Dennis Miller and O'Reilly wank each other off in front of O'Reilly's audience, fun times had by all. Even better is a more recent attempt by Miller to feed Bill yet more talking-points, to the extent that O'Reilly actually has to reign him in (the ol', "look, I'm moderate, I believe in global warming" trick, sort of like when O'Reilly had Michael "let's shoot illegal aliens" Savage on to talk about immigration).
And then there's Mr. Prager, who never tires of parroting the "Judeo-Christian civilization" line. Prager's target this week is a subject dear to my heart, radical Jews. Or, rather, from Prager's perspective, "Radical Non-Jewish Jews". Even though he starts with Marx, who was converted by his parents as a child, and who therefore would not be considered a Jew (or responsible for his actions as a Jew) by Halakhic law. But never mind pesky things like that.
What do Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Noam Chomsky and George Soros have in common?
They were/are all radicals, born to Jewish parents, had no Jewish identity and hurt Jews (not to mention non-Jews).
Again, at least in the case of Marx, that is totally not his fault. But hey, what good would a discussion about radical Jews be without the original Jewish left-winger, right? And besides, that gives you a good segue to bash Jewish lefties.
Once the walls of Jewish ghettos broke down and European Jews were allowed to leave Jewish societies, many Jews became non-Jewish Jews. In most cases, either they or their children assimilated into the societies in which they lived. However, a small but significant percentage became radicalized. They came to loathe "bourgeois," i.e., traditional middle class, values and Judeo-Christian society; Western national identities (though they generally supported anti-Western national identities); and they particularly loathed Jewish religious and national identity.
No oversimplifications here. Hey Dennis, how about the fact that the vast majority of Jews weren't bourgeois until comparatively late in European history (a big part of this depends on what countries you actually look at, esp. West v. Eastern Europe)? Or the fact that the whole Judeo-Christian thing is a total fiction which, even if it had theoretically existed, doesn't seem to have been implemented to any significant degree in many European societies- non-Jewish persecution (by both Church and State, and in the case of Russia, both) turned many Jews against Western nationalism AND "Christian society"- and who could blame them? It's not like Jews were considered Russian citizens, or that they got anything out of that government. And you want to talk radicals? You know who were really radical? The Zionists. 100, 120 years ago, they were all but beyond the pale among respectable Jewish circles. And not all radicals were die-hard Commies, either. The Bund (and various forms of Labor Zionism) actually achieved pretty interesting syntheses of Socialism and Jewish identity.
But back to your inane point.
Karl Marx, the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis (and, to be entirely accurate, son of parents who converted to Christianity), wrote one of the most significant anti-Semitic essays of the 19th century, "On the Jewish Question" (1844).
Once again- Karl Marx was not raised as a Jew, so to identify him as some sort of paradigm is already sketchy. And by all accounts, he was pretty much a prick to everyone he came in contact with, as well as an anti-Semite and racist to boot. Who's defending Marx's antisemitism? Better yet, what does Marx's essay have to do with anything?
Oh wait, you're already onto Trotsky.
Trotsky, blah, didn't identify as a Jew. Hmm. Ok. Kind of understandable given his ideology, but again, there's no argument here, so it's hard to disprove anything.
Oh, we've move on again- Chomsky. Hi, Noam! You have a funny name!
Noam Chomsky has devoted much of his life to working against America and Israel. He is alienated from the very two identities into which he was born. Indeed he has vilified both his whole life. To cite but one example, he traveled to Lebanon to appear with Hizbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah and lend his support to a group that is committed to the annihilation of Israel and is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
But again, you're not really arguing anything here. Chomsky can be as weird as he wants politically (and as much of an asshole), it's still only an example of an individual; you've yet to extrapolate it onto any group or movement.
And last we come to Dennis' real target, George Soros. Soros has apparently comitted the cardinal sin of not being the "right" kind of Jew that neocons like The New Republic's editor Martin Peretz would like him to be: how dare he!
As described by Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic, "George Soros is ostentatiously indifferent to his own Jewishness. He is not a believer. He has no Jewish communal ties. He certainly isn't a Zionist. He told Connie Bruck in The New Yorker -- testily, she recounted -- that 'I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence -- but I don't want to be part of it.'"
Wow, heaven forbid Soros, like, have his own opinions. Hey Dennis, why is it ok to be a complete jackass on behalf of your own Jewishness (like, say, Meir Kahane trying to pass anti-miscegenation bills in the Knesset), but not the other way around? What sin is committed by opting out of Zionism?
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, writer Joshua Muravchik reported that Soros has publicly likened Israel to the Nazis.
See, that's an ACTUAL behavior that is potentially harmful (if true; the fact that it's gotten almost no attention makes me doubt its veracity. At best, this happened once and doesn't seem to have been repeated, making its utility as a weapon against Soros somewhat limited).
Of course, Soros supports Palestinian nationalism, but that is a consistent feature of radicals -- anti-Jewish and anti-American nationalisms are good, Jewish and American nationalisms are bad.
No, Dennis, that would only be true in the case of radicals that support nationalism. Anarchists would not support any sort of nationalism. 100 years ago many Zionists were considered radical and they were quite vocal in support of Jewish nationalism- as was the Bund, in its own way. You clearly have no working definition of radical, which is funny considering it's theoretically the focus of your article. And you get paid for this?
Thus, as reported in the Jerusalem Post, "Soros and his wealthy Jewish American friends have now decided to aim their fire directly at Israel . . . to form a political lobby that will weaken the influence of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC."
Of course, the real purpose of this group is to provide a left-wing, "pro-peace" alternative to the Likud-leaning AIPAC, but that's not important. What's important is that Soros won't fall in line, and as we all know, you're either with AIPAC or a "homicide bomber". Now who's radical?
How to explain such Jews? People with no national or religious roots who become politically active will often seek to undermine the national and religious roots of others, especially those in their own national/religious group.
As opposed to, say, missionaries or political interventionists. Clearly they have no desire to undermine national or religious roots of others. Nope, only rootless radicals. And funny, Dennis, I seem to recall you leaning pretty hard on a guy with his own religious roots a few months ago. I guess you're just insecure in your own traditions. In fact, that explains a lot.
Just as chauvinism -- excessive and amoral nationalism -- can lead to nihilism, so, too, the absence of any national or religious identity can lead to nihilism. The radical non-Jewish Jew loves humanity, but hurts real humans, especially his own.
I bet Dennis will start writing his piece on Jewish and Christian chauvinists any second now. Seeing as how it's Purim, maybe he can start by explaining why the Jews of Persia took revenge for one government jerk by having a two-day pogrom, killing 75,000 people. Is that radical, too?
It is akin to the special animosity some ex-Catholics have toward the Church. Non-Jewish Jews are far more likely to work to weaken Christianity in America than Jewish Jews, especially religious Jews. Religious Jews celebrate religious Christians.
Oh yeah, there's nothing the Hasidim love more than a good round of interfaith dialogue. That's why they're such a fan of the Mormons in Jerusalem.
Jews with no religious or national identity do not like Jews who have those identities, and Americans who have likewise become world citizens do not much care for Americans who wave the American flag.
First, not every person who claims universalism automatically condemns particularism. And second, it's not as if the contrary wasn't also true. Like no frummies are judgmental of secular pork-rind eaters, or Toby Keith loves the Dixie Chicks? Look in the mirror, Prager.
Dennis gets another good fisking over on JewSchool.
No comments:
Post a Comment