Joe Sobran has slipped away, dying at age sixty-four. What can one say? He was a polymath, a genius, and a sometimes brilliant writer of enormous speed and fluidity. And he drove himself nearly mad, embracing conspiracy theories and the crankiest of ways to reject consensus—from the authorship of Shakespeare’s works on down.
His life was filled with unhappy incidents, which may have been what pushed him to the battles he constantly forced on his friends, but he remained constant in his faith.
May he be taken home to God, where all those battles cease and every tear is wiped away.
October 1st, 2010 | 12:15 am
Highly appropriate and rightly charitable remarks. What a tragic story. One of the longtime greats in conservative publishing once told me Joe Sobran was just about the best writer with whom he’d ever worked. He lost all that to his increasingly heterodox views.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:12 am
What incredibly uncharitable comments, especially on a supposedly Catholic website. Sobran rejected the neoconservative warmongering of this magazine, and so he rejected “the consensus.” Your comments remind me of a Soviet era obituary: comrade Sobran was a worthy man but for his heterodox views regarding our great nation’s liberation of Afghanistan.
As for Joseph Sobran: you were a much greater man than most of your critics who abandoned conservatism and reason for political expediency and social climbing. RIP mon ami.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:51 am
William F. Buckley, rightly, let Sobran go, from his position at National Review. Sobran seemed to be flirting with antisemitism, and if so, deserved what he got, in terms of his ostricism, fro mainstream conservativism. Anti semitism, in any form, is completely unacceptable, and WFB did an admirable job, of purging conservativism, of this odious inclination.
Sobran was a man of great talents, and it’s sad that he’s gone.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:57 am
He lost everything because he decided to follow The Prince of Peace instead of the pied piper of pretend conservatism, William F(raud). Buckley.Think of all the pieces of silver he could have earned if not for his “increasingly heterodox views.” Not only that, but think about all the fancy cocktail parties he could have attended with Norman Podhoretz if only he pushed aside the words of Our Lord , and worshiped at the alter of the almighty state.What a shame.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:08 am
Sorry for the double post,there wasn’t enough space to finish my thoughts. As for “conspiracy theories and the crankiest of ways to reject consensus”, Sobran held the same beliefs on Shakespeare as such cranks as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplain, Antonin Scalia, Ralph Waldo Emerson, David McCullough, Sir George Greenwood, and many more.Now who would ever want to be mentioned in that kind of company?
October 1st, 2010 | 3:24 am
Tim: It doesn’t matter who held such cranky views, they’re still wrong. Respectfully, you’re engaging in the fallacy from authority, or some version. Just because reputable people believe something, does not necessary make it so. It depends on the evidence.
And speaking of evidence, there’s a plethora of evidence, that Shakespeare’s works, were written, by, none other than William Shakespeare. every argument, presented, for the works being wriiten by someone else, have been successfully refuted.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:37 am
Why would you only print half of my comment? I know the little play on WFB’s name was silly, but come on. Is it because I mentioned the “Prince of Peace” in a warmongering journal? You can only serve one master you know, God or the state. Which side are you on?
October 1st, 2010 | 3:50 am
How do you know they are all wrong Brett? With all of your typos I can’t see how you can be an expert on writing. Every argument has been successfully refuted you say? What do you base that on? Try Googling “Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare authorship”,the case is far from closed.I never stated my opinion on the subject, I was just saying that Sobran was in good company. “Fallacy from authority” doesn’t apply here.Except if we are talking about your second paragraph.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:25 am
A brilliant mind and social critic. His faults did include a failure to understand that respect for natural law, not the scale of government, is the chief concern of authentic conservatism. Thus, he wrongly identified the slave supporting Confederacy as more representative of conservative Christian values than the Union. But such misjudgments pale besides his incisive debunking of liberal sentimentality. Rest in peace brave warrior.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:28 am
“He was a polymath, a genius, and a sometimes brilliant writer of enormous speed and fluidity. And he drove himself nearly mad, embracing conspiracy theories and the crankiest of ways to reject consensus…”
It has always intrigued me that one can call a man a genius and then dismiss the conclusions of his genius as “mad” when one either doesn’t agree with or understand them.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:31 am
Sorry, Tim, but there’s no good evidence that Shakespeare was not the author, of the works attributed to him. In other words, every argument, presented, for an alterative author, has been successfully refuted.
Sobran was a good writer, but he also had a propensity, to believe irrational things, as evidenced by his endorsement of an alternative author.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:44 am
‘conspiracy theories’
Wow, straight out of the Zionist Journailles book on smear-mongering. You completely delegitamise yourself and everything you are likely to utter by your dismal, childish gutter sniping.
October 1st, 2010 | 7:30 am
It wasn’t his rejection of the wars that made him a crank. He was involved with Holocaust denial groups and his attitude was that the Nazis weren’t that bad, but their reputation had been unfairly damaged by Jewish machinations.
I met Joe because my husband was also from Ypsilanti and the two were friends and read many of the same books as they both became conservative. During the 1980s they reconnected and Joe came to our house several times. He was a very sweet guy and I liked him very much. He hadn’t gone down the Holocaust-denial path at that point and I didn’t see him after that.
October 1st, 2010 | 7:33 am
I want to add that before I ever met him I loved his writing. He was hired by Buckley at age 26, and his National Review pieces were wonderful. I remember especially a long, brilliant piece in NR in defense of tradition; I wish I could remember what it was called.
October 1st, 2010 | 8:16 am
Mr Bottum’s remarks are beneath contempt, but serve well as an example of lily-livered conformism at its worst. Consensus? Of Whom? I’ll take Sobran and his ilk any day over the consensus of the mediocre.
First Things is just Yellow Journalism in conservative drag. It will never be meaningful because it is based on an illusory center (another false consensus) rather than on the true Center, which is Christ.
October 1st, 2010 | 8:33 am
Beautiful tribute, Jody. May he rest in peace.
October 1st, 2010 | 10:15 am
if Joe hadn’t been a man of conviction and courage, writing about what he believed and why, he wouldn’t have small dogs nipping at his legacy.
He’ll be well remembered for such great lines as “The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”
Talking about taboo subjects with compelling arguments will also be part of Joe’s reputation. As a writer and thinker, that’s not a bad way to be remembered.
October 1st, 2010 | 10:36 am
I wish Joe were still here to debate folks like Bret, who states here in such conclusory terms that every argument regarding alternative authorship of the plays and sonnets has been refuted. I won’t repond to the conclusory with the conclusory. So let me suggest that if you want to remember Joe, read his book “Alias Shakespeare,” and see if you find yourself drawn into the fascinating world of the authorship controversy.
I can’t resist one more observaation. The question of whether it was William or Edward has split a body as familiar with “argument” as the Supreme Court of the United States. http://www.newser.com/story/56537/shakespeare-debate-splits-supreme-court.html
October 1st, 2010 | 10:38 am
I share the sentiments of those who are aghast at the blog post’s two-faced snipe.
Sobran was an intellectual warrior who followed the truth wherever it took him. Naturally, this meant a rejection of mainstream “values” conservativism and blindness towards war and naivety about the goodness of our soliders and military. For this he sacrificed fame and fortune. His essay on Murray Rothbard, the state and anarcho-capitalism is a classic that will endure well after First Things is gone.
Also, I challenge anyone to actually provide concrete proof of any supposed anti-semetic sentiment. Note that criticism of zionism or Isreal does not count to people who think. This is and always was an evil smear started by WFB and nothing more.
And to Edward Baker, to the extent there even exists an intellectually consistent “authentic conservativism,” I imagine Sobran’s rejoinder would be that it doesn’t so much want to uphold natural law (because natural law requires freedom of choice), but rather it would blindly impose perfect morality by force of arms, even “total war” as Lincoln did with General Grant’s Wilderness Campaign. This is where the South gets relative high ground, despite the obvious evil that is slavery (which, right up until the Civil War, many Northern states aided and abetted, and some even continued).
Total war and punishing every man for failing to be sinless may be “conservative”, but I wonder what Augustine or Aquinas wrote about such things? (hint: not what First Things would write)
We live in a decivilized age brought down by democracy and the State. Sobran’s legacy will be part of the absolutely essential lighthouse to guide those who will eventually have to pick up the pieces.
October 1st, 2010 | 10:44 am
First of all: “I remember especially a long, brilliant piece in NR in defense of tradition; I wish I could remember what it was called.”
It was titled “Pensees,” and I still today refer to it as the pre-eminent manifesto of conservatism.
Secondly: Mr. Sobran also wrote the best pro-life book I’ve ever read, a collection of essays called “Single Issues.” It is still relatively easy to find in used-book stores.
Thirdly: Thank you, Joseph Bottum, for your kind and well-chosen words regarding Mr. Sobran. I was so saddened by his somewhat abrupt veering into anti-Semitism. He was one of the most brilliant writers (along with Richard John Neuhaus, I might add) I have ever encountered. As Buckley put it, if only he would have ended the obsession with Israel.
Fourthly: Ignore the granola. (A mixed collection of fruits, flakes, and nuts.)
October 1st, 2010 | 10:52 am
Little did I know that I was reading a ‘war mongering’ journal/blog. Thanks to some of the posts here I have now seen the light, and I will no longer read this blog or attend Norman Podhoretz’s fancy cocktail parties.
October 1st, 2010 | 10:54 am
Interesting comments. Sad day. R Brookhiser had good narrative on Sobran’s departure from NR.
Sobran’s flirtation with the wackos may have been the desperation of a religious man feeling left without a home. I tend to think his reckless leanings were driven by a tremendous anxiety and his perception of the Church adrift.
We are now blessed with a Holy Father seeking reconciliation with traditionalists and regaining and reinvigorating the Holy Liturgy.
Had the Summorum Pontificum been issued in 1975, Joe Sobran may have died yesterday as editor in chief at NR.
October 1st, 2010 | 11:54 am
Thanks, Craig Payne, Pensees it was. I have found it here — http://www.wildwestcycle.com/f_pensees.htm — in rather unreadable form. However, it can be copied into a document and reformatted, and I will do that and reread it. I saved that issue of NR for many years, but it’s now disappeared into the morass of my basement.
October 1st, 2010 | 12:31 pm
To Perry Mason:
The proof of anti-semitism is in the accusation itself. No further proof is needed.
October 1st, 2010 | 12:44 pm
“I share the sentiments of those who are aghast at the blog post’s two-faced snipe.”
But hanging with Holocaust deniers, that does not leave you “aghast”?
I loved Joe Sobran’s writing, especially his wonderful collection of essays, “Single Issues.” But, sadly, he jumped the shark, and I could not read him anymore.
October 1st, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Okay, regarding the proof of anti-semitism: Look, I’m 51. Joe Sobran was always my favorite writer at NR; his column was also published in my hometown newspaper. What I am saying is that I’ve read him A LOT and for A LONG TIME. If you want specific dates and columns for anti-semitic arguments and remarks–sorry, I don’t have them.
But I do still have a pretty good memory of the overall arc of his writing. And yes, my favorite political / cultural writer did turn anti-semitic, and his column was dropped from the local paper, and he was dropped from NR, and I eventually stopped following his writing.
Sorry, but it happened.
Dear Dr. Beckwith: When I referred to “Single Issues” as the best pro-life book I had ever read, I meant to add, of course, “along with Defending Life.’”
October 1st, 2010 | 1:22 pm
I read NR when I lived in the US in the early 1980s. Joe Sobran was one of my favourite writers. I remember a beautiful syndicated column he wrote when King Lear was on TV.
Then I went back to the UK. When the web came, after 1995, I thought I’d look him up, and by websearching (pregoogle), I just found articles with references to ‘jack-booted Israeli soldiers.’ Something had gone wrong. May he rest in peace.
October 1st, 2010 | 1:26 pm
This “Christian” website is selective in the comments it publishes. Someone said above ‘but hanging with Holocaust deniers, that does not leave you “aghast”’. It does not leave me aghast.
I am more aghast at a country that murders 1,400 Palestinians in cold blood and that my own country supplies them the weapons to murder and then looks the other way. By comparison, so called “holocaust deniers” haven’t killed anyone.
I’m also aghast at a country that has instituted Nuremberg type laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Who? What? Just type in “arab raped jew” on the internet. BBC, Haaretz and many other media outlets report how Israel arrested an Arab man and charged him with rape when the woman he had consensual sex with reported him for telling her he was Jewish. Not that it should make any difference (he should be able to lie and say he’s from Pluto and it should be irrelevant to the law), but he denies that he told her he was Jewish.
October 1st, 2010 | 1:31 pm
He was a talented stylist, 2d to none among those who make their living in the realm of topical commentary. He could, at times, ably dissect a statement or an argument in a way that would never have occured to you. He was quite insightful, but commonly in those circumstances where the affairs of public life could be addressed and discussed as one might a literary work; that is not usually the case. There are many odd treasures in his writings.
He was also, unfortunately, one of those men who grow odder and odder as they grow older. He did not traffick in Holocaust denial; he most certainly did write public character references for Mark Weber, the principle purveyor of Holocaust denial in the English-speaking world after David Irving. Toward the end of his life he was offering, in all seriousness, an anarchist diagnosis of the problems of political life. The odd treasures came to be surrounded by great mounds of refuse.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:03 pm
>>But, sadly, he jumped the shark, and I could not read him anymore.
Yes yes, Frances. You could not read him any more–which says a whole lot about you and even more about Joe. He would defer to no man in the pursuit of God’s Truth.
Within twenty-four hours, both National Review and First Things put up snarky notices of Joe’s death. Of course, in doing so they’re in lockstep with their founders who, to their lasting shame, did the same to Joe years ago. The real issue with both NR and FT has always been who would and wouldn’t shut up about Israel because of their greed for Jewish money. As Joe reported concerning his conversation with Buckley just prior to Buckley firing him (by fax), Buckley tried to dissuade Joe from writing critically of anything Israel does. Then, seeing he wasn’t getting anywhere, he brought out the big guns pleading with Joe in words something like this: “Joe, we need these people.”
So seeing neither the honorable Joe Sobran nor the honorable Pat Buchanan were going to tip their hat to the Neocons, Bill used NR to throw them both under the bus, charging them ever so delicately with anti-Semitism. And Neuhaus joined many others in being obedient to the slander.
It was a shameful moment in the history of men of courage battling for truth and justice. But despite my charter subscription to First Things and thirty-year admiration of Neuhaus, I never read FT with the same trust–and I never read NR at all.
Frances, what you and others have written here is shameful. Like my father and Schaeffer and Lloyd-Jones and many other men of faith before them, Joe refused to bow the knee to Baal. And Tridentine Roman Catholic that he was, this Calvinist loved him dearly. Sobran believed in conspiracy theories? Bunk and double bunk.
May God have mercy on us all, and may He raise up another man like Joe, fearless in his commitment to the unborn, to justice, to truth, and to our Lord Jesus Christ.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:05 pm
I also remember the early writings of Sobran. They were brilliant. I thought JB’s notice of his passing was kindly, charitable, and as delicately put as it was possible to make it while remaining within the bounds of honesty. That it should evoke such vitriol from some of his admirers who are posting here is remarkable. What JB had the delicacy not to say, these folk are making all too plain.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:13 pm
Tim Bayly so seeing neither the honorable Joe Sobran nor the honorable Pat Buchanan were going to tip their hat to the Neocons, Bill used NR to throw them both under the bus, charging them ever so delicately with anti-Semitism. And Neuhaus joined many others in being obedient to the slander. . . Sobran believed in conspiracy theories? Bunk and double bunk.
I’ve always respected you, even when I disagreed with your positions. But as a fellow Calvinist I’m shocked and appalled that you would defend a man who apologized and made excuses for holocaust deniers.
Perhaps you were unaware of Sobran’s views, in which case your comment is merely uninformed. But if you did know about them and still defended him than you have acted despicably.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:30 pm
>>But if you did know about them and still defended him then you have acted despicably.
Dear Joe,
I’ve read all Sobran wrote. Not every man has things he’s written that men who love him should back into the tent and cover with a blanket. Some men never stand at all and so never stand wrong. Like many evangelicals, it took years for my father to oppose abortion, publicly. Were those who mourned his death and commended his writing “acting despicably?”
Not at all, dear brother.
I’ve learned much more from Doug Wilson and Lloyd-Jones and Sobran than I’ve learned from Reformed luminaries who all men speak well of.
In Christ,
October 1st, 2010 | 2:34 pm
I never heard of Joseph Sobran before today. I’m not very conservative and excuse me, but I’m not very Christian either, despite being brought up as one during my childhood.
But I just read Joe Carter’s long quote of Sobran (2:13 pm) and I’m becoming an admirer of Sobran fast.
I do disagree with one point. I would ecncourage everyone to become a “holocaust denier”, particularly in Europe where they put you in jail for this thought crime. Only when these laws from the middle ages are abolished, will historians be able to research without worry about being arrested for saying the wrong thing.
October 1st, 2010 | 2:47 pm
Tim I’ve read all Sobran wrote. Not every man has things he’s written that men who love him should back into the tent and cover with a blanket.
If you are aware of his writing on the subject of holocaust denial, then why do you so vehemently condemn those who look askance at his trafficking in that conspiracy theory?
I don’t believe that you are in any way, shape, or form sympathetic to holocaust denialism. That is why I’m flummoxed by your defense. It’s not like people are saying something about Sobran that isn’t true.
Like many evangelicals, it took years for my father to oppose abortion, publicly. Were those who mourned his death and commended his writing “acting despicably?
Do you really think that is an apt analogy? Was your father’s unwillingness to publicly oppose abortion really equivalent to publicly endorsing the position that holocaust denialism is legitimate (though something you probably shouldn’t admit to believing since it can ruin your travel plans)?
I’m not saying you needed to condemn Sobran or that it was necessary for you to point out his disreputable views. But it is beneath you to attack others for merely speaking the truth. Most people (like Bottum) have been rather temperate in their remarks considering that Sobran was a brilliant man who used his gifts to apologize for evil.
I’ve learned much more from Doug Wilson and Lloyd-Jones and Sobran than I’ve learned from Reformed luminaries who all men speak well of.
As a fan of Wilson and Lloyd-Jones I can’t imagine how you could put them in the same category as Sobran. Those are men of courage, while Sobran tempted to be a coward who didn’t want to be held responsible for the views he expressed or held but refused to admit for fear of the repercussions.
October 1st, 2010 | 3:15 pm
>>only people critical of Jewish interests are accused of thought-crimes in today’s mainstream press.
That was Sobran’s point. I remember this and the other articles in this series well. The context for what Sobran wrote was pointing out the limits of debate when governments were prepared to do history by threat of prison. But Buckley repudiated Sobran for criticizing Israel’s foreign policy–that was the issue back then.
So in this small excerpt of a very large discusssion, Joe was pointing out the limits of debate when what was under discussion was anything that would make some Jews angry–and this for fear of loss of Jewish money or being smeared by Buckley or the ADL or being imprisoned. Without understanding that context, no one can understand the quote you posted above.
As for the analogy between refusing to oppose the Holocaust of the unborn under the US government or the Holocaust of Christians and the handicapped and Jews under the Third Reich, I think it’s quite helpful, actually.
I’ll let you have the last word, brother.
Warmly in Christ,
October 1st, 2010 | 3:38 pm
Joe Sobran was criticizing far more than Israel’s foreign policy when he referred to jackbooted Israeli soldiers. If that attitude, though expressed in those words later, was a sign of his beliefs while he was still at National Review, then he was dishonest to say that he was fired for simply criticizing Israel’s foreign policy. If it was a view he developed afterwards, then Buckley was prescient. And if it was a view he developed as a reaction to being fired, then was his much-cited devotion to truth wherever it may lead actually just a product of his resentment?
October 1st, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Actually, the quote posted is fairly tame, considering some others available. Why doesn’t everyone just go Google Joseph Sobran, look up a few quotes and associations, and then we can discuss whether or not he was anti-semitic?
It makes my heart heavy to write this. You know, he really was a brilliant writer and conservative thinker. R.I.P.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:02 pm
That it should evoke such vitriol from some of his admirers who are posting here is remarkable. What JB had the delicacy not to say, these folk are making all too plain.
Absolutely right, Steve.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:14 pm
“Of course I’m also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen.” Sobran’s disdain for rational thought and historical evidence was positively chilling. The denial of of evil in the world has led to a moral vacuum, the very thing Sobran was allegedly opposed to….
“Just as only people on the Axis side were accused of war crimes after World War II, only people critical of Jewish interests are accused of thought-crimes in today’s mainstream press.” This is moral equivalency at its worst, and unworthy of anyone who was allegedly a serious thinker….
October 1st, 2010 | 4:48 pm
From Sobran’s essay, “Fear of Jews,” found on his website: http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml
In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. Their tendencies, especially in modern times, have been radical and nihilistic. One thinks of Marx, Freud, and many other shapers of modern thought and authors of reductionist ideologies. Even Einstein, the greatest of Jewish scientists, was, unlike Sir Isaac Newton, no mere contemplator of nature’s laws; he helped inspire the development of nuclear weapons and consistently defended the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Jews have generally supported Communism, socialism, liberalism, and secularism; the agenda of major Jewish groups is the de-Christianization of America, using a debased interpretation of the “living Constitution” as their instrument. When the Jewish side of an issue is too unpopular to prevail democratically, the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make the issue a “constitutional” one, appealing to judicial sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters. Overwhelming Jewish support for legal abortion illustrates that many Jews hate Christian morality more than they revere Jewish tradition itself. This fanatical antagonism causes anguish to a number of religious, conscientious, and far-sighted Jews, but they, alas, are outside the Jewish mainstream…
History is replete with the lesson that a country in which the Jews get the upper hand is in danger. Such was the experience of Europe during Jewish-led Communist revolutions in Russia, Hungary, Romania, and Germany after World War I. Christians knew that Communism — often called “Jewish Bolshevism” — would bring awful persecution with the ultimate goal of the annihilation of Christianity. While the atheistic Soviet regime made war on Christians, murdering tens of thousands of Orthodox priests, it also showed its true colors by making anti-Semitism a capital crime. Countless Jews around the world remained pro-Communist even after Stalin had purged most Jews from positions of power in the Soviet Union.
May God have mercy on Mr. Sobran’s soul.
October 1st, 2010 | 4:57 pm
Quoting Sobran, “Just as only people on the Axis side were accused of war crimes after World War II, only people critical of Jewish interests are accused of thought-crimes in today’s mainstream press.”, this is supposedly moral equivalency at its worst.
Moral equivalence is a term used to assert that a moral hierarchy can be assessed on two sides in a conflict. In other words, two things can’t be compared because one is much more evil than the other.
I’m wondering what is more evil, only accusing people from the Axis side of war crimes after World War II or only accusing people critical of Jewish interests of thought-crimes. I find both distasteful – thought crimes no matter who is accused of it.
October 1st, 2010 | 5:06 pm
Many anti-semites sincerely believe they are not anti-semites. They think that antisemitism must involve actual hatred of persons. But an obsession with Jews and a belief that they act collectively as a powerful and insidious force is also a species of antisemitism. Many anti-semites, from what I’ve seen, love to engage in hair-splitting dialectic to prove that they are not such. The pattern seems quite common: they argue that since they have no ill-will or hatred toward any person (and are indeed forbidden to by their Christian religion) they cannot possibly be anti-semites. Then they go on to argue that the very fact that people such as themselves (who are merely complaining about Israel, or about “Jewish influence”, or whatever) are accused of antisemitism is itself evidence of nefarious Jewish influence. So are they sucked ever deeper into the vortex of quibbling and nonsense from which, apparently, there is no escape.
The excerpt that Joe Carter quoted (in which Sobran professed agnosticism about the Holocaust) is the work of someone who has let an irrational obsession destroy what was once a fine mind. To see how truly stupid that article of Sobran’s is, consider if he had expressed a similar agnosticism about other hoary anti-semitic fantasies. What if he’d said that he didn’t actually claim that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood to make matsohs, but then again he could not say that they don’t, because, after all, he hadn’t done the necessary historical research? What if he’d said that he didn’t actually claim that Jews have horns and a tail, but, then again, he couldn’t deny it either, not having the relevant scientific expertise? I am sure that Sobran thought that piece of writing was terribly clever and showed how careful he was with facts and truth; but to anyone with an ounce of sense it was a specimen of utter foolishness.
Normally, one would want to say such harsh things about a man who has just died. But one cannot go along with the attempts to whitewash him. It would be better for Sobran’s memory, if we didn’t speak about certain things. But if they are to be spoken of — and it is his defenders who want to paint him as the innocent victim of “Zionists”, “neo-conservatives”, and “Jewish money” — then we have to speak truthfully.
He is a man who squandered great gifts on nonsense and worse than nonsense. “Corruptio optimi pessima”.
October 1st, 2010 | 5:23 pm
Steve Barr is spot on here. The fact that Sobran would consider the reality and scope of the Holocaust an open question means that the man was truly mad.
BTW, the comments from Sobran that I quoted above (in entry 4:48 pm) were intended to show the man’s anti-Semitism. In fact, providentially, they demonstrate Steve Barr’s point rather nicely.
October 1st, 2010 | 5:27 pm
“May God have mercy on Mr. Sobran’s soul”. May God have mercy on the hypocrites soul.
As Sobran said “only people critical of Jewish interests are accused of thought-crimes”.
Far worse things have been said about other groups, repeated by every media outlet in the country. Just look how every German from infant to the elderly has his or her nose rubbed into the dirt every day without even a second thought about.
They used to say “they’re all NAZIS”, “they all knew what was going on”, but those words were spoken about Germans so thats alright. But don’t say Jews played a major role in communism, you can’t say that.
October 1st, 2010 | 5:29 pm
William Shakespeare . . . or the Earl of Oxford? Until this morning, when I went to the library and quickly skimmed Sobran’s book on that subject, I was entirely ignorant of the whole matter. I was surprised to discover prima facie evidence for Sobran’s revisionist account–William Shakespeare’s will, which Sobran accurately calls the will of a near illiterate. It opens with the words, “In the name of God, Amen!” Notice the capital A and the exclamation mark and the entire phrase–does it sound like a great writer, not overtly and piously Christian, who purported to be of sound mind and was writing his one and only publicly authenticated document? Any doubts on that score are put to rest by the signoff: “By me William Shakespeare.” “By me”!!!! If this isn’t prima facie evidence for the Sobran thesis, I don’t know what is. Unless this is somehow explained, a reasonable person is entitled to think the author of Hamlet and other great works was not the aforesaid William Shakespeare.
As for Sobran’s alleged anti-semitism, I don’t know what was in his heart. But he wrote a long response to WFB’s famous “J’accuse,” which Buckley kindly reprinted in one of his books. Read it before leaping to any wild conclusions about Sobran’s having “jumped the shark.”
October 1st, 2010 | 5:30 pm
Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat ei
Requiescat in pace
October 1st, 2010 | 5:52 pm
All the talk about anti-semitism by all the mimics who just repeat what someone else said is not an accident.
From Norman Finkelstein, author of international bestselling books such as “The Holocaust Industry” and the son of Polish Jews.
“The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a “victim” state, and the most successful ethnic group in the US has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified”.
Some of Finkelstein’s books have sold as bestsellers in Europe, but he is barely mentioned in the USA. A Jew, with unmatched support by his students, he was denied tenure by Depaul University and fired from his position for criticizing Israel. That was 2 or 3 years ago. No other teacher on the schools staff came close to what he achieved as an author and instructor.
October 1st, 2010 | 6:10 pm
Some of Finkelstein’s books have sold as bestsellers in Europe
There is no accounting for taste.
October 1st, 2010 | 6:20 pm
>>someone who has let an irrational obsession destroy what was once a fine mind…
Yeah yeah yeah… Well, as they say, no ever went bankrupt underestimating the average courage of men who consider themselves intellectuals.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
October 1st, 2010 | 6:28 pm
Dear Peter,
This is a religious website. You, by your own statement, are not religious. Nor are you apparently interested in debating religious questions or discussing issues from a religious perspective. It seems you are simply here to vent your hostility to Jews. Since you are obviously not familiar with First Things, you ought to know that neither the magazine nor its readers have any sympathy with such tripe. Indeed, your ideas are the antithesis of everything First Things stands for.
October 1st, 2010 | 6:44 pm
Dear Stephen,
There is no hostility towards Jews from me, but its clear that you are one who comes from the corner that says you can’t criticize Israel or Jewish interests (unless that Jew is someone who himself criticizes Israel or Jewish organizations).
Perhaps some are fed up with your tripe and since this forum is open, I suggest you keep your snide and insulting remarks to yourself.
October 1st, 2010 | 7:03 pm
To Tim Bayly,
Is courage the issue? You suppose that many intelligent conservative agree with you, but simply lack the courage to say so? You flatter yourself.
The devotees of antisemitism and crackpot conspiracy theories are generally speaking “losers”, as the term is used colloquially. It requires no “courage” for a loser to say foolish things, because a loser, by definition, has nothing to lose in the way of reputation, credibility, scholarly standing, or social influence. In fact, being a crackpot even gives them an excuse for being a loser — “I would have amounted to something if I hadn’t been persecuted for my bold ideas.”
The sad thing about Sobran is that he wasn’t a loser, but a highly gifted man. And yet he chose to make his intellectual habitation with losers, crackpots, flakes, and nonentities. He actually did have something to lose, and he chose to lose it. In Sobran’s case, then, yes, there was something resembling courage, I suppose — a more precise term would be “shamelessness”. The morally courageous person is not afraid to endure the censure of others, and neither is the shameless person. But there the resemblance ends: moral courage is a virtue while shamelessness is a vice.
October 1st, 2010 | 7:44 pm
Dear Peter,
Though my opinion of you and your ideas is low indeed, the purpose of the comment I addressed to you was not to insult, but to inform. Since many other visitors may be reading this who are, like you, unfamiliar with this website and the magazine First Things, I think it important to make clear that the Jew-baiting is coming from people who are interlopers with no affinity or association with First Things. Those of us who write for First Things, or subscribe to it, or customarily read it or this website, have no truck with antisemitism. Not only that, but the magazine is fundamentally sympathetic to Israel.
(And anyway, why on an “open site” should I keep my opinions to myself? The logic escapes me. )
October 1st, 2010 | 7:52 pm
Sounds to me like Sobran was a truth-teller, as in the old saying “Tell the truth, an run!” And Stephen Barr: You’re right about Bottum’s “delicacy”, but I don’t trust a man who won’t speak his mind plainly. Of course, once the pot is all stirred up, I’m sure Bottum appreciates the fact that his faithful defenders have rushed to his aid.
October 1st, 2010 | 8:23 pm
Dear Stephen,
The insults and slurs you use when you call someone an anti-semite and jew-baiter won’t shut people up any more. Too many Palestinians and other Arabs have been murdered and history isn’t owned by anyone, so even if you or others don’t like it, criticism of Israel and Jewish organizations will continue when people feel its warranted. People have seen how the “anti-semitism” weapon has been wielded to excuse Israeli war crimes, prevent criticism of anything Jewish (Jewish organizations like AIPAC, etc.) and empower murderers. People have seen how that same weapon has been used to make the USA supporters of war criminals.
And if this magazine is fundamentally sympathetic to Israel thats all the more reason for people who don’t share that opinion to be here since that point of view is discredited in a growing number of Americans view, including the Christian and former President of the USA, Jimmy Carter who wrote about Israeli injustice and racism in “Palestine Peace not Apartheid”, a New York Times bestseller.
I didn’t suggest you keep your opinion to yourself. That is what you did. I suggest you keep your insults to yourself, because when a discussion falls to that level it loses its value. Apparently that is the only kind of discussion you’re capable of having.
Also, I haven’t seen your name mentioned anywhere on this website as spokesperson to put forth its views.
October 1st, 2010 | 8:57 pm
>>You suppose that many intelligent conservative agree with you, but simply lack the courage to say so? You flatter yourself.
Yes, it’s often true. Worse, I laugh at my own jokes and my wife responds, “You just crack yourself up, don’t you?”
But the rest of it, no. I’ve watched intelligent conservatives distance themselves from Joe for many years, now, and don’t delude myself that any of them agree with him. Fear of their peers’ disapproval leads men to conform. And conformism soon rewards us with the absence of doubt that union with the masses produces in a democratic society. The Children of Israel really did want, all of them, to go back to Egypt. They didn’t just say it to fit in.
Joe was a brilliant crackpot may he rest in peace. Joe was a holocaust-denier God have mercy on his soul. Joe was fired by Bill what more is there to say. Bill generalized about the Jews–negatively, if you can believe it! I mean, what was the dude thinking? We’ve all decided any man who generalizes about the Jews is an Enemy of the People. Didn’t Bill get the memo?
The cowardice of self-styled intellectuals to which I was referring is that cowardice Joe often warned against, quoting Charles Peguy: “We shall never know how many acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of seeming not sufficiently progressive.”
When men work themselves into high dudgeon opposing evils the world is unanimous in opposing–things such as sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, stereotypes, generalizations, assaults on abortuaries, and racism–I’m fond of quoting the Apostle writing this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
“One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth” (Titus 1:12-16).
But then the Apostle Paul died alone, a solitary crackpot abandoned by those who knew deep down in their hearts that he was anti-Cretan.
October 1st, 2010 | 10:06 pm
>>Bill generalized about the Jews–negatively, if you can believe it! I mean, what was the dude thinking? We’ve all decided any man who generalizes about the Jews is an Enemy of the People. Didn’t Bill get the memo?
Sorry. Should have been “Joe generalized” and “Didn’t Joe get the memo?”
And something else: I viewed Joe’s turn to libertarianism-bordering-on-anarchy as the despair of a tired man And for myself, beside the Roman Catholic heresy, it seemed to me his most serious error. So my love wasn’t, and isn’t, blind.
In Christ,
October 1st, 2010 | 10:19 pm
The cowardice of self-styled intellectuals to which I was referring is that cowardice Joe often warned against, quoting Charles Peguy: “We shall never know how many acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of seeming not sufficiently progressive.”
Nobody is motivated by that in their critiques of his later writing. What he had to say was stupid and episodically malicious.
October 1st, 2010 | 11:16 pm
I wonder how the people on this site feel about Mel Gibson. The action flick actor made his first film as a director with real depth in 2004. “The Passion of the Christ” received very good reviews and many people liked it a lot – except for some Jews. The head of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, called Gibson an ant-semite before the movie even came out and all the press covered it. Frank Rich, writer for the New York Times wrote an article attacking Gibson and calling him an anti-semite. Gibson had done nothing up to this point, but he refused to bend and change the movie to Jewish leaders wishes. Gibson is an old line Catholic and he made the movie according to his views, which are pre Vatican II. In Gibson’s movie Jew’s are responsible for Christ’s death, not the Romans. The media started all making remarks about Gibson being an anti-semite. He was being insulted in all the media and he was now tainted.
Two years later, in 2006 after his name had been dragged thru the mud, he apparently made a derogatory remark about Jews – an anti-semitic remark. Is that a big surprise? I wonder if any of the relatives of the 1,400 murdered Palestinians in Gaza from the 2006 massacre make negative remarks about Jews. Is there someone there to scold them that such anti-semitic views are not acceptable? When the father of a murdered child calls Jews murderers, is he an anti-semite? If he is, I guess he has his reasons.
I just saw it on yahoo. Rick Sanchez, a commentator for CNN has just been fired for calling Jon Stewart from “The Comedy Channel” a bigot. Stewart is Jewish. I don’t watch CNN and Sanchez’s argument didn’t seem very convincing, but he was fired and now he’s being called an anti-semite. Its already spreading on the internet. You’ll probably get a thousand hits if you google it tomorrow – Rick Sanchez is an anti-semite.
Is the lesson here that if a Jew calls a Christian a bigot, the Christian gets driven out of the media and if a Christian calls a Jew a bigot the
Christian still gets driven out of the media?
October 1st, 2010 | 11:23 pm
Out of the depths I call to you, LORD;
Lord, hear my cry! May your ears be attentive to my cry for mercy.
If you, LORD, mark our sins, Lord, who can stand?
But with you is forgiveness and so you are revered.
I wait with longing for the LORD, my soul waits for his word.
My soul looks for the Lord more than sentinels for daybreak. More than sentinels for daybreak,
let Israel look for the LORD, For with the LORD is kindness, with him is full redemption,
And God will redeem Israel from all their sins.
October 1st, 2010 | 11:33 pm
Criticizing Israel, or Israel’s political and military practices, is not necessarily anti-semitism. However, referring often to the Jews as a malevolent force in world history is clearly crossing the line into anti-semitism.
I might add, defending one who repeatedly crossed this line is also a type of anti-semitism, no matter how “courageous” you think you’re being.
Sad, sad, sad. You know, I want to remember Mr. Sobran well, for the good thinking and extraordinary writing he did. The people “defending” him on this thread are not helping–at all.
October 2nd, 2010 | 1:00 am
Truly Soviet in tone—how many ways can I smear thee?
October 2nd, 2010 | 4:34 am
One could make the case, that considering Sobran’s association with holcaust deniers, FT and NR are being TOO charitible, in their comments, regarding his recent death.
If one wishes to accept the silly theory, that Shakespeare was not really the author or the plays, etc., that are traditionally attributed to him, fine. It’s irrational, and based on highly questionable assumptions (such as, why was there not more documents, relating to Shakespeare’s life, extanct, to piece his life together better, or how could a man, with no college education, produce such complicated, and beautiful works, never mind that theprimary education, then, puts our college education to shame).
This is silly, but at least there’s no moral implications, involved.
However, Holocaust denial, not only is irrational, but profoundly immoral. Sadly, Sobran chose to be a part of this, and waste his considerable talents.
October 2nd, 2010 | 9:03 am
Joe Sobran was a pretty complicated guy. In the 1980s, he had some legitimate criticisms of US relations with Israel. Those ideas wouldn’t have banished him from today’s political debate. Yet, when Buckley pushed him out of NR and basically out of respectable journalism, he was overwhelmed by the injustice and determined to make a spectacle of himself (sort of like Sebastian in Brideshead Revisited saying “if they want a drunk, they can have a drunk”). It’s to Buckley’s credit that he reached out to Sobran and offered him some financial support, as Joe gracefully acknowledged in his obit for Buckley.
October 2nd, 2010 | 10:41 am
Wow, I haven’t learned this much about Judaism since I finished reading “The Protocols of Zion.” Thanks for enlightening me….
October 2nd, 2010 | 11:29 am
Jews have a unique place in the history of Western Civilization. Joe was willing to examine that place without the reverence that society demands. Yes, he thought that anti-christianity is an essential trait of American and European Judaism. In that regard, his views are but a logical extension of those of the Jewish critic/talk show host Michael Medved, certainly no anti-semite himself.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-are-jews-liberals-a-symposium-15223?page=2
Joe thought that the anti-christianity that Medved perceives had ill effects. But just saying that this constitutes anti-semitism doesn’t make it false.
As for “Holocaust Denial,” read exactly what he wrote about it. It’s not a simplistic as described by his detractors.
Sorry, but defending free speech is “helping.”
October 2nd, 2010 | 12:21 pm
“Gibson is an old line Catholic and he made the movie according to his views, which are pre Vatican II.”
I’ve been thinking about blogging about this. I’m not a Roman Catholic, other than by Baptism, so I don’t feel any kind of team support affiliation, but arguably it’s just plain wrong to call Mel and his Dad “Roman Catholics.” All churches (Reformed, Orthodox, Anglican) broke from Rome at some point. Mel’s was just much more recent. But if you’ve heard some of the things his Dad has said about the current Pope and recent Pope, they are as bad as anything coming out of the mouth of Bob Jones U.
October 2nd, 2010 | 1:39 pm
There’s a simple mistake going on here. To say that one approves of freedom of speech, including the freedom of anti-semitic speech, does not require one to approve of the anti-semitic speech, nor does it require that one publish the anti-semitic speech.
The people who refused to publish Mr. Sobran, and the people on this thread who are openly disapproving of some of his writings, are not restricting anyone’s freedom of speech.
As for Mr. Sobran’s lack of reverence for the Jews, I will repeat what I wrote before: Referring often to the Jews as a malevolent force in world history is clearly crossing the line into anti-semitism.
October 2nd, 2010 | 4:03 pm
Gibson is not “an old line Roman Catholic”, nor was he when he made “The Passion of the Christ”. He was a schismatic then, and he is a schismatic now. He started his own breakaway Church. He thinks the pope is a heretic. He annulled his own marriage — or rather his father, Hutton Gibson, declared it null. The father of seven children, Mel Gibson sired a child by his mistress and then appeared on a comedy show to crack a joke about it, calling himself “OctoMel”. I am sure his children found that very edifying and amusing. The man clearly fell apart at some point. It is said that his wife has gotten back together with him to help him pick up the pieces.
There are parallels between Sobran and Gibson. Each got entangled in the coils of crazy conspiracy theories. Each at the height of a very successful career, fell apart psychologically for no obvious reason, and ended up in disgrace. They are both tragic figures.
I think they both typify a characteristic “failure mode” of ultra-traditionalists. Seeing that the modern world has gone insane to a large degree, their reaction is to become distrustful of any judgment but their own. Whether it be the pope (in the case of Gibson), or Shakespeare scholars (in the case of Sobran), or their fellow conservatives, or anything that might act as a “reality check” for them, they dismiss it, and decide to construct a reality all their own. This is an especially strange way for a Catholic to end up. Catholics, of all people, understand the need to be rooted in an interpretive community, to be guided by tradition and authority, and not to rely entirely on “private judgment”. So, it is especially ironic to see “traditional” Catholics becoming extreme sectarians, which is the very antithesis of Catholicism.
I think part of the explanation is not hard to find.
For a long period after Vatican II, tradition and those loyal to it were mocked and marginalized within the Church as representing a “pre-conciliar mentality”. This caused deep pain and disorientation. Some managed to maintain their balance, while they waited for sanity to prevail — as at last happened, thank God. But for many Catholics it was too much to bear, and they either fell away from the Church altogether or got enmeshed in extreme movements of sectarian and schismatic tendency. When even the unchangeable Catholic Church seemed to have lost its way for a while, is it any wonder that some people lost all trust in anyone’s judgment but their own?
What is interesting is how antisemitism seems so often to be a part of such stories. It seems to be like an opportunistic infection that takes advantage of people whose mental balance has become disturbed. And this seems to be true on the left and the right, among the religious and the non-religious. It always seems to be lurking in the wings, awaiting its chance.
October 2nd, 2010 | 4:25 pm
This thread was a bit frustrating to read, because only Mr. Beckwith, of Sobran’s critics, quoted evidence of his supposed anti-semitism. I commend him for that, but he didn’t take the next step and say why his quotations supported the charge of anti-semitism, apparently thinking it self-evident, which it is not.
Please, people, remember these steps:
1. Lay out some evidence.
2. Link it to the conclusion.
Till that is done, it’s hard for anybody else to make a rebuttal. (Not that I’m saying Sobran wasn’t anti-semitic— I don’t know the facts— but the weakness of the argumentation here is at least slight evidence in his favor.)
October 2nd, 2010 | 4:42 pm
To Francis Beckwith: I read the quote that you posted, and then read the entire article that you claimed that it came from. That quote was NOWHERE in there… so where did it come from?
October 2nd, 2010 | 4:57 pm
For me, there was much to pass over in his writings, much to forgive. But I always liked his quip about American education: “In 100 years we’ve gone from teaching Greek and Latin in high school to teaching remedial reading in college.”
October 2nd, 2010 | 5:30 pm
I’m no longer Catholic. Once I saw that the U.S. Catholic Church is more Pro-Mestizo than Pro-European American, I left and returned to an indigenous religion of my European ancestors (paganism).
Nonetheless I appreciated Sobran’s writings and thought him to be one of the better Catholic writers of his age. He will be missed.
October 2nd, 2010 | 6:00 pm
Craig Payne: What evidence do you have for saying Sobran “referred often to the Jews as a malevolent force in world history”? I haven’t seen most of his writings on that subject, but I assume he only pointed out the obvious truth–that Jews (Marx, Freud, and a legion of relativistic philosophers) have had a disproportionately influential and negative effect on the “morals” of modernity. There is no disputing this, nor is it anti-semitism to point it out. What is anti-semitic is to develop a dislike for the Jews as a race because of the harmful anti-Christian influence of many (not all) secularized Jews.
Bret Lythgoe: Not so fast. Try reading Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn’s massive (1,300 page) *This Star of England,* on the 17th Earl of Oxford. Or at least Charlton Ogburn’s 35-page *The Renaissance Man of England,* on the same subject. Sobran’s book has a quote on the back cover: “I am . . . haunted by the conviction that the divine William [Shakespeare]is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world.” Who is the ignorant consensus-denier who said this? A charlatan named Henry James. You just don’t know about some people–they’ll believe anything.
October 2nd, 2010 | 6:07 pm
I too, read the piece Francis Beckwith cited, and the quotes are nowhere in there. He also got the title wrong: It’s not “Fear of Jews,” it’s ” ‘For Fear of the Jews’ ” — in quotes because Sobran was quoting John 7:13.
This is more than carelessness. It’s a reflection of a knee-jerk attitude (which is hardly confined to Beckwith). He didn’t read the essay and quote it, he repeated a quote and attribution (almost certainly furnished by someone else) without bothering to check it for himself, much less to convey context.
As it happens, Sobran did write those words, in “The Church and Jewish Ideology” (http://sobran.com/jewid.shtml). There’s far more to the piece than what’s quoted, though. Like most of Sobran’s pieces, it covers a lot of territory. A large part of it covers the smear that many Jews have leveled against the Catholic Church, accusing it of complicity in the Holocaust. In fact, a large part of it is a defense of Catholics, and Christians in general, against unfair accusations and double standards.
I’m under no illusion that many people here will like that essay. So quarrel if you will with specific things Sobran said. Argue their factuality, their accuracy: That’s fair game. But present the whole picture of Joe Sobran. Show where his statements are false, don’t just indignantly decry “anti-Semitism.” Concede that many truths that can be found, even in that specific essay — and yes, some of them reflect badly on Jews. (There’s plenty of sin to go around in this world. Is there really less anti-Christian sentiment among Jews than there is anti-Jewish sentiment among Christians? Is there not, in fact, rather more? Be honest now.)
I’m pretty sure that many people here won’t heed this advice. But I’ll offer one bit more anyway. Mr. Beckwith, after quoting Sobran, announces “May God have mercy on Mr. Sobran’s soul.” By all means: Joe Sobran knew full well that he needed it, and that we all do. But don’t let yourselves imagine, even for a moment, that Francis Beckwith, or anyone here denouncing Joe Sobran, needs that forgiveness one iota less.
October 2nd, 2010 | 6:24 pm
“The word anti-Semitic functions like the word anti-Soviet. Being undefined, it’s unfalsifiable. Loose charges of “anti-Semitism” are common, but nobody suffers any penalty for making them, since what is unfalsifiable can never be shown to be false. I once read an article in a Jewish magazine that called the first Star Wars movie “anti- Semitic.” I was amazed, but I couldn’t prove the contrary. Who could? And of course people in public life — and often in private life — fear incurring the label, however guiltless they may be.
If you want to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, you define crimes precisely. If, however, you merely want to maximize the number of convictions, increase the power of the accusers, and create an atmosphere of dread, you define crimes as loosely as possible. We now have an incentive system that might have been designed to promote loose charges of “anti-Semitism.” by Joseph Sobran
I know which way Joe is headed, the truth is always sorrowful for the unrepentant.
October 2nd, 2010 | 7:05 pm
There are parallels between Sobran and Gibson. Each got entangled in the coils of crazy conspiracy theories. Each at the height of a very successful career, fell apart psychologically for no obvious reason, and ended up in disgrace. They are both tragic figures.
I do not recall Mr. Sobran trafficking in conspiracy theories. He was generally quite temperate in his writing. There are a number of characters in the palaeoconservative nexus who substantive writings or tone give them the air of the asylum dweller, but Joseph Sobran was not one.
He did speak and behave in a manner that was curiouser and curiouser as he grew older. A discrete example of what was left of his political judgment would be his reaction when a U.S. Navy vessel was bombed in Yemen about a dozen years ago while stopping in to refuel. Joseph Sobran’s take was that we all had it coming to us because we had no business building and maintaining navy ships which could travel that far from our territorial waters.
The account of the sequence of events leading to his dismissal from National Review offered by Wm. F. Buckley made it plain that his removal was not summary and he was counseled and warned repeatedly before-hand. It is not readily clear just how he earned a living the last 17 years of his life. There are all sorts of references to occasional journalism and writings, but none to regular wage or salaried employment. It is difficult to retool at the age of 47, but you do what you gotta do. His obituary in the New York Times indicates that this devoted Catholic burned through two marriages.
Very much like all of us, only more so, the man’s worst enemy was the fellow he looked at in the morning while shaving.
October 2nd, 2010 | 7:34 pm
Fine. Here are some direct Sobran quotes, dug up by the intense research of three minutes on Google; three minutes a lot of people in this thread evidently couldn’t spare in their rush to the defense. From Joseph Sobran:
“In short, the Holocaust has become a device for exempting Jews from normal human obligations. It has authorized them to bully and blackmail, to extort and oppress. This is all quite irrational, because even if six million Jews were murdered during World War II, the survivors are not entitled to commit the slightest injustice. If your father was stabbed in the street, that’s a pity, but it’s not an excuse for picking someone else’s pocket. In a peculiar way, the Holocaust story has promoted not only pity, but actual fear of the Jews. It has removed them from the universe of normal moral discourse. It has made them victims with nukes. It has made them even more dangerous than their enemies have always charged.”
“Enough already. It’s time to face the possibility that Jewish problems are sometimes due to Jewish attitudes and Jewish behavior. My father once remarked to me that the Jews are disliked everywhere they go because of “their crooked ways.” Though, as I later learned, Dad had been an altar boy, he said nothing about Christ-killing; he’d long since left the Church and he didn’t particularly care who had killed Christ. As a matter of fact, he didn’t particularly dislike Jews; but he did think it was their ethics, not their biblical record, that had earned them their low reputation. The popular verb jew would seem to bear him out. So do countless ethnic jokes about Jewish sharp dealing and devious conduct.”
“Such non-happenings are a regular feature of Tribal memory, as witness the many testimonies of ‘Holocaust survivors’ that have turned out to be delusions or outright forgeries.”
“Similar bogus memories of victimization surround the state of Israel. Far from facing extinction in 1948, Zionist Jews enjoyed great military superiority to the Arabs and ruthlessly drove the native Palestinians from their homes with liberal applications of terrorism. Since then the Jewish state has behaved according to the harshest Jewish stereotypes, deceitfully, parasitically, and cruelly.”
“Such Jewish ideologies as Marxism and Freudianism are disguised apologias for the Jews, denying the superiority of Western standards. For Marx, capitalism boils down to mere greed; while for Freud, romantic love boils down to mere lust. Both view Western manners as mere hypocrisy, self-deluding airs put on by the goyim.”
“Most gentiles respect Jews for their intelligence and ability, but they have also come to take certain kinds of Jewish misbehavior for granted.”
Let me summarize: Jews are no longer under “normal human obligations.” They are “authorized” to “extort and oppress.” “The Holocaust story” has promoted “actual fear of the Jews,” even though many “Holocaust survivors” are delusional. The Jews are no longer part of “the universe of normal moral discourse.” In fact, they are “even more dangerous than their enemies have always charged.” “The Jews are disliked everywhere they go because of ‘their crooked ways.’” The “ethics” of the Jews “earned them their low reputation.” As evidence, we have “countless ethnic jokes about Jewish sharp dealing and devious conduct.” The Jews are “ruthless” and “terrorists.” Israel itself has behaved over the past several decades “according to the harshest Jewish stereotypes, deceitfully, parasitically, and cruelly.” Marxism and Freudianism are specifically “Jewish ideologies” and “disguised apologias for the Jews.” “Most gentiles,” in spite of their respect for Jews, have “come to take certain kinds of Jewish misbehavior for granted.”
Here’s the link to anti-semitism, for those evidently unable to catch the tenor of the above comments: “If anyone says (or defends) comments such as in the previous paragraph, that person has supplied abundant evidence of anti-semitism. Joseph Sobran wrote those words. Therefore, Mr. Sobran has supplied abundant evidence of anti-semitism.” This is a simple modus ponens. I hope this helps.
By the way, those quotes are only a smattering. If one would actually do some research (let’s say, push the Google time up to five minutes before commenting), one could doubtless find much more evidence.
October 2nd, 2010 | 7:39 pm
I think that Craig’s point, is a good one: just because one has the freedom to say something, does not nesessarily mean one should say it.
There are two distinctions, that one should make, vis a vis freedom of speech: humans have a moral right, to speak their minds, and the government has a constitutional obligation, to allow freedom of speech, obviously, within certain constraints. There’s the corollary right of others, to not print works they consider offensive, or inflammatory, hence NR’s choice, to censure Sobran.
October 2nd, 2010 | 7:44 pm
I would add, that some people, erroneously, assume, that, just because the government, has an obligation, constitutionally, to protect one’s freedom of speech, does not mean private citizens, have that legal obligation.
October 2nd, 2010 | 9:31 pm
>If anyone says (or defends) comments such as in the previous paragraph, that person has supplied abundant evidence of anti-semitism.
Not in any sort of rational way.
October 2nd, 2010 | 10:21 pm
The quotes, provided by Craig Payne, are sufficient evidence, to indicate, at least in my eyes, that Sobran was an antisemite. These statements of his,are amusingly ludicrous, but could also do real harm, if believed by some of the, shall we say, possessors of only double digit I.Q.’s out there.
One of the great things that William F. Buckley did, in formulating a rational conservativism, was extricating any racist, John Bircher believing, antisemite elements, and this enabled conservativism to emerge, as a rational, coherent, alternative, to the predominate liberalism, that existed, in the 1960′s.
Sobran, intially, showed no signs of antisemitism. But as the years proceeded, he began to get more obsessed with Jewish issues. Can anyone explain, what possessed him, to show sympathy, for the completely odious holocaust deniers?
October 2nd, 2010 | 10:38 pm
Having read Craig Payne’s list of quotes from Sobran, I still see no evidence for the charge that Sobran was anti-Semitic. In fact, after reading most of the comments above, I am convinced anti-Semitism isn’t the problem at all. Our problem as Americans, “Christian” or not, is that we hate prophets and have no ability to understand a prophet’s words because God has made our eyes unseeing and our ears unhearing, lest we understand and repent.
It’s clear that any criticism of any group (whom it is not fashionable to criticize in your particular circles) or any generalization equals hate speech in your minds. But you err because you do not know the Scriptures. As Tim’s comment above exemplifies (and it’s just one example), Scripture is filled with critical generalizations and what you would call hate speech.
I’ve been rereading Ezekiel lately, and I wonder if we should not bring him up on posthumous charges of anti-Semitism. Really, I don’t see how most of you could escape the conclusion that all the Old Testament prophets were anti-Semitic. After all, those are some pretty sweeping condemnations of the Jews, and the fact that the prophets were Jews themselves shouldn’t get them off the hook. Pity, such a brilliant mind as Ezekiel’s fell to madness when he wrote that book.
Sadly, this disapproval for prophecy was born out before my eyes several years ago when I invited one of the distinguished commenters above to speak at my campus against abortion. He agreed, after I came up with enough money, but his words and conduct during his time here made it abundantly clear that this darling thinker of the evangelical and roman catholic establishments was far more concerned with appearing balanced, clever, and reasonable than with proclaiming God’s law, warning souls of the coming judgment, and calling sinners to repentance.
No, anti-Semitism is not the issue at all. But in the end, I weep not so much for the Sobran’s reputation among the wise of this world but more for the fear that, seeing our scorn for this prophet, God will not send another in his place.
October 2nd, 2010 | 11:22 pm
Sobran’s accusers on this thread have yet to define or set forth the elements of the “anti-Semitism” he’s purportedly committed. They string together some quotes and then toss in the word “anti-Semitism” as if it’s self-evidently correct or a self-authenticating judgment.
So far, they’ve shown only that Joseph Sobran:
(a) knowingly or intentionally;
(b) made unflattering observations and critical generalizations about;
(c) a powerful interest, ethnic, or religious group;
(d) in violation of groupthink.
Really, can’t we admit this has NOTHING to do with anti-Semitism? Another Sobran quote, not reproduced above, is material to the discussion: there’s nothing a coward hates more than any display of courage. Sobran’s prophetic rebukes sting the conscience of conservative Christians who’ve become adept at doing the bare 40-hour-per-week minimum to maintain respectability in their conservative churches and Federalist Society cliques but never becoming so odious to the cultural chic as to warrant “Away with the man! He must die!”
Who, especially in the conservative helping professions, has followed the rule of our Lord and Savior?
“And He [Jesus] summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.’” (Mark 8:34-38.)
October 2nd, 2010 | 11:26 pm
The final word on the moral qualities of a nation or race is not the province of contemporaries, but of generations to come. And the suffering of African Americans or women is no reason to deny them moral agency, judgment, and exhortation–again, as a class of people, and not simply as individuals.
This is the reason for quoting the Holy Spirit’s condemnation of that class of persons in the Ancient World known as Cretans: “‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely…” (Titus 1:12).
Note, it’s precisely this sort of statement about Jews that’s said to be proof of Joe’s anti-Semitism. So what: the Apostle Paul can do it but Joe can’t? Or Joe can do it about any group other than Jews? Other than Jews and African Americans? Other than Jews and African Americans and women? Jews, African Americans, women, and homosexuals?
Thought crimes all around us.
Would that the real issue were a matter of Joe’s judgments being wrong. But no one’s ever engaged the main thrust of what he wrote; just sentences and paragraphs are trotted out as proof positive that he’s an anti-Semite.
For a growing number of us, though, smears don’t work so well any more. We’ve come to know the Truth and He’s set us free from the bondage of this world. By God’s grace, we’re free to think rather than simply to conform to the patterns of this evil world. We’ve repudiated cheap smears. It used to be the work of a moment to blacklist and blackball a man, but now calling him a “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” or “anti-Semite” doesn’t cut it with us. Don’t tell us Joe made negative judgments about Jews. We already knew that. Those days are past and now we expect arguments. What you have to do is show us he was wrong.
Otherwise, you simply confirm what he wrote: “(Jews have been removed) from the universe of normal moral discourse.”
Scripture and church history record men of God making moral judgments against groups–not simply individuals. Some of those groups had suffered oppression. Nevertheless, they were judged and disciplined. Think of the Children of Israel in the wilderness fresh out of their four centuries of slavery in Egypt.
I’m in the habit of reminding Christians that we live in a day when truth is only allowed in comedy clubs and jokes. Our court jesters are allowed to see what they see; the rest of us must lie. But Joe’s death somehow has given some of us something that in some way has led to words escaping us that approximate a little tiny smidgen of truth. Maybe love made us do it.
And now, since everyone’s loading down the comments with quotes from Joe:
* * *
More than sixty years after Hitler’s death, this seems to be the golden age of anti-Semitism, judging by the frequency with which the charge is made. Apparently anti-Semitism was the first word Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and the neoconservatives learned to pronounce right after mama and dada. An anti-Semite used to be a guy who hated Jews; now he’s a guy whom Jews hate.
All right, that’s too simple. But you see the point. Calling someone that name is, nowadays, the easiest way to do him a bit of no good. It’s almost never applied to people who have actually harmed Jews, or urged others to harm them; it’s used for those who commit Thoughtcrimes… The charge of anti-Semitism doesn’t have to be proved; and it can’t be disproved. It’s an assertion about motives, not actions. That’s the beauty of it: its unfalsifiability. …Even when an innocent man is falsely accused, you see, he is still guilty of … of … well, of having been accused. The charge itself is its own proof!
…Most people don’t really care whether the charge is true anyway. To them, the very fact that it was made is enough to warrant ostracism. Their reaction may be interpreted as follows: “Uh-oh! The Jews are mad at this guy! I’d better steer clear of him, or they may come after me too!” This response implies, of course, that “the Jews” control everything, which is what Henry Ford infamously believed and which is what Abe Foxman seems to want everyone to believe. Some might call that belief anti-Semitic, but there you go. Weird, but true. The label is enough to terrify people, to make strong men tremble. …No use saying, “But I’m not anti-Semitic!” Automatic retort: “Yeah, sure. That’s what anti-Semites always say.” Pleading innocent only gets you in deeper. Denial is further proof of guilt…
* * *
The older I get, the less I am inclined to blame Jews for their loyalty to their own; in fact, I am disposed to honor them for it–but only up to a point. I like it to be out in the open, and I reserve the right to talk about it and take it into my calculations without being called a bigot. …The bitterest quarrels occur when people are in full agreement. There was no real disagreement about what Lindbergh said. It was because he refused to engage in the prevailing tacit hypocrisy that all hell broke loose. He recognized the Jews as a remarkable race, but he also drew logical conclusions from their distinct status. It was obvious, it was *self-evident,* that the interests of Jews might clash with those of non-Jews, not because Jews were treacherous, or worse than other people, but because they were *comparable* to other people. You may even believe that the Jews are right and the gentiles wrong; but you can hardly deny that they are different.
Why was it, and why is it still, so shocking to say the self-evident?
October 3rd, 2010 | 7:33 am
The Times has a pretty fair obituary.
October 3rd, 2010 | 9:06 am
Simple decency is “groupthink.” Rejecting moral consensus is “prophetic.” Joseph Sobran should have been a rock star. Or maybe he is, to some here.
May I ask those defending Mr. Sobran: Who in today’s world would you classify as anti-semitic, and what has he or she done that you would say constitutes adequate (or “rational”–sheesh) evidence for anti-semiticism?
Or is it all just legitimate criticism the Jews have brought upon themselves by their deceitful, parasitic, and cruel ways?
October 3rd, 2010 | 10:40 am
Mr. Payne,
I think, rather, the ball is in your court – as the example of Mr. Sobran’s own words, quoted above by John Liberty last evening show.
What *is* anti-semitism and is the charge of anti-semitism falsifiable? If you cannot define the charge or say how one may prove the charge wrong, I think Mr. Sobran’s defenders stand justified.
Kamilla
October 3rd, 2010 | 10:43 am
May I ask those defending Mr. Sobran: Who in today’s world would you classify as anti-semitic, and what has he or she done that you would say constitutes adequate (or “rational”–sheesh) evidence for anti-semiticism?
I think the point implicitly being made by his votaries here is that Sobran’s tripe is legitimate because true.
October 3rd, 2010 | 2:10 pm
I think that Mr. Payne’s 2 Oct 2010 7:34 p.m. post is quite convincing, Kamilla. It would have been better if Mr. Payne had given source citations for his quotes, but since none of Sobran’s defenders are criticizing him for mis-attribution I’ll assume they are legitimate.
As for the quotes: Sobran’s not-so-subtle allusion to “the Jews” as Christ-killers, his use of the State of Israel as a stalking horse for his repition of standard anti-semitic slurs (“the Jewish state has behaved… deceitfully, parasitically, and cruelly.” ), and his calling Marxism and Freudianism “Jewish ideologies” would all constitute a prima facie case for considering him as an anti-semite.
There’s a lot more evidence that supports this from Sobran’s pen; c.f. his 1999 essay “The Church and Jewish Ideology,” in which he repeats as true standard anti-semitic nonsense like the falsehood that communism is “Jewish bolshevism” and the patently silly notion that we poor gentiles sit in “overwhelming” fear (FEAR, I tells ya!) of “Jewish power.” Once again, we see standard anti-semitic tropes: the jew as an external enemy within society, the jew as the personification of threats to society. What could be clearer?
C’mon, Kamilla; does someone have to draw you a map to show you where Sobran was coming from the last 20+ years? Do we have to bring up his connection with David Irving and with the Institute for Historical Review? Mr. Payne is correct, and anyone with the slightest familiarity with the history of anti-semitism would have no trouble identifying Sobran’s later actions and writings as anti-semitic.
October 3rd, 2010 | 2:35 pm
I agree with Art Deco.
October 3rd, 2010 | 3:39 pm
Dear Benighted Savage: (It’s funny to type that out as a name): Mr. Sobran did not refer to Jews as “Christ-killers.” His style was to say, “Now, this is what an anti-semite would say.” Distancing himself, you understand. However, his point in his essay was that he did not think “Christ-killer” was a historical slur that had actually been cast upon the Jews. (They, evidently, made it up as part of their Master Plan.)
Dear Kamilla: I thought I did define anti-semitism, up above: at the very least we would agree that thinking and writing of the Jews as a whole as a harmful influence in the world is anti-semitic.
For example, I think of the Nazis as a whole as a harmful influence in world history. That’s because I’m anti-Nazi. Same with Communism. I’m anti-Communist.
So c’mon, folks, ante up. If you think of the Jews as a whole in world history as a bad influence, then say it loud and proud. But the rest of us will still call you anti-semitic. The label goes with the comments.
October 3rd, 2010 | 3:45 pm
The leader of Iran is on record as saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy all the Jews in the world. Could we at least agree that he is anti-semitic? Or is the term still too vague for that conclusion?
October 3rd, 2010 | 3:47 pm
Benighted,
You reference the 1999 essay and yet butcher the quote. Why? Sobran made two statements with the word “bolshevik” in it. The first:
“Christians knew that Communism — often called “Jewish Bolshevism” — would bring awful persecution with the ultimate goal of the annihilation of Christianity.”
And it certainly was called that often.
Next:
“Further, might the Talmudic imprecations against Christ and Christians have helped form the Bolshevik Jews’ anti-Christian animus? ”
Jews were certainly very disproportionately present among the Bolsheviks, too a radical degree. Did Bolsheviks who were Jews have an anti-Christian animus? Could inherited traditions which were anti-Christian have informed this animus?
And why did you find it necessary to either butcher or manufacture a quote?
PS Use your name like a man.
October 3rd, 2010 | 3:47 pm
At any rate: I loved Mr. Sobran as a thinker and a writer. I respect his pro-life fearlessness. I think his skill as an aphorist is unparalleled in modern political writing.
That is why it is actually hurting me to carry on this argument, and I’m bowing out.
October 3rd, 2010 | 3:49 pm
Make that “to a radical degree.”
October 3rd, 2010 | 4:04 pm
More of the same, BS. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not terribly familiar with Mr. Sobran’s writings but neither am I quick to concur with the charge of anti-semitism and I do rather like having my questions answered by those who think they have such a slam-dunk case.
Quite frankly, histrionics, guilt by association and slurs against the intelligence of Mr. Sobran’s defenders do not amount to an argument on the part of the accusers. If the case is as obvious as Mr. Sobran’s judges claim, it should be a simple enough matter to define anti-semitism and lay out under what grounds the charge is falsifiable.
And yet these men are either unable or unwilling to do so. I won’t judge their intelligence, only their willingness to actually prove their case.
October 3rd, 2010 | 5:58 pm
Well, Kamilla, if you’ve found the criticisms of Sobran on this thread unsatisfactory, perhaps you might find William F. Buckley’s _In Search of Antisemitism_ worth a look.
As for general accounts of the history of anti-semitism, there are quite a few: Walter Laqueur’s _The Changing Face of Antisemitism_ isn’t bad, and Anthony Julius’ _Trials of the Diaspora_ should be easy to find. Both will give you an excellent idea as to what anti-semitism is.
October 3rd, 2010 | 6:01 pm
This has gone about as far as it can, and the sad occasion of a man’s death is not the one in which to indulge some of what the commentators want to discuss. I’m closing it to further comment.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact