Sobran: My Obsession with Jews [for all who mistakenly think he is a valuable contributor]

Federal Observer ^ | maybe 10/30/03 | Joe Sobran

[streetpreacher]

Typical Traditional Catholic Anti-Semitism; is pre-Vatican II synonomous with Anti-Semitism?

[saradippity]

Why would you worry about that?

For the same reason I would worry if I learned that Ivy League and Seven Sister alums donated half the money received by the presidential candidates from each major party. Wouldn't that concern you?

[Honey West]

"They had, like, three G-dlets (Father, Son and Holy Ghost -- I kept thinking the Holy Ghost was Caspar). They worshiped a bunch of saints. Something was really amiss here."

Yeah, something was amiss. You. Catholics worship the one true God. I won't bother to explain the Trinity to one who dwells in the realm of Casper.

[streetpreacher]

How convenient... your "conversion" sounds about as nonchalant as deciding to have ice cream for supper instead of that "nasty broccoli". Man of real convictions, I see.

[Lazamataz]

How convenient... your "conversion" sounds about as nonchalant as deciding to have ice cream for supper instead of that "nasty broccoli". Man of real convictions, I see.

How dare you attempt to judge the dedication I have for my faith. If anything, it has grown greatly, especially lately.

You, on the other hand, are a weenie.

[Lazamataz]

Yeah, something was amiss. You. Catholics worship the one true God. I won't bother to explain the Trinity to one who dwells in the realm of Casper.

No prob. I had it all explained to me a million times. Never did make any sense to me.

So you go your religious way, and I'll go mine, and we'll both be happy. :o)

[Honey West]

I have no problem with your choice of worship. I do have a problem with the misrepresentation of my faith. To each his own.

Sobran seems anti-semitic to me. I don't give him a pass just because he writes well.

[SJackson]

I suspect the reason this article doesn't appear on google is that it's part of a monthly newsletter. It's not on Sobran's site with an independently searchable title.

[mrustow]

I look on Townhall.com, which has Reese, Sobran and Buchanan as columnists as well as a raft of neocons. Let's go to your names:

Robert Locke: Not there
Jim Kalb: Not there
Lawrence Auster: Not there
Matthew Alexander: Not there
Paul Gottfried: Not there
Serge [sic] Trifkovic: Not there

For all I know, you could have been listing your bridge club.

Now, I see Trifkovic and Gottfried have written books. Trifkovic wrote "The Sword of the Prophet," a scathing critique of Islam, and Gottfried wrote "After Liberalism: Mass Democracy In The Managerial State" and "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt". But it's impossible for me to evaluate whether either of these men is a paleocon, but it is quite clear that they are not movement-leaders of any kind.

Robert Locke is brilliant. Lawrence Auster is very important, but I have not read as much of his work as I would like. Back during the 90s, I read a lot of journalism from Trifkovic in Chronicles on the wars in the former Yugoslavia, but was unable to determine whose judgment of the war was right. Paul Gottfried is the leading theorist of paleo-conservatism. I am unfamiliar with Jim Kalb and Matthew Alexander.

Since Townhall.com is a mainstream Republican site, citing it as a criticism of Gottfried, et al., is ludicrous. Do a google search of each of the names in question, do your homework, and then you'll be able to make evaluations. It's very possible.

[veronica]

Lately he's taken to cavorting with Holocaust deniers. What a loser.

[safisoft]

I believe Sobran was the Vice-Presidential candidate on the 2000 Constitution Party ticket with Howard Phillips

Poor Sobran - he's so dense he didn't know he was on the ticket with a Jew? Just goes to show you, they're everywhere! (thank God).

[general_re]

Well, as I was sort of getting at, your spelling was fine, you just happened to grab the wrong words. S'okay - happens to the best of us. You should see some of my morning posts before I make it to the coffee machine ;)

[mrustow]

I suspect the reason this article doesn't appear on google is that it's part of a monthly newsletter. It's not on Sobran's site with an independently searchable title.

That makes sense. Is that similar to the situation with blogs and google?

[Torie]

Sobran seems comfortable with the thought of Israel being destroyed, with a great loss of life and a new Disapora, and really believes that Jews are the root of the ongoing secularization of America (albeit in its own unique still quite religious way), and a more laissez faire attitude about personal life styles. He also I suspects like Pat Buchanan does, the marginalization of influence of Catholics with a pre Vatican II mindset. From that, much else follows, at least for one with a mean spirited heart.

That's my take on Sobranism.

[Torie]

I already know my paleo/neo profile. :)

[Rushian]

Al, here are some plain words of Jesus from the Bible, Gospel of St. John, Chapter 6. They are further clarified at the Last Supper. For 1500 years Christians knew what they meant, but were told then that Jesus really didn't mean exactly what the words say. What do you think they say? Do you also find the saying hard?

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
[52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
[53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
[55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
[57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
[58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
[59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
[60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

[Torie]

The idea that if only Israel were destroyed, the Arab mentality would become house broken, and it would cease to be a matter of noisome concern to the West, has well, lost a bit of traction, in recent years, hasn't it? The really laughable thing is that with ongoing Jewish cultural assimilation, and reversion to the mean, that ethnic group is ever less distinctive from the American norm. These days, particularly with the generations still some way away from drawing social security checks, the main thing that makes Jews somewhat distinctive, is that they tend on more than the norm to be highly educated with developed intellects. This particular WASP enjoys and appreciates that.

[St.Chuck]

Ask any African-American you care to, even a conservative one, and I bet the answer you get back is "yes"

Then we must start qualifying our epithets then. Since we know that Rush likes and supports black conservatives, then we should call him a liberal black hater. Because Sobran admits his respect for orthodox Jews, then we might want to call him an anti-liberal-semite.

This thread has been an eye-opener. It might be indicative of how much secular liberal thinking has entered into the conservative movement.

You have the PC crowd protecting an entrenched idea. To pose questions or to even be critical of the idea is to draw cries of racist. Then we see a bit of Freudian analysis about the man's childhood and his relationship with a former boss, question his rationality by comparing him to a drug addict, even criticism of his appearance. Complete character assassination.

It's not difficult, by the reaction to him, to assume that he is striking a nerve here. There is an element that appears to want to censor him by completely discrediting him. The odd thing is that he is one of the most articulate defenders of our constitution. He is spot on in his critiques of the culture of death, the gay agenda, and the bankruptcy of liberalism, yet he is reviled by conservatives. It makes me wonder if there is not something true about neoconservatives not being conservative at all.

If given a choice between a candidate who said he'd outlaw abortion, stop all illegal immigration, actually eliminate the Dept. of Education, increase military spending, cut taxes with out increasing spending, reduce spending on all govt. programs, and end all aid to Israel and a choice of, say, Bill Clinton, who would double aid to Israel....well, one should wonder who the conservatives on this forum would choose.

[Torie]

If given a choice between a candidate who said he'd outlaw abortion, stop all illegal immigration, actually eliminate the Dept. of Education, increase military spending, cut taxes with out increasing spending, reduce spending on all govt. programs, and end all aid to Israel and a choice of, say, Bill Clinton, who would double aid to Israel....well, one should wonder who the conservatives on this forum would choose.

I have read previous examples of false dichotomies, but this one takes the cake. Meanwhile, Sobran, if taken seriously, which he is not, because he is a lightweight, would in my mind be exhibit "A" for the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism.

By the way, is Sobran an economic protectionist, both vis a vis imports, and propping up sunset domestic industries? Just curious, if he has swallowed whole the entirety of the paleo package.

[Positive]

"This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"

I was born, reared and educated Catholic (Sacred Heart School - 1-12), with devout until death Catholic parents.

Being a non-practioner for a few decades I don't remember these quotes from John Chapter 6. Having read them in your post tonight, I agree wholeheartedly with those deciples who thought the saying is hard. Actually it sounds kind of cannibalistic/paganistic.

As a strict constuctionist as far as the US Constitution goes, my main argument is that the authors knew what they meant by the words they wrote and wanted us to understand the meaning of their words. It would seem that the Lord Jesus Christ should be able to meet that same standard. So if your quotes of John's quotes translated through several languages are accurate, I'm disappointed.