support for Islamist terrorists or Jews over parasitical financiers, we call it Islamophobic or anti-Semitic. This is anti-Christian.

Myself, I have very little idea what Christian evangelicals think, or are like. I’m sure that A Lot of them are intolerant narrow-minded people (just like A Lot of Jews are Zionists, and support a militant ethnocratic state). But Shibley Telhami’s polling tells us that the community is somewhat varied. Evangelicals were for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by 53-40, he said. Not an overwhelming number. Telhami’s Pool of evangelical voters is made up of Evangelical Christians and Born-Again Christians; and most of the born-agains are Democrats, he says. So that means a good number of Doug Jones’s white voters were probably born-again Christians (though, yes, he lost the white vote, 70-30). How many secular east coast journalists even know what born-again or evangelical mean?

Recently Phil Giraldi got fired by the American Conservative for reducing all Jews to warmongers in an article titled, “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars.” There’s obviously something to be said for Giraldi’s argument: neocons have driven wars recently; neocons came out of the Jewish community and most of them are Jewish; they want Israel the occupying democracy to be the model for American conduct; and Jews have considerable power in the new establishment. But then most Jews opposed the Iraq war, etc. Journalists should differentiate among Christians in the same way.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

77 Responses

  1. Stephen Shenfield
    December 16, 2017, 2:50 pm

    Jewish anti-Christianism, like Christian anti-Semitism, is a vestige of a time when relations between Christians and Jews were much more hostile than they are now. These attitudes may still be passed down within families from one generation to the next, but the natural tendency is for them to die out as more and more young people realize that the world has changed. At least this would be so were it not for the baleful influence of the Zionist Right, which has formed a toxic symbiosis with the most archaic factions of Judaism.

    • pabelmont
      December 17, 2017, 1:06 pm

      When I was in high school, 1955, I worked for a summer as a surveyor’s helper at an oil refinery near my hometown, San Francisco. The other (and older) guys in the crew were, or several were, quite racist, hating Jews, blacks, Catholics, and (I now suppose) Mexicans. They were perfectly open about it within the confines of the crew and its outdoor work. Quite revealing to me, but I didn’t really know if they got all that racism from some religion (I now imagine some sort of Baptist) or elsewhere. Anyway, it was strong, and open. I was glad I didn’t seem Jewish to them. Perhaps as “young people” they had not read the memo that the world had changed, or perhaps in 1955 it had not yet changed.

  2. vacyv
    December 16, 2017, 4:36 pm

    How would Weiss present a more palatable ( to himself) cartoon to replace Valley’s which encapsulates the vile racism, hypocrisy and un-xian supremacism of the evangelical voters of Moore ( close finish to Jones) and Trump? I notice Weiss doesn’t object to Valley’s depiction of Moore and Trump. Trump’s presidency didn’t appear like magic.. he is in the white house because of votes. I applaud Valley’s cartoon.

    • Keith
      December 16, 2017, 6:27 pm

      VACYV- “Trump’s presidency didn’t appear like magic.”

      Trump won primarily because the Democrats, under the leadership of the Clinton “New Democrats,” abandoned their base. When the poor working class whites who are some of the major victims of neoliberal globalization are treated like a “basket of deplorables,” what do you expect? And your obvious contempt for people who have been screwed by our globalized political economy indicates you share Hillary’s world view. And foccussing on identity politics rather than more substantive factors is self-defeating. You should be aware that harsh economic conditions correlate strongly with a myriad of social dysfunctions. Trump skillfully (and dishonestly) capitalized on working people’s disenchantment with the Wall Street Democrats and unrepentant warmonger Hillary Clinton.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 17, 2017, 2:38 am

        Keith,

        The GOP tax cuts are most likely to be followed by brutal cuts to social spending in the name of balancing the budget. More than half of the tax cuts go straight to the plutocrats.

        The political situation is toxic. The GOP is shafting its Base again because the Base does not fund the party. The plutocrats do.

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/bernie-sanders-tax-bill-republicans-trump

        “In an interview with the Guardian, the independent US senator from Vermont denounced the tax bill as payback for the billions of dollars that donors have invested in conservative politicians over decades. “What this is all about is nothing more than the Republican party very generously rewarding their wealthy campaign contributors,” he said.

        The former presidential challenger said the reform of the tax code, which could clear both the House and the Senate and be signed into law by the the US president as early as next week, was based on the “rightwing extremist ideology of the Koch brothers. You can read it in what they were saying 40 years ago. What they want is an oligarchic form of society in which government plays virtually no role in public education, healthcare or addressing the needs of middle-class and working families.”

        The end game, Sanders said, was that “you are on your own. You are 80 years old and you have cancer – good luck to you. Government is not there for you.””

        The system is about suppressing demand and supporting speculation. It is a suicidal system. When it collapse public anger against plutocrats will be deflected onto a vulnerable wealthy minority.

        In Western Africa the vulnerable wealthy minority is Lebanese.
        In south East Asia it is Chinese
        In the US it is Jewish

        There are no rules. If Trump can betray his voters he will betray Singer .

      • catalan
        December 17, 2017, 9:47 am

        “When it collapse public anger against…” Mag
        There is an election in 2018. Let’s see if people like the bigger paychecks coming in February or would rather give the money back to Sanders. It sounds to me like the Democrats are scared that the pay raise coming up might ruin their chances. As to collapse and all that, Mag, there is lots and lots of money to be made now. Speaking of wealthy minorities, how about Indians. We have a new mayor here and two of the top officials are Hindus, no visible Jews. Come to think of it, many Muslims are wealthy too in the US. Are you so sure that Jews will be scapegoated this time, I would be much more worried if I were an American Muslim.

      • ritzl
        December 17, 2017, 12:11 pm

        @Maghlawatan

        The end game, Sanders said, was that “you are on your own. You are 80 years old and you have cancer – good luck to you. Government is not there for you.”

        I would add, “…You are 80-years old, have worked your whole life and you have cancer…”.

        I get a sense down here that the hard-core evangelism that overlooks Moore’s spiritual “horns” because he doesn’t actually have physical ones, is in some small/significant part borne of utter exasperation (desperation?) with this. It has been ever thus so God is the only means to relief. “God-as-last-resort” if you will.

        That condition becomes R political strategy, but it also suggests a medium-term political way out of hard-core evangelical bloc-voting. But nobody (Ds) offers up the alternative. My hope for Jones is that he MAY try. He’s an amazingly courageous man and the hardest working SOB in local politics. TBD.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 17, 2017, 1:03 pm

        Catalan

        The GOP are going to slash government spending to balance the budget. Half of the tax cuts go to the richest 1%. Net impact will hurt demand. Blue collar workers will lose entitlements they need.
        The crash is certain.

      • MHughes976
        December 17, 2017, 1:09 pm

        I think that American opinion is nowhere near blaming a racial or religious minority, not even Muslims, for any woes that they may attribute to givernment economic policy. I don’t think that Western Jews need fear anti-Semitism in any form beyond that of very small minorities. I would like them to listen to rational critique of the policies discussed here and so strongly suppprted by organised Jewish opinion.

      • pabelmont
        December 17, 2017, 1:24 pm

        “When the poor working class whites who are some of the major victims of neoliberal globalization are treated [by Clinton/DNC-lovers of oligarchy] like a “basket of deplorables,” what do you expect?”

        The problem today is that every election-ad I see from DEMs ignores the problem of oligarchy (ownership of government by big-money) just as Clinton did. Sanders to some extent spoke against oligarchy. Various folks today are speaking against Citizens United (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has written a very good description of American oligarchy: Captured: The corporate Infiltration of American democracy”) but even critics of Citizens United more-or-less ignore the several other Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations and billionaires to spend outrageously on elections (and on issues).

        With the DEMs apparently unreconstructed (e.g., still neoliberal/oligarchic rather than, say, Sanders-esque), there is hope that DEMs may prosper in 2018 but less hope that America will free itself, even a little, from the trammels of big-money.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2017, 2:05 pm

        “Let’s see if people like the bigger paychecks coming in February or would rather give the money back to Sanders.”

        From allrightnik to Alt-right, every time.

      • Keith
        December 17, 2017, 4:10 pm

        MAGHLAWATAN- “When it collapse public anger against plutocrats will be deflected onto a vulnerable wealthy minority”

        I seriously doubt that will happen. For starters, this is one reason that the police have been militarized, to deal with domestic discontent as a sort of occupation army. And control of the media including the social media. Finally, the 99% has been divided against itself. Instead of Sunni versus Shia, we have red states and people versus blue states and people, antifa versus neo-fascists, liberals against Christian Zionists, etc. This is why corporate Democrats emphasize identity politics, to divert attention away from the systemic nature of our problems. That is why I am so opposed to demonizing any of my fellow 99%. The alt-right is but a symptom of our deeper problems: corporate/oligarchic control over the political economy. Unfortunately, many (most?) liberal Democrats have been convinced that white, working class Christians are the problem. Just a bunch of deplorables that we must fight against. The wealthy minority are not vulnerable, the rest of us are.

      • catalan
        December 17, 2017, 5:04 pm

        From allrightnik to Alt-right, every time.”
        The first Alt-right who studies Math and reads Voltaire (in French) in his spare time. Actually, the Alt-right are collectivists, “real America”, “patriotism”, “our values”, etc. Kind of like the Bernie guys (same group-think and intolerance).

      • Danaa
        December 17, 2017, 9:49 pm

        Keith, I agree with your reading, especially this:

        Trump skillfully (and dishonestly) capitalized on working people’s disenchantment with the Wall Street

        Trump won partly because many Democrats did not care for the packaged establishment candidate they were presented with, like a gift that keeps on not giving. Some did not vote at all (numbers were down in key states lost by Dems); some voted green and some left the president box a blank.

        In addition, the Democrats completely failed to gauge the mood of a public that was seriously disenchanted by a candidate so compromised by corruption that even a barely qualified, rather distasteful candidate like Trump seemed better.

        Trump is now president partly because of the rigging and probably outright fraud committed in the Democratic primary, which by all rights, Sanders should have won. Had he done so we would now be knee deep trying to help Sanders fight the Deep State, instead of running around frothing at the mouth over some hogwash Russia “collusion” fairy tale.

        That on the Democrat side. On the Republican side, they just closed rank around Trump because many believed he could actually “drain the swamp”. Alas, it looks like the swamp, in the person of paul Ryan and the Intelligence agencies are draining him.

        People who think it was about identity issues are out to lunch and should not be surprised when they lose the next election. The electorate – as in the 95% who are not part of the ruling class + enablers – is extremely disgusted with the Empire, the out-of-control military budget and the steady decline of jobs as well as America’s reputation.

        I speak to many right wingers and not a few Evangelical Christians, where I live. I second Phil’s comment about the diversity of their opinions. I’d hardly classify them all as narrow-minded, racist, brain-dead apparitions as the coastal elites seem to do. Many are thoughtful people and many are very good people – even if they do go to church and believe in Jesus. I hate to admit it, but these days, I am having far better conversations with these Republican/Libertarian people than with die hard democrats, who I seem to have lost in some pit of mush where they still mourn the loss of Hillary, and fight the ghosts of a made-up “Russia, Russia” thingy, while failing to see the reasons for the dems failures.

        Trying to talk to democrats about the mistake of abandoning the working class is like engaging in a slogfest in the middle of a blizzard.

      • Keith
        December 18, 2017, 1:55 pm

        DANAA- ” I hate to admit it, but these days, I am having far better conversations with these Republican/Libertarian people than with die hard democrats, who I seem to have lost in some pit of mush where they still mourn the loss of Hillary, and fight the ghosts of a made-up “Russia, Russia” thingy, while failing to see the reasons for the dems failures.”

        Jeez, you got that right! It truly amazes me the extent to which diehard Democrats seem oblivious to the changes in the party brought about by the Clintons and the New Democrats. The party of Roosevelt has morphed into the party of Wall Street and the MIC, with the ghost of Joe McCarthy thrown in. And to demonize your fellow 99% no matter how poorly informed they are while giving the neoliberal fat-cats a free pass is insanity. And the utter disdain that the Democratic professionals have for the working poor whites is shameful. They are not the enemy. Divide and rule is happening before our very eyes with the Democrats leading the charge. And when Paul Craig Roberts and even (gasp!) Pat Buchanan make more sense than a lot of “liberal” pundits, you know we have gone off the deep end.

  3. AddictionMyth
    December 16, 2017, 5:10 pm

    I like both you guys so it pains me to see this squabbling (even though I am not a socialist haha). My thoughts are first of all if Christians are offended by this then I agree it is problematic. But I also think that ‘evangelical’ is actually a phantom designation and there really aren’t many, even if there are many who are taught to identify as that on surveys for political purposes, and even if their ‘leadership’ is vocal. Thus, there are not many who’d be offended by this but hey like I said I could be wrong and would want to know either way.

    Overall I like the idea of child sacrifice, because that is a universal problem. However I think it’s wrong in this case. In fact, the Zio-Christians’ support for Jerusalem is not to sacrifice their own children but Jewish and Muslim. But these people are mostly very old and not very politically powerful any more, compared to a decade ago (or two).

    Despite the ‘conventional wisdom’, Trump did this not to appeal to the Zio-Christians but to the plain old Zionists. Why? Because the deadline was Dec 1 and he had to make a decision. It was unrelated to Roy Moore!

  4. Keith
    December 16, 2017, 6:45 pm

    PHIL- “I’m sensitive to Jewish prejudice against Christians because I married one.”

    Just Christians? Common, Phil, all Gentiles are kind of lumped together as if all non-Jews were some sort of humongous affinity group rather than many smaller groups and individuals who have little feelings of kinship for their “fellow” Gentiles. And the notion of irrational and eternal Gentile anti-Semitism is a core myth of Zionism.

    As for Trump and Moore, it should be pointed out that Trump campaigned for Luther Strange before the primary election. And much as I like Eli Valley’s “Israel Man and Diaspora Boy,” which is quite funny, the cartoon you show here is quite vicious and totally devoid of humor.

    • jon s
      December 17, 2017, 7:17 am

      Since Phil mentions his own marriage, I’ll point out that it so happens that the Torah portion read this past Sabbath mentions a “mixed marriage” which is beneficial. The portion focuses on the continuing adventures of Joseph. We are told:

      “And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:45)

      So Joseph married an Egyptian, the daughter of a pagan priest, no less. She went on to bear him two sons who would father two important tribes.

      • eljay
        December 17, 2017, 8:15 am

        || jon s: Since Phil mentions his own marriage, I’ll point out that it so happens that the Torah portion read this past Sabbath mentions a “mixed marriage” which is beneficial. … ||

        The gifts Pharaoh gave to Joseph were, in order: Power/authority, a signet ring, fine linen, a gold chain, access to a special chariot, a new Egyptian name and a wife.

        Asenath is named as a gift, not as (an equal) party to a “mixed marriage”. I have no doubt that Phil’s wife is – and that he views her as – more than just a trinket bestowed upon him by another.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2017, 12:44 pm

        I’ll never forget what happened when my Mom met my non-Jewish wife-to-be.
        She pulled her aside and stage-whispered: “For Gods sake, run away from this! You’re much too good for him!”
        My Mom, nowise to be outdone replied: “Honey, I think that makes two of us”.

      • jon s
        December 17, 2017, 5:21 pm

        eljay,
        Your point is valid, though I never said that it was a marriage of equals. In those times, under those circumstances ,it could not have been.
        My point is that there’s no hint of disapproval in the Biblical text.

      • eljay
        December 17, 2017, 6:37 pm

        || jon s: eljay,
        Your point is valid, though I never said that it was a marriage of equals. In those times, under those circumstances ,it could not have been.
        My point is that there’s no hint of disapproval in the Biblical text. ||

        There’s no hint of disapproval because it wasn’t a “mixed marriage”. “Asenath” wasn’t a person – it was the name assigned to a gift and a womb:

        Asenath:
        Gen 41:45: And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.

        Gen 41:50: And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.

        Gen 46:20: And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.

      • Danaa
        December 17, 2017, 10:05 pm

        Com’on eljay – the entire old testament is the story of women “given” unto men. Such was the custom among the ancient elite. But be fair, that’s just bible talk, and we may be unfair to said Asenath. For all we know she may have liked Joseph well enough and successfully manipulated her father to agree to “give” her hand in marriage. Heck, to take a page from the Book(s) of Mooser “there are them who giveth and there are them who taketh, but it’s all relative, and that which is given often ends up taking the store”.

        In any case, you may be guilty of anthropomorphising – projecting modern day sensibilities on people long gone, who may or may never have existed. next we’ll take all these guys – the Abrahams, and isaacs and Jacobs and Josephs to the cleaners for sexual harrassment. And no small amount of pedophilia, surely. Me, I’d just like to inquire what said Asenath’s age really was. For all we know she may have been 12 or 30, and was “regifted”.

        Oh and then there’s that: Joseph may never have been anything other than a nice story to tell the children. Them Babylonian Jews who wrote the bulk of the old testament sometime in the5th-6th century BC, were an imaginative lot.

      • jon s
        December 18, 2017, 7:39 am

        Incidentally, this is part of Rashi’s commentary on Gen. 41:45, regarding Potiphera:

        Poti-phera: He is Potiphar, but he was called Poti-phera because he became emasculated since he desired Joseph for homosexual relations. (Based on the Bavli, Sotah ,13b)

        So, according to this interpretation, both Potiphar’s wife and Potiphar himself, desired Joseph sexually but he ended up marrying their daughter.

      • eljay
        December 18, 2017, 8:11 am

        || Danaa: Com’on eljay – the entire old testament is the story of women “given” unto men. Such was the custom among the ancient elite. But be fair, that’s just bible talk, and we may be unfair to said Asenath. For all we know she may have liked Joseph well enough and successfully manipulated her father to agree to “give” her hand in marriage. … ||

        I agree that “for all we know” Asenath may have been a lot of things, but from what we actually know – from the three mentions of her in the Bible – she is only two things: A gift and a bearer of two children. That’s it.

        And that’s why I was surprised that jon s managed to conclude that the half-sentence in which a woman is given as a gift to a man describes a “mixed marriage” like Phil’s.

      • eljay
        December 18, 2017, 8:35 am

        || eljay: … And that’s why I was surprised that jon s managed to conclude that the half-sentence in which a woman is given as a gift to a man describes a “mixed marriage” like Phil’s. ||

        To phrase it differently and perhaps more correctly: … And that’s why I was surprised that Phil’s mention of his marriage to a non-Jew made jon s think of a half-sentence in the Bible in which a woman is given as a gift to a man.

      • eljay
        December 18, 2017, 9:29 am

        || jon s: Incidentally, this is part of Rashi’s commentary on Gen. 41:45, regarding Potiphera:

        Poti-phera: He is Potiphar, but he was called Poti-phera because he became emasculated since he desired Joseph for homosexual relations. (Based on the Bavli, Sotah ,13b)

        So, according to this interpretation, both Potiphar’s wife and Potiphar himself, desired Joseph sexually but he ended up marrying their daughter. ||

        “Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard” – who, as far as we know, is unmarried and without children – is emasculated by angels and suddenly he becomes “Potipherah priest of On”, a married man with a daughter he is prepared to gift to a stranger. Interesting.

        Then again, for all we know Joseph was also gay and simply refused to acknowledge his homosexuality.

      • eljay
        December 18, 2017, 10:59 am

        || eljay: … suddenly he becomes “Potipherah priest of On”, a married man with a daughter he is prepared to gift to a stranger. Interesting. … ||

        Corrected.

      • gamal
        December 18, 2017, 12:44 pm

        ‘Since Phil mentions his own marriage, I’ll point out that it so happens that the Torah portion read this past Sabbath mentions a “mixed marriage” which is beneficial”

        So Phils ok then? even though he didn’t go Egyptian or heathen, man must follow his heart.

        “And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt”, yes we have seen your maps Coffee Table Book Judaism Rabbi Jon and we are waiting for you, “pagan” you ain’t seen pagan yet.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2017, 1:18 pm

        Awwww, isn’t that nice! “Pope Jon s” is offering Phil indulgences, and maybe even absolution.

      • jon s
        December 18, 2017, 4:00 pm

        eljay, Potiphar certainly was married . His wife tried to seduce Joseph.

      • eljay
        December 18, 2017, 5:41 pm

        || jon s: eljay, Potiphar certainly was married . His wife tried to seduce Joseph. ||

        That’s nice. But I wrote “Potipherah” (“priest of On” ), not “Potiphar” (“an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard”).

  5. Rusty Pipes
    December 17, 2017, 3:24 am

    I’m a Liberal Christian and I don’t find the cartoon anti-Christian. I have some friends and family members who identify as Evangelicals who might find it offensive; but none of them live in Alabama, so maybe not. For the past forty years, fundamentalist Christians have been trying to coopt the broader umbrella-term, “evangelical” to try to spread their version of extreme right politics to a wider moderate to conservative group of Christians. Even though some of the leaders of the Moral Majority have died or semi-retired, there are still efforts to hold the Religious right together. Politicians like Donald Trump and Roy Moore have tested the strength of that alliance, not only because of their “moral shortcomings” but because of their lack of repentance (indeed, doubling down on defending actions which evangelicals consider sinful).

  6. mcohen..
    December 17, 2017, 7:57 am

    P.w. says “Something to be said”

    After 6 years at a catholic boarding school i could say i know them all.i stopped going to unzreview because i was offended by giraldi.you and ron unz have him in common.there is something to be said about that.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2017, 2:00 pm

      “After 6 years at a catholic boarding school”

      You were left with a burning desire to ruin the school’s reputation, every time you spoke or wrote.

  7. Juergen
    December 17, 2017, 9:29 am

    Thanks, Philip, for taking this up. Some of us who read Mondoweiss articles with approval and campaign for justice for Palestinians, are actually “evangelicals” of a sort. The spectrum in evangelicalism is wide, as it is in Judaism. For some evangelicals, their theology compels them to seek justice for the oppressed, whether in the Middle East or anywhere. Please don’t write us all off as bigots. Just as many progressive Jews take a stand for justice at great cost, so do some of us evangelicals. But the price is small when compared to what some have to pay.

    • pabelmont
      December 17, 2017, 1:40 pm

      Juergen: Perhaps you could write (or point out) a good article on Christian-Zionism, Evangelicalism, etc., My guess is that Christian-Zionists are like other fundamentalists, blinded by religious dogmas but not necessarily racists or degenerates (e.g., w.r.t. underaged girls or boys) like some in the news today. However, the effects of Christian-Zionism are absolutely horrible, akin to the effects of Zionism itself. I believe a lot of evangelicals are among that huge cohort of American science-deniers and climate-change-deniers who are making their own predictions of “end-times” so much easier to believe these days (but not for theological reasons).

  8. Mooser
    December 17, 2017, 12:32 pm

    “I’m sensitive to Jewish prejudice against Christians because I married one”

    Now I’ve got to read the rest of the article, and find out who Phil married.

  9. MHughes976
    December 17, 2017, 12:55 pm

    Attitudes going with membership of a religious group are a bit different from the core beliefs of the group. The evangelical characters in the cartoon seem to have no Christian characteristics or at least no beliefs that could be regarded as core Christianity. The father doesn’t say that Moore has accepted Jesus as his personal saviour, so can make free with his daughters, which would be grotesque but close enough to some Christian beliefs to be satirical mockery thereof. The mother doesn’t speak of Genesis or creation science or say that Trump can take away her healthcare so long as there can be prayer in schools.

  10. gamal
    December 17, 2017, 6:26 pm

    ” So that means a good number of Doug Jones’s white voters were probably born-again Christians (though, yes, he lost the white vote, 70-30). ”

    that shift from the contingent to that precise mensuration, 70/30, well I enjoyed it, but

    the use of “religious” identities politically/socially turns them toxic because they are not for assertion.. i am on the egde of incoherence so to my Christian bother…i would like to offer this sermon this Sunday, it’s a tour de force, covers so much so well, I’d sit on a cold pew and listen to this Christian any day of the week, it’s comprehensive…so Christian though…

    https://youtu.be/eroxuptaf5A

    • gamal
      December 17, 2017, 7:12 pm

      the above or below link i recommend the 58th minute,

    • gamal
      December 20, 2017, 4:08 pm

      this link has been disabled, it also doesn’t appear when you search for Chris Hedges you have to search for “Chris Hedges Sermons The Fall of America and Bernie Sanders” on youtube, I can’t recommend it highly enough

  11. Danaa
    December 17, 2017, 10:18 pm

    I didn’t know Giraldi was fired from The American Conservative. I read that article at the time and knew he is asking for trouble.

    The real trouble is that he was not entirely wrong, just lacking nuance. Not a good idea to lump all Jews into one basket, as a majority are as far from neoconservatism as most of us are. The problem is, as many pointed out before, that a small but influencial minority, did manage to hijack America’s foreign policy by making alliances with the Deep State and with Christian zionists (who basically bring up the rear).

    That being said, Giraldi was careless and did not put in the appropriate caveats. These days, it’s dangerous to point out that America’s foreign policy in general is teetering partly because all the Realpolitik guys were banished (and yes, it was mostly guys) and that was done primarily at the behest of an Israel grown blind to its own best interests.

    To see someone like Kushner, a thoroughly unqualified fellow by all accounts and a novice on just about everything, running around making mistake after mistake, yet winning praise from israel, is truly a sad sight. Do people really expect the world to not notice he is an orthodox jew? just watch this to get a taste of how the “great” Saban really feels about all the machers trying to stir up the pot:

    http://verifiedpolitics.com/jared-kushner-just-got-humiliation-lifetime-live-tv-must-watch/

    One gets the feeling that what really annoys Saban is that Kushner was too wet behind the ears to know he has to stack the deck with a couple non-Jews. As it stands, his team is way too visibly Jewish.

    • echinococcus
      December 18, 2017, 12:49 am

      Danaa,

      Not a good idea to lump all Jews into one basket, as a majority are as far from neoconservatism as most of us are.

      How can a majority be “far from neoconservatism” when a majority is obviously supportive of Zionism? There is a logical impossibility there.

      • echinococcus
        December 18, 2017, 1:11 am

        Sorry for the typo in the address –too late to edit.

      • Danaa
        December 19, 2017, 5:14 pm

        WEll, there has to be some nuance here when it comes to what we define as neoconservatism. Generally regarded as a stated desire to reshape the Middle East and/or other regions in Israel’s image. So yes, on the face of it, neoconservatism which supports and approves interventionism seems to indeed be on par with zionism, digging a little deeper will reveal a schism, with positions on a kind of a spectrum (just like autism). There are many Jews in the US who consider themselves “zionist” only in the sense that they support Israel but relatively narrowly. And while such professed zionists may indeed possess views that do not exactly uphold Palestinian rights, not all of them agree that the US should engage in fights on behalf of Israel.

        Be they a fight with words, as is now directed against Iran, or a fight with weapons and logistics as was done to Syria, the zionist subset of jews is not all of a cloth. Even many of those much derided – justifiably – as “liberal zionists” (Ie zionists on the so-called neoliberal/liberal left) disagree with making Iran a boogey-man or with the CIA’s/US military not so covert actions in Syria. Not that they would go so far as to cheer Assad or anything, but many jewish zionists are, in fact, against the out-of-control defense budget and/or so-called “humanitarian” interventionist adventurism. Of course, many of those could still be classified as “Empire jews”; it’s just that they are not always on the same side when it comes to the Empire acting on behalf of or in coordination with Israel.

        So, I am just being careful here with my verbiage, because precision matters. That’s what I called Giraldi out for. May be he got exasperated or something (can’t blame him), but he should know that a few caveats can make a big difference. Especially in defending against deliberate misinterpretation. I mean, it’s not like he is a mere commenter on a blog, right?

        PS Needless to say I have little patience with zionists of all stripes, be they neo-this or neo-that, because by and large to be a zionist means to hold Palestinian rights as something separate from and/or inferior to human rights. That because to a zionist, by definition israeli Jewish rights trump everyone else’s rights, whether they acknowledge that or not (many won’t, as we all know, because they have such beautiful souls, as they display sometimes on these very pages, etc. etc.).

      • echinococcus
        December 21, 2017, 4:16 pm

        Danaa,

        Than you for the thoughtful answer. Well said., for the gist of it.

        My problem, though, is the following: Enough is sufficient. There is no need for all the self-consciousness and the discrimination when talking. Giraldi is absolutely right not to waste most of his time in fine distinctions, and anyone who wants to play with “antisemitism” and related concepts can go to hell –with our benediction.

        Yes, there are all this infinite nuances among the Zionists, but far and large it does make sense to lump big majorities in smallish groups with the whole group –this is your favorite statistician speaking.

  12. hophmi
    December 18, 2017, 10:13 am

    It’s sort of amazing to me that you don’t see the irony of condemning Eli Valley for offensively stereotyping Christians but you’re completely ok with it when he offensively stereotypes Jews.

    It’s even more amazing to me that you would condemn Giraldi for saying something that you have said over and over again. Maybe time to evaluate whether you’ve internalized some of the hatreds of the past?

    • Mooser
      December 18, 2017, 1:29 pm

      “Maybe time to evaluate whether you’ve internalized some of the hatreds of the past?”

      “Hophmi” makes a very important point. Since antisemites have, at one time or another, accused Jews of everything and anything, in toto or as individuals, any accusations against Jews will resemble those antisemitic accusations.

      Now, it wasn’t easy, living through those centuries of antisemitic accusation, action, and persecution. But the resulting immunity is worth it.

    • Mooser
      December 18, 2017, 2:45 pm

      “Maybe time to evaluate whether you’ve internalized some of the hatreds of the past?”

      “Hophmi”, you made the evaluation, and it’s darning:

      This analysis is nothing new. It is typical of Phil’s writing, which suggests, as it always does, the Phil has internalized anti-Jewish hatred, and like those secularist Jews in Europe who looked down upon their brethren or converted to Christianity to escape their Judaism, Phil adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater.
      Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And Phil is afflicted with it, as many Jews have been in the past. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is.
      The Phils will fall away, as they always do.”

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2017, 10:25 pm

        Oh, BTW, just in case anybody gets the wrong idea, let me explain:

        The ‘persecution-internalizing’, ‘self-hating Jew’ is not an offensive stereotype.
        It’s a medical diagnosis!

    • yonah fredman
      December 20, 2017, 4:40 am

      The phenomena of Jews who become neonazis is known, as is in more medieval times Jews who converted to Christianity and persecuted the Jews for their religion. Thus the existence of a category of self hating jew. When one expands the category beyond these obvious examples one treads on thin ice rhetorically. The subject of assimilationism is far too interesting and complex to be simplified by a superficial use of the term. Antizionist Jews and assimilationist Jews largely overlap, but certainly assimilation circa America 2017 is different than in Vienna 1938, so at some point the categories lose meaning.

      • Mooser
        December 20, 2017, 12:01 pm

        ,“The phenomena of Jews who become neonazis is known, as is in more medieval times Jews who converted to Christianity and persecuted the Jews for their religion”

        Yup, like I said, a medical diagnosis.

        “yonah”, I really want to thank you, and “Hophmi” for being willing to share your detailed knowledge of this baleful condition.
        Thanks to you two, non-Jewish readers of Mondo will understand Jews a whole lot better.

        Oh, BTW, “yonah”, I am still waiting (as are we all, I’ll wager) for you to give us some examples of un-assimilated American Jews. What un-assimilates an American Jew? His haircut? His clothes? How will we know this marvel, the Jew which has resisted assimilation in the US?

      • echinococcus
        December 20, 2017, 12:24 pm

        The phenomena of Jews who become neonazis is known…

        Of course, any number of them: Rabin and Barak and Sharon and the Yahoo and the Eyelet and so on and so forth.
        Or those who were Paleo-Nazis anyway, with Ben Gurion and Begin and their merry bands. Not to forget the Proto-Nazis with Vladimir Jabotinsky and Co.

        Watch your plurals, by the way. I can understand that you are allergic to Greek plurals as to anything to do with classical learning because of your McCab’s grudge you have been personally nursing these last 25 centuries but there is a limit to deliberate ignorance.

      • Mooser
        December 20, 2017, 12:51 pm

        ” is in more medieval times Jews who converted to Christianity and persecuted the Jews “

        And to this day, when the choice is “soup, or salad?”, we always choose the soup. That pepper-grinder flourished by the waiter has too many bad associations.

      • yonah fredman
        December 20, 2017, 2:36 pm

        the rabbis ask why did the children of Israel survive the sojourn in Egypt. And the answer is: because they did not change their names, their language, their dress and their food. Thus Jews who hold onto their names (first names I would say more than last names are the key here), their dress: as in covering their heads, i would say, their food, as in kosher, i would say and their language: Yiddish, Hebrew or Ladino, I would say. then those Jews have maintained their contact with the past and their assimilation in terms of other elements of the culture will not be so egregious: thus they will survive their presence in the nations and still survive as a unit.

        The name Mooser does not strike me as particularly Jewish, but you still speak Yiddish, although probably only on line and only on Mondoweiss in order to mach choizek of the Yidden who you abhor, so it is questionable whether this is of value. you like your christmas tree (or is it only a wreath, or does it come with a crucifix?) so singing “god bless ye, jerry mandlebaum, the alan sherman version, or in yiddish little drummer boy, might not be such a good strategy.

        orthodox jews keep shabbos. from sundown to sundown, they abjure from turning on and off electricity, and other actions that are considered “labor” by the talmud. Jews who observe the shabbat, even if after the sabbath they go see a movie and even if on shabbat they read the latest best seller, have participated in a resistance of the assimilation movement.

      • Maghlawatan
        December 20, 2017, 3:09 pm

        Will.the children of Zionism survive the sojourn in Jewish Disneyland?
        Not sure. They have lost their language (Polish, Hungarian , arabic) and replaced it with IDF.
        They have dumped their values for fuck you.
        They are lead by morons.
        But otherwise everything is fine !

        https://youtu.be/9jjiWS__Mp0

      • eljay
        December 20, 2017, 3:10 pm

        || yonah fredman: … Thus Jews who hold onto their names (first names I would say more than last names …), their dress … i would say, their food … i would say and their language … I would say. then those Jews … will survive their presence in the nations and still survive as a unit. … ||

        Well there you have it: A supremacist “Jewish State” is not required in order for people who choose to be Jews to be Jews, I would say.

      • Mooser
        December 20, 2017, 3:29 pm

        “The name Mooser does not strike me as particularly Jewish”

        Take an “o” out of it then, and shove it up your ass. Why in the hell would anybody give one lousy fuck who you think is Jewish enough? If my family was Jewish enough to die in pogroms and the Holocaust, leaving a small battered remnant in poverty on the shores of America, would that be “particularly Jewish” enough for you “Yonah”?

        Or is that not aidel gepochket enough for you, “yonah”? We can’t all be in an unbroken line of rich Chief Rabbis, you know. Shit happens.

      • Mooser
        December 20, 2017, 4:00 pm

        “orthodox jews keep shabbos. from sundown to sundown, they abjure from turning on and off electricity, and other actions that are considered “labor” by the talmud.”

        Okay, I give up, “yonah”, I was going to say that your idea of “resistance of (to) the assimilation movement” involved no sacrifice, but I can see I am very wrong.

      • Mooser
        December 20, 2017, 4:55 pm

        ” The subject of assimilationism is far too interesting and complex to be simplified by a superficial use of the term.”

        No it’s very simple. america assimilated the Jews not the other way round.
        All we have to do is look at who America didn’t assimilate, refused to assimilate, and how the US did it, to know that.

        But it’s always “Jews sui generis” for “yonah”.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 20, 2017, 7:06 pm

        Antizionist Jews and assimilationist Jews largely overlap

        if only! oy vey

      • echinococcus
        December 21, 2017, 4:08 pm

        I have often wondered is Jonas is truly nuts or if he’s striking a pose for propaganda sake.

        This last post clinches it: he is not pretending.

      • Mooser
        December 21, 2017, 6:49 pm

        “This last post clinches it: he is not pretending.”

        It occurred to me that “yonah’s” criteria for ‘resistance to assimilation’ are, first, every one of them external (involving clothes custom, ritual) and at the same time, trivial. (And in the case of that fanatical shabbos-keeping, consequential rather than trivial only in the tragedy they can cause.)

    • Maghlawatan
      December 20, 2017, 1:11 pm

      Evangelicals are nuts. So are Zionists

  13. Pippilin
    December 18, 2017, 2:15 pm

    I was born into as WASS(P)-y a world as possible. The second “S” is for Scandinavian; the “P” I removed myself during my college years. While the drawings in the cartoon are pretty grotesque, they only match the mentality of the beings represented. Absolutely no offense taken here.

  14. Mooser
    December 19, 2017, 10:21 pm

    ” Christians were the Other for my family; and we never differentiated among them.”

    That’s the way life was in the Manhattan shtetls of the 1950-60-70s.
    Be careful, tho. That doesn’t mean you can walk up to any of them and say “Write me a paycheck”.

  15. Nathan
    December 20, 2017, 10:48 am

    “….a lot of Jews are Zionists, and support a militant ETHNOCRATIC state…”

    It’s an interesting phenomenon. Sometimes, the anti-Israel line of argument maintains that the Jews are a religious community (and hence one doesn’t found a state for believers of a particular religion). Indeed, in the above article, “Jews” are almost always parallel to “Christians” (i.e. two religious communities). However, here in this above quote is another anti-Israel line of argument that maintains that the Jews are a people (and that apparently there is something wrong with having a state meant for a particular people).

    So, now, in an article that presents the Jews as a religious community, Philip Weiss reminds us that Israel is an ethnocracy. Let there be no misunderstanding: “ethnos” in Greek is a people (those who share a common descent). An ethnocracy is, therefore, a state that was founded for a particular people (ethnicity). In the above quote, we learn that many Jews support a state (i.e Israel) that was founded for a particular people (i.e. the Jews).

    There’s no understanding why anyone would complain about founding a state for a particular people. Many states of the world are political entities that were founded for a particular ethnicity. In Europe, the phenomenon is quite common (Finland, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Lithuania, Estonia, Portugal, and the list goes on and on). It’s called the “nation-state” (a state founded for a particular people). Anyway, it was interesting to see that Israel is a state of a particular people, and that eljay didn’t feel the need to protest and to remind us that Israel is a state of believers in the Jewish religion.

    And it’s true that Israel is a nation-state with a military. Most states have an army (I’ll spare the readers the list of examples), and all states that have a conflict actually use their armies (I’ll spare the readers the list of examples).

    • eljay
      December 20, 2017, 11:29 am

      || Nathan: … There’s no understanding why anyone would complain about founding a state for a particular people. … ||

      States should exists as secular and democratic representations of the people living in and up to n-generations removed from a geographic region.

      A Palestinian state of and for Palestinians make sense. An Israeli state primarily for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – IOW, a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – does not make sense.

      I understand why you – a Jewish supremacist (Zionist) – wouldn’t complain about the obvious difference.

      || … Anyway, it was interesting … that eljay didn’t feel the need to protest and to remind us that Israel is a state of believers in the Jewish religion. … ||

      Ask and ye shall receive.

      • eljay
        December 20, 2017, 1:04 pm

        || Nathan: … Anyway, it was interesting … that eljay didn’t feel the need to protest and to remind us that Israel is a state of believers in the Jewish religion. … ||

        || eljay: Ask and ye shall receive. ||

        Hmmm…well, not quite. I’ve never said that “Israel is a state of believers in the Jewish religion.” I’ve said that Jewish is a religion-based identity and that a “Jewish State” of Israel is primarily of and for people who have chosen to embrace that identity.

    • Maghlawatan
      December 20, 2017, 12:36 pm

      When the people are from somewhere else the founding of a state is objectionable.
      Traditional Israeli dancing is German FFS.

    • Mooser
      December 20, 2017, 12:40 pm

      “And it’s true that Israel is a nation-state with a military.”

      And, what is more, Israel has enough people to fill one good-sized city, or two fair-sized suburban areas! Who could beat such a colossus?

      • Maghlawatan
        December 20, 2017, 3:10 pm

        Israel is more like a military with a state attached.

    • Talkback
      December 20, 2017, 2:48 pm

      Nathan: “There’s no understanding why anyone would complain about founding a state for a particular people.”

      Sure. If the people become a constitutive people and extend their nationality to everyone who is either habitually residing in it or legaly immigrating. But Jews are not a constitutive people.

      So here we go again, Nathan, because you either don’t understand it or are simply in denial.

      This is what NORMALY happens since 1919:

      Kurds, Catalans, Scotts, Kosovarian or who ever strives or thinks about striving for independency holds a referendum to see if a simple or a 2/3 majority of those who are habitually resididing in the territory accept this territory to become independent.
      The Jews didn’t.

      When the new state is created in this territory everybody who is habitually residing in this territory will become ipso facto citizens of this state and part of its nation.
      Israel didn’t, but expelled most of its residents.

      Citizens of newly created states are equal. Everybody enjoys full equal rights that come with citizenship.
      That’s not the case in Israel which has a fake concept of citizenship. While all citizens theoretically enjoy THE SAME rights, only Jews actually enjoy FULL rights. That’s why Israel doesn’t consider “Israeli” to be the nation of Israel, but only Jews.

      So try making a case why any “people” in the post Nazi era of international and human right law should have a right to create a state without holding a referendum, without granting every habitually resident citizenship of the newly created state, without becoming a constitutive people and including everybody into this nation despite of faith and heritage and without explicitely granting every citizen full, equal rights. Try making a case why instead any people should have a right to create a state without asking its future citizens, without granting everybody citizenship and instead expelling them, by acquiring its territory through war and by making a racist artificial distinction between nationals and citizens to privilige the former.

      You will fail and you know it. So please stop making your ludicrous revisionist case for your Apartheid Junta. I hope you understand now why I call Israel this way. It is the most accurate historical description.

    • RoHa
      December 20, 2017, 10:26 pm

      Nathan, you have pathetically simple-minded ideas about the founding of European states. They were, in general, not formed by “peoples” deciding they wanted a state for themselves. They were often formed by kings and nobles bashing each other over the head with incredibly heavy swords, with the survivors then telling the people “you are now Xmen, and you’ll like it”. Sometimes the process was more peaceful.

      Sweden, for example, was formed, not by a single “people”, but by combining the lands of the Göter people (Eastern and Western) and the lands of the Svear people, and then adding other bits.

      If we take the very modern examples (say, Finland or Slovakia) we find, in general:

      the vast majority of the population of the territory were members of the “people” (Finns, Slovaks, …)
      and this had been the case for centuries
      the vast majority of the members of the “people” lived in the territory
      and this had been the case for centuries.

      Thus there was no need for immigration or ethnic cleansing to establish a majority.

      And, as Talkback notes, the general pattern was to give full citizenship rights to all the residents of the territory, regardless of whether or not they technically qualified as members of the “people”.

      None of this is true about Israel.

  16. Maghlawatan
    December 20, 2017, 2:43 pm

    Jewish anti Christianism is vile. It can be Googled under “Xtian”

Leave a Reply