Monday, 18 April 2016


I've argued that Jews are the leading anti-free speech force within our civilisation and it is their successful suppression of our freedom of discourse that prevents us speaking honestly about immigration and Mohammedan-related problems and thus finding solutions to them. This article in the Times of Israel by Britain's former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks illustrates the intense, mystical, almost pathological obsession with speech suppression that lies at the heart of Jewish culture. In it, I think we see the origins of the modern concepts of "hate speech", "racism", "antisemitism", "Islamophobia", etc. The free speaker becomes the outcast, the impure pariah to be shunned by all.
20 December 2013, a young woman, Justine Sacco, was waiting in Heathrow airport before boarding a flight to Africa. To while away the time she sent a Tweet in questionable taste about the hazards of catching AIDS. There was no immediate response, and she boarded the plane unaware of the storm that was about to break. Eleven hours later, on landing, she discovered that she had become an international cause célèbre. Her Tweet and responses to it had gone viral. Over the next 11 days she would be googled more than a million times. She was branded a racist and dismissed from her job. Overnight, she had become a pariah. The new social media have brought about a return to an ancient phenomenon, public shaming. 
Two recent books, Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, and Jennifer Jacquet’s Is Shame Necessary?,[2] have discussed it. Jacquet believes it is a good thing. It can be a way of getting public corporations to behave more responsibly, for example. Ronson highlights the dangers. It is one thing to be shamed by the community of which you are a part, quite another by a global network of strangers who know nothing about you or the context in which your act took place. That is more like a lynch mob than the pursuit of justice. 
Either way, this gives us a way of understanding the otherwise bewildering phenomenon of tzara’at, the condition dealt with at length in last week’s parsha and this. It has been variously translated as leprosy, skin disease, or scaly infection. Yet there are formidable problems in identifying it with any known disease. First, its symptoms do not correspond to Hansen’s disease, otherwise known as leprosy. Second, as described in the Torah it affects not only human beings but also the walls of houses, furniture and clothes. There is no known medical condition that has this property. Besides, the Torah is a book about holiness and right conduct. It is not a medical text. Even if it were, as David Zvi Hoffman points out in his commentary, the procedures to be carried out do not correspond to those that would be done if tzara’at were a contagious disease. Finally, tzara’at as described in the Torah is a condition that brings not sickness, but rather impurity, tumah. Health and purity are different things altogether. 
The sages decoded the mystery by relating our parsha to the instances in the Torah where someone was actually afflicted by tzara’at. One happened when Miriam spoke against her brother Moses (Num. 12:1-15). Another occurred when Moses at the burning bush said to God that the Israelites would not believe in him. His hand briefly turned “as leprous as snow” (Ex. 4:7). The sages regarded tzara’at as a punishment for lashon hara, evil speech, speaking negatively about or denigrating another person. This helped them explain why the symptoms of tzara’at – mold, discoloration — could affect walls, furniture, clothes and human skin. These were a sequence of warnings or punishments. First, God warned the offender by sending a sign of decay to the walls of his house. If the offender repented the condition stopped there. If he failed to do so, his furniture was affected, then his clothes and finally his skin. 
How are we to understand this? Why was “evil speech” regarded as so serious an offence that it took these strange phenomena to point to its existence? And why was it punished this way and not another? It was the anthropologist Ruth Benedict and her book about Japanese culture, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, that popularized a distinction between two kinds of society: guilt cultures and shame cultures. Ancient Greece, like Japan, was a shame culture. Judaism and the religions influenced by it (most obviously, Calvinism) were guilt cultures. The differences between them are substantial. In shame cultures, what matters is the judgment of others. Acting morally means conforming to public roles, rules and expectations. You do what other people expect you to do. You follow society’s conventions. If you fail to do so, society punishes you by subjecting you to shame, ridicule, disapproval, humiliation and ostracism. In guilt cultures what matters is not what other people think but what the voice of conscience tells you. Living morally means acting in accordance with internalized moral imperatives: “You shall” and “You shall not.” What matters is what you know to be right and wrong. 
People in shame cultures are other-directed. They care about how they appear in the eyes of others, or as we would say today, about their “image.” People in guilt cultures are inner-directed. They care about what they know about themselves in moments of absolute honesty. Even if your public image is undamaged, if you know you have done wrong, it will make you feel uneasy. You will wake up at night, troubled. “O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!” says Shakespeare’s Richard III. “My conscience hath a thousand several tongues / And every tongue brings in a several tale /And every tale condemns me for a villain.” Shame is public humiliation. Guilt is inner torment. 
The emergence of a guilt culture in Judaism flowed from its understanding of the relationship between God and humankind. In Judaism we are not actors on a stage with society as the audience and the judge. We can fool society; we cannot fool God. All pretense and pride, every mask and persona, the cosmetic cultivation of public image are irrelevant: “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16: 7). Shame cultures are collective and conformist. By contrast, Judaism, the archetypal guilt culture, emphasizes the individual and his or her relationship with God. What matters is not whether we conform to the culture of the age but whether we do what is good, just and right. 
This makes the law of tzara’at fascinating, because according to the sages’ interpretation, it constitutes one of the rare instances in the Torah of punishment by shame rather than guilt. The appearance of mold or discoloration on the walls of a house was a public signal of private wrongdoing. It was a way of saying to everyone who lived or visited there, “Bad things have been said in this place.” Little by little the signals came ever closer to the culprit, appearing next on his bed or chair, then on his clothes, then on his skin until eventually he found himself diagnosed as defiled: When a person has the mark of the defiling disease, his clothing must have a tear in it, he must go without a haircut, and he must cover his head down to his lips. ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ he must call out. As long as he has the mark, he shall remain unclean. Since he is unclean, he must remain alone, and his place shall be outside the camp. (Lev. 13: 45-46) 
These are quintessential expressions of shame. First is the stigma: the public marks of disgrace or dishonor (the torn clothes, unkempt hair, etc.). Then comes the ostracism: temporary exclusion from the normal affairs of society. These have nothing to do with illness and everything to do with social disapproval. This is what makes the law of tzara’at so hard to understand at first: it is one of the rare appearances of public shame in a non-shame, guilt-based culture. It happened, though, not because society had expressed its disapproval but because God was signalling that it should do so. 
Why specifically in the case of lashon hara, “evil speech”? Because speech is what holds society together. Anthropologists have argued that language evolved among humans precisely in order to strengthen the bonds between them so that they could co-operate in larger groupings than any other animal. What sustains co-operation is trust. This allows and encourages me to make sacrifices for the group, knowing that others can be relied on to do likewise. This is precisely why lashon hara is so destructive. It undermines trust. It makes people suspicious about one another. It weakens the bonds that hold the group together. If unchecked, lashon hara will destroy any group it attacks: a family, a team, a community, even a nation. Hence its uniquely malicious character: It uses the power of language to weaken the very thing language was brought into being to create, namely, the trust that sustains the social bond. 
That is why the punishment for lashon hara was to be temporarily excluded from society by public exposure (the signs that appear on walls, furniture, clothes and skin), stigmatization and shame (the torn clothes etc.) and ostracism (being forced to live outside the camp). It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to punish the malicious gossiper using the normal conventions of law, courts and the establishment of guilt. This can be done in the case of motzi shem ra, libel or slander, because these are all cases of making a false statement. Lashon hara is more subtle. It is done not by falsehood but by insinuation. There are many ways of harming a person’s reputation without actually telling a lie. Someone accused of lashon hara can easily say, “I didn’t say it, I didn’t mean it, and even if I did, I did not say anything that was untrue.” The best way of dealing with people who poison relationships without actually uttering falsehoods is by naming, shaming and shunning them. 
That, according to the sages, is what tzara’at miraculously did in ancient times. It no longer exists in the form described in the Torah. But the use of the Internet and social media as instruments of public shaming illustrates both the power and the danger of a culture of shame. Only rarely does the Torah invoke it, and in the case of the metzora only by an act of God, not society. Yet the moral of the metzora remains. Malicious gossip, lashon hara, undermines relationships, erodes the social bond, and damages trust. It deserves to be exposed and shamed. Never speak ill of others, and stay far from those who do.
Source

I'm not sure I agree with him about the validity or utility of the guilt culture/shame culture distinction or his description of Judaism as a guilt culture. It seems to me inherently collectivist and authoritarian in spirit, antithetical to European individualism. Most likely, he is simply projecting the norms of the society he has grown up in onto his own traditions, as Jews have done throughout the centuries, for example when they readily adopted the practice of slavery when living in Mohammedan societies (link).

But the characterisation of free speakers as an almost demonic, polluting force, complete with supernatural disease metaphors, makes clear the profound, irrational roots that speech suppression has in Judaic culture. And, unfortunately, this Middle-Eastern mind virus has now infected our entire civilisation.

6 comments:

  1. Great find, thanks.

    I think guilt culture is very appropriate, for even back in those days I doubt that they believed 100% in the existence of their god thus social mores and strictures were codified within the Torah/Talmud and any coincidental sign of corruption, eg the mould or skin conditions, could be easily interpreted as divine punishment (a physical manifestation that would shame people) for some arbitrary transgression.

    In the time of the Maccabees the Ancient Greeks openly mocked Judaism and especially circumcision causing many Jews to question their faith and convert, even going so far as to try and develop means of foreskin restoration (involving tying lead weights to their shaft in the hopes that the skin would elongate). This is primarily what lead to the Maccabee uprising, the Jewish priestly class felt threatened that Greek rationality, that people could be decent without the need for fear of divine retribution and thus without the need for a priestly class in the first place.

    It's this Greek (and Roman) rationalism and disbelief in gods that I personally think led to the implementation and spread of Christianity. It restored a priestly class but instead of wealth going to the priests descendants and they assuming the role as genetic priests for all time (cf the Cohens/Corens etc, which signifies their origins as priests) the childless, celibate priests instead left everything to the church which over the course of centuries accumulated massive wealth.

    Catholicism as you probably know is very guilt-ridden, everything is a sin. Protestantism is not much better.

    Thus, in Judaism they would have done anything to avoid being shamed and associated with God's enmity. It was control, not through the divine but through the base mortal realm, using cheap machiavellian tactics.

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was no such thing as celibacy for priests until the Catholic church decreed such to prevent property erosion 1000 years after Christ's sacrifice.

      "massive wealth"
      Subjective idiocy. Mansa Musa turned gold into lead by giving it away.

      Everything is sin. Protestantism abolished indulgences. I'll bet you fucking hate the idea that you can't buy your way out.

      I think you are one of those useless atheist faggots that is ignorant and part of the problem

      Delete
    2. Well I may be a useless faggot but I suppose it depends on how uselessness is measured. Given your abject lack of reading comprehension and complete inability to understand even my simplest points I would wager you're the useless faggot, you dumb cunt. It's 2016 and you're still defending kike inspired ideologies. Fuck you, race traitor cunt.

      Delete
  2. The Chief Rabbi is using Judaic deceit: it is not merely "gossip" which is characterised as being 'evil speech' but THE TRUTH itself IF that truth, by being spoken, is known not only within the closed community but is more widely known amongst non-Jews because it might reveal aspects of Judaic ideology, conduct, practices, etc which would be regarded as antithetical, antisocial or dangerous/threatening to the non-Jewish peoples hearing this 'lashon hara'. Remember that Christ Himself said of these people that they were hypocrites and that within their own 'holy city' (Jerusalem) they had killed their own prophets, those who spoke the (unpalatable) truth. Also, Deuteronomy contains the passage which calls upon the community (firstly, the family of the deviant) to kill anyone who seeks to lead the people to apostasy (this can only be done, obviously, by speech - 'lashon hara'), so the roots for societal disapproval are not merely cultural, but from their own texts. It is also from this that is derived the saying that "the sin of the father shall be visited upon the sons unto the seventh generation" because the evil speech may lead to rejection of God by the community.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Es un análisis interesante, pero yo voy más allá del asunto.

    En mi opinión, habría que distinguir ( de forma general ) la culpa, con ésto otro : el sentimiento de culpabilidad. El primero ( por la culpa o dolo ) se produce por unas leyes o normas que están asociadas a determinadas culturas para organizar mejor los delitos en la justicia. Y, el sentimiento unido a la culpabilidad aparece cuando el sujeto cree que ha hecho algo malo o perjudicial a otra persona, ser vivo o cosa. Pero, que dicho sentimiento va unido, en la mayoría de los casos a una duda, o desconocimiento de las leyes, e incluso a un asunto de ignorancia del sujeto. Y, es precisamente esa duda, la que articula la política, dando paso a supuestas minorías dentro de comunidades ( casi siempre comunidades occidentales o avanzadas en derecho antiguamente ) para aprovechar esos resortes y mecanismos que permiten a una minoría aprovechar los recursos que le brinda el poder de la comunidad con el factor de minoría asociada a la debilidad y fragilidad de lo que representa ( la minoría ).


    Entonces, el sentimiento de victimismo o victimista, es un recurso y herramienta muy propicia para tapar todo tipo de fines ( algunas veces esos fines o metas son malévolos, o negativos, para el resto de individuos que no pertenecen a esa minoría ) negocios, política, publicidad, etc. Y sólo puede conseguir alzar la voz alguien que dentro de esa minoría promocionada contradice o reafirma sus ideas en contra o a favor de algo u alguien.

    En resumen, el sentimiento victimista o de victimismo es un arma de las minorías, que ha sido implantado en suelo occidental desde antes de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y luego se ha apoderado de las mentes occidentales, naturalmente con la tergiversación de unos hechos determinados por encima de otros de igual importancia o mayores, pero al ser una minoría posee más credibilidad, por el mero hecho de ser una minoría dentro de una comunidad.

    En resumen, el victimismo o victimización de una minoría está íntimamente ligada a una defensa psicológica a futuro, para hacer ver que una minoría ( aunque sea la más criminal del mundo sus integrantes de la minoría ) determinada debe de ser protegida por encima de todo, incluso sus iguales seres humanos.

    Y, he aquí, un factor importante, que va asociado al poder, siendo los sentimientos, que solo puede ser explotado en las sociedades más avanzadas o desarrolladas como es el caso de la raza blanca y cultura occidental ( Cristianismo ). Pues el Cristianismo se basa en la piedad, el amor al prójimo, y la bondad, cosas que carecen otras minorías y etnias, además de religiones en todo el mundo. Y al final de todo, es un asunto de saber qué es lógico, cierto y probatorio para conseguir saber y entender si ese sentimiento de culpabilidad y su aspecto inverso victimización, tiene sentido lógico y de derecho. Si no fuere así, los que se permiten esos supuestos logros con malas intenciones ( hacer sentir culpable a alguien por algo que no ha sido demostrado ) son por de pronto :

    IGNORANTES.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting because the present-day use of the term 'anti-semitism' (first coined in the late 1870s by a German left-wing writer with the support of his wealthy Jewish wife) is often used with the statement that 'anti-semitism' is a 'virus' which spreads amongst non-Jews. This accords with the idea that those who speak 'evil speech' are visited with illnesses or signs of disease which would lead to their being rejected by the 'community.' All of which confirms that we are indeed being forced to live under Judaic superstitions, defensive practices on their part, and outright attack on our liberties and individual consciences. The more people who know this, the weaker becomes this control system.

    ReplyDelete