Sign into an existing account

#BACKGROUND:

Helena disagrees with applying the label *Jew* across the board historically. E.g., she would disagree with you if you referred to ancient Israelites or Hebrews as Jews. She would also dispute referring to the Judeans under Roman rule and today's Ashkenazim as jointly Jewish.

On the one hand, there are some 'custodial' or 'house-keeping' truths to these complaints, as matters of fact about how words have been used throughout history. On the other hand, there is a practical consideration for the people of the world today who identify as enemies of the Jew so-called and *what that even means.*

I asked Helena if she thinks there is any meaning to the Jewish Question (JQ). That is, does it mean anything to say there is a Jewish problem. . .

She affirmed that we do have a Jewish problem.

Then, I asked whether theorizing about Jews, hence having the ability to concretely establish what that problem is, is hopeless (if we cannot identify the Jew in a way that bridges different historical contexts).

She said:

> No theorizing is not hopeless. I just think that older paradigms must be retired because we have new information (genetic, archeological, historical) which shows that we’re misidentifying actors. The fact that we see some similar behaviors in ancient Hebrews and modern Jews is not irrelevant. But its not because they are the same people or that their religion makes them act that way. It sort of does, but only through evolutionary pressures, not directly.

#My Response/Challenge:

The JQ pertains to an *asymmetry problem*. Specifically, to the relatively imbalanced role that Jews have in steering history after some point in time. The point we decide on doesn't have to be arbitrary. If you don't agree that the JQ applies to the fifth-century A.D., for example, then we can try to find some agreeable point in history after which the JQ makes sense to ask.

From whatever time we decide, until the present, the JQ doesn't make sense unless it makes sense of the category 'Jew' in a way that is continuous across that increment of time. Let Jews be 'J'. If in addition to J, we have K, L, and M who are the subjects of the question in that increment, then it doesn't make sense to say that we have a JQ. We would instead have a [J,K,L,M]-Question on our hands.

Therefore, if we have a JQ, then there is some fact or set of facts about the people in question that *grounds their continuity* (i) across the relevant period of time and (ii) from the perspective of non-J's.

Can you characterize what grounds that continuity? I mean in terms of *property-bearers*: what is it that is bearing the properties we think 'Jewishness' consists in?

Importantly, whatever these properties are, they are not *conceptually* genetic. I mean that the JQ is not formed by using the vocabulary of molecular genetics. Nobody throughout history has faced the Jewish problem and articulated the JQ in terms of genetic sequences. This is because the JQ occurs at the level of human groups and their interrelations geopolitically, financially, ethnically, and religiously.

Now, however you're going to answer, it can't be a *definite genome*. As you have said many times, there is plenty of genetic variation in the relevant people across the relevant time period.

Instead, let's say it's a *set* of genes, some functional group that evolution preserves. We will now face a problem of higher-order vagueness. There will be some people who don't count as our enemies who will have some (or a preponderance) of the genes in question. There will be some people who DO count as our enemies, yet lack some (or a preponderance) of the genes in question. But you've got the task of determining what genes constitute the bad set.

It's worse than that. In principle, someone could have the *full functional set of genes*, yet because of variability in the rest of their genetic makeup, it will be properly *indeterminate* whether they are an enemy or not.

To make such a determination would require a *complete* theory of the genetic causes of behavior, i.e., a one-to-one mapping of functional genetic units to behaviors. Now, you have voiced a clear commitment to realism and correspondence theories of truth (you care about what's real, independent of our attitudes). So, it's a problem that having such a theory may not even be coherent, because what can't be coherently theorized, even in principle, can't be real. But there are good reasons for thinking that there is no such theory: if there were, it would mean that we shouldn't bother talking about any of this --> depending on the genes each of us possesses, that determines what we're gonna do. If there are any behaviors, however, that can't be explained by being mapped to genes, then we won't be able to establish what the JQ is on a genetic basis (again, some people who aren't our enemies will fail, while some who are our enemies will pass).

The point is that the basis you want to use to make all of these distinctions has zero utility *for the problem you acknowledge is real*. So, I don't think your own worldview supports your ability to consistently articulate what the Jewish Problem even is.

But if you think there is such a problem, then there's a problem with your worldview. Probably, it has to do with how you're grounding the categories in genetics, rather than ideological systems. Granted, there is a very important and intricate relationship between genetics and ideological systems (e.g., I don't think it is any accident that Jews are attracted to the ideological system of Judaism to a degree that must have some genetic corollary). But I maintain that the ideological system and it's disproportionate link to certain ethnic histories is the only unifying explanation we have that can make sense of the JQ, and that has to be the basis for our ability to look at a perhaps 2,000-yr span of time and call genetically disparate groups 'Jews'. If we can't, then we can't articulate the problem, and we can't possibly respond in a meaningful way. @PostWallHelena

Complete your daily Wordle and share your results.

www.nytimes.com/games/wordle

Rules for Posting:

1. Thread titles should include the date and nothing else, like this: MM/DD/YY

2. Anyone can make the thread for a particular puzzle (the daily puzzle refreshes at 12 a.m.), but there should only be one thread created per day. Check before you post. Duplicates will be deleted.

3. Please include your Wordle grid in your comment.

4. If you don't want spoilers, don't click the active thread until you've completed the puzzle for that day.

5. It is dead simple to cheat at this game. We operate on an honor system. If you care enough to cheat, you're gay. If you note very unlikely patterns - e.g., the same account gets multiple puzzles right in one try - report the account. The associated account may be banned, not because we like banning, but because the owner of that account is gay. Don't be gay.

6. Use common sense:

# of Attempts:

1 = lucky as hell (.04% odds)

2 = excellent

3 = good

4 = average

5 = meh

6 = today you're retarded

[If it be love. . .tell me how much.](https://files.catbox.moe/ya8vsa.jpg)

[Can't be measured, I reckon.](https://files.catbox.moe/l5ki57.png)

First, imagine two distinct views of humankind (or two distinct *anthropologies*).

##View 1: You Already Hold Your Treasure In Your Hand

Humanity already possesses its highest value - it's 'treasure' - and moral failure consists in squandering the treasure you're born with.

##View 2: Universal Depravity -- You Need Salvation (in Another World)

Humanity begins in a fundamentally defective state, such that one's redemption demands the grace of some supernatural entity, to be meted out in the world to come (not here below).

View 1 is not egalitarian. We are not born equal. There is no guarantee that we end up in the same place when our time is up. Locally, your inheritance is from your parents. Globally, you inherit the treasure of your ancestors: historically, biologically, and culturally. Morality is local: your virtue is determined relative to what you preserve or squander of the treasure (metaphorically) you are handed.

View 2 is egalitarian. We are born equally in sin, which is now a global concept. This view is universalizing because God does not care about the distinctions we find relevant here below. Earthly factors do not matter; you are storing up treasures in heaven, or securing a place in hell, neither of which is determined on the basis of your fidelity to ancestry or history, but only to the savior God.

*View 1 and View 2 are incompatible.*

*Guess which view is Jewish? Neither.*

*Guess which view is Christian? View 2.*

Classical Judaism does not affirm an ontology of inherited moral ruin or metaphysical depravity. In the moral psychology of the Hebrew Bible and later rabbinic tradition, human beings are created good, in the image of God, and endowed with competing inclinations, i.e., the yetzer ha-tov and yetzer ha-ra. Moral failure is real, but it is episodic, not constitutive of human nature. Sin is something one does, not something one is born into. Repentance restores right relation with God without requiring post-mortem ontological repair, and the Law presupposes moral competence, rather than incompetence in need of divine assistance. One saves oneself by turning to God and repenting. Judaism therefore aligns more closely with View 1: humanity possesses genuine value from the start, even if it can be misused or betrayed. It is also parochial via its view of divine covenant. It is a religion for a particular ethnic group, so it is not egalitarian, at either the earthly or the next-worldly level.

##If View 2 is not Jewish, then where does it come from? How does this become the Christian view?

The answer is that it does not exist as a settled doctrine prior to Christianity, but it also does not simply arise from nothing. Instead, it emerges through a convergence of pressures that crystallize most decisively in Pauline Christianity. Second Temple apocalypticism contributes a heightened sense of cosmic conflict and paranoia, Hellenistic (Roman and Greek) philosophy contributes a vocabulary of inner division and weakness of will (a moral psychology of constant inner struggle), and Genesis (the Adamic concept) supplies symbolic raw material. But none of these entail inherited guilt, universal moral handicap, or the necessity of a redemptive savior God. Those features appear only when these elements are synthesized in a new explanatory framework.

That synthesis occurs in the theology of Paul, who makes three decisive moves. First, he universalizes sin as a condition rather than a pattern of acts, reinterpreting Adam as the metaphysical hinge of human history. Second, he declares the Law impotent in principle to produce righteousness, not merely difficult to fulfill. Third, he reverses the order of moral achievement by insisting that transformation by grace must come before obedience. Together, these moves yield the core of View 2: humanity does not merely squander an already-possessed good; it lacks what it needs until it is redeemed.

This is uniquely Christian.

##Why was this universalizing framework accepted, as opposed to the normal process of group identity formation through scapegoating other human groups?

The simpler conclusion would have been thinking that Jesus's claims were falsified by his death at the hands of Rome. But Jesus's execution resulted in an explanatory crisis for his followers. The Pauline interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus, which is distinct from any other apostle, transforms its meaning. He universalizes resurrection. Paul links this to Adamic sin, detaching it from Jewish nationalism, and turning it into a cosmic solution to a cosmic problem.

The meta-ethical necessity of death now resonates with our lived experience of moral weakness and guilt: Jesus had to die because of our depravity. It also enables the inclusion of gentiles by positing a universal human problem, and supplies a psychologically and socially cohesive message of grace, ready to be poured out to anyone. Later figures such as Augustine did not invent this framework but intensified and systematized it, turning Paul's innovation into a doctrine of inherited guilt and universal moral depravity.

If not for Paul, the belief in Jesus's resurrection would probably have remained a backwater sectarian Jewish conviction aimed at vindicating their (otherwise failed) messiah. *With Paul, it becomes the groundwork of View 2.*

##The Jewish Contribution that Makes Christianity Deadly

Jewish monolatry can be distinguished from Greco-Roman polytheism in terms of their disparate geopolitical situations. A diversity of Gods is possible when you are powerful. Exclusive worship of one deity reflects relative Jewish powerlessness and dependence; God as lawgiver makes the Jews into vassals, only with the promise that their God will eventually stamp out the gentiles. It also helps explain a unique property of Jewish religion that we do not see in the Greco-Roman world:

(i) normative authority is text-mediated
(ii) the presence of canonically bounded scripture treated as divinely authoritative
(iii) prophetic amendment and reinterpretation of 'legal' text as a religious act
(iv) the appeals to scripture as justification across institutions

This is not accidental. It's a result of the Jewish inability to establish empire, or monarchies that weren't impotent, or to keep lasting temples, or sovereignty generally. The scripture becomes a stable locus of divine presence and authority.

Contrast this with the Greco-Roman world: Homer does not function like the Torah; tragedy does not function like prophecy; and philosophy is not special revelation. Religion is civic, pluralistic, customary, and instrumental.

Jewish prophecy is permanently objectified into a canonical text that governs the history and norms of an entire people. . .*it establishes a chain from prophecy to canon to identity.* Nothing similar in Mediterranean world parallels this. It results in a particular sort of package: exclusive deity, morality as law, and collective identity.

Christianity inherits this aspect of Judaism.

##Thesis

Christianity, under the pressure of Jesus’ death and resurrection belief, reworks the Jewish package by introducing a new diagnosis of the human condition (View 2) that renders supernatural rescue necessary rather than optional assistance with a project we could plausibly undertake without help from the gods. The result is a religion that is Jewish in its scriptural logic and radically non-Jewish in terms of its cosmic universalization of the human condition in relation to God.

Christianity gives you the same identity-forming principles as Judaism, while discarding everything about Judaism that made it work well for the Jewish people. In other words, it gives you the same ossification of authority with none of the in-group benefits.

It results in adoption of View 2, rather than View 1. There is nothing to squander if you've inherited nothing of worth on this earth, and if the narrow object of your hope cannot be better or different than what is offered to every other person on earth.

This interview is a difficult watch. I find Milo difficult to watch. I find Carlson difficult to watch. I find the pair difficult to watch.

But without the slightest hesitation, I can tell you that, here, Milo is dropping more truth than you'll get in a semester with your favorite intellectual. It is unfortunate that it is the fruit of an awful experience and also that it comes packaged in a rather flamboyant and sort of spastic manner of talking.

But if you can get through it, his insight is profound, to a degree which, sadly, will be unappreciated for surface-level reasons. I'd say that I wished he could do this in a more sober and polished way, like an academic, but I think it comes out in the same way that the actual genius of many comics does: it requires brain power on your end, and not the least bit of patience.

Place the soap in the socks and swing relentlessly until the target is disappeared.

*You want me on that wall.*

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

cause when I hit those curves, I'm not stoppin.

Cuz I'd definitely shoot some kids in ya.