A year ago I freaked out when neocon John Podhoretz, angered by something I wrote about the neocons, sent me an email saying, "We know where you live." I got very upset about it and raised a stink in my blog. In retrospect, I think I was wrong. Though it is famously hard to read emotion in emails (thus emoticons and other literal signals of intention, like LOL), I think Jpod as he is known was actually the more sophisticated player, and there was even something respectful in his attention: the internet is actually truly about a conversation, and I was dropping the ball. All this to say that I got an email from Jpod today headlined, "So much anger" and the body of the email said "...just because you married a shiksa?" Which I admit is pretty funny. I responded, "No because you incinerated the Arab world and called it 'being Jewish.'" Jpod then responded, "Ding. Time to take your Xanax." Oh well, Homer nods.
Related posts:
- the many inefficiencies of the doorstop Times (including overpaid writers)
- John Podhoretz Issues a Threat to Me
- Now I’ve Fallen in Love With Obama I Can’t Wait to Fall Out of Love
- Rabbi Shai Gluskin on the rabbinical statement on Gaza – ‘We are learning. We aren’t going away.’
- How Obama Learned to Love the Israel Lobby
{ 26 comments }
Your initial response to JPod's obvious sarcasm is the clear indication of your having been a weenie in your younger years. Your hysterical (not in the funny sense, but in the psychological sense)drive by that JPod has defined Jewishness as the incineration of the Arab world is a clear indication your being just plain lame in your older years.
You can do better than that Phil.
If muslims could only learn how to make pizza, jpod would leave them alone
"… Which I admit is pretty funny."
You're being too kind.
(BTW, do you think there are many Gentile bloggers that get the same kind of personal attention from Mr. Podhoretz?)
This is a response to your response to JPod. First let me state that I don't know your political philosophy, but that (for now) isn't relevant.
I've learned a long time ago to not "freak out" to implied or stated threats to my or my family's physical health. To do so is a grant of power to the party that issues the threat. I either ignore the threatene, or much more fun, my response is to state that 1. I'm able to defend myself at the "thermonuclear level" if need be, and 2. I have no problem calling the local constabulary to either arrest someone or to pick up their remains in a bag or with a spatula, whatever is required.
It's been my experience that when faced with this response, the first party threatener stops.
Your suggestions are absolutely hilarious, Pat. Thanks, for the laughter. ;-)
Your suggestions are absolutely hilarious, Pat. Thanks, for the laughter. ;-)
***
"…So much anger" and the body of the email said "…just because you married a shiksa?"
This only proves that JPo is a racist. Why aren't you calling him on this Phil?
Does racism not count when the racist is Jewish?
And how many gentile women would like to know what JPo thinks of them? Excuse me? "Shiksas"????
If he can say that, may gentiles call him a "kike" to retort?
Why don't you ask him Phil?
***
What "Shiksa" means:
"Shiksa and Shaygetz are the Yiddish derivative of the respective
feminine and masculine Hebrew words for something unclean, dirty. The
appellations are customarily applied to gentiles who do things
inimical to Jewish interests, such as vandalizing Jewish buildings,
robbing Jewish kids of their lunch money, or becoming romantically
involved with Jews :-). The root is "sheketz", which refers to house
rodents and lizards. They impart ritual impurity, and therefore the
term lends itself to the same kind of idea. Some have taken to using
the term to refer to Christian women in general. If Christians were
using the term against Jews in English, they would be saying "Filthy
Jews" or "Dirty Jews", and we Jews would rightly be offended. Hence,
use of these terms should really be avoided; it is insulting and
inappropriate, even if no bad intent was behind the usage. It is
always better to use neutral, less pejorative (judgemental) terms,
such as non-Jew or Christian.
Note: In Israel, shaygetz is sometimes used to refer to a misbehaving
child.
Note: There are other words for non-Jewish women, "nachriah", and
"goyah", that are more properly used in less judgemental situations."
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/11-Miscellaneous/section-7.html
******
Israel Shahak, noting the 1968 English-language volume, The Joys of Yiddish, by Leon Rosten:
"[It] is a kind of glossary of Yiddish [the Jewish traditional language of central and eastern Europe] [with]…. an etymology stating … the language from which the word came into Yiddish and its meaning in that language.
… The entry shaygets – whose main meaning is 'a Gentile boy or young man' — is an exception: there the etymology cryptically states, 'Hebrew origin,' without giving the form or meaning of the original Hebrew word.
However, under the entry shiksa — the feminine form of shaygets — the author does give the original Hebrew word, shegetz (or, in his transliteration, shegues) and defines its Hebrew meaning as 'blemish.'
This is a bold-faced lie as every speaker of Hebrew knows.
The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines shegetz as follows: 'unclean animal': loathsome creature, abomination … wretch, unruly youngster; Gentile youngster." [SHAHAK, p. 26]
Another reason to love the web (marginally related but I'm trying to get some exposure for this essay).
http://lancethruster.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=455228
Dirty Bombs, Gut Feelings and False-Flags: An Examination of Implications of Recent Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Economist Mr. Paul Craig Roberts
Phil –
Its a scientific fact that extreme obesity in old women linked to early Alzheimer's. Let Poddie be. She is just re-entering her kindergarten age.
Alan – Please remove the large stick up your ass. Given that close to 50% of Jews marry Shiksas or the male equivalent, your cries of Jewish racism are simply part and parcel of your program to demonize Jews. I repeat, remove the stick up your ass, have a drink, try to hook up with a beautiful, wonderful shiksa, or a beautiful wonderful jewish girl, or guy if that's your thing, and just relax. Jews really will love you if you're not a foaming at the mouth anti-semite. And guess what, all those wonderful goyim whom Jews want to be like will also think you're a better bloke to hang out with if you wipe the foam off your mouth.
From the essay linked above:
"The question posed was this: Do you believe there is a likelihood that right wing elements of America's own national security structure might undertake to engage in a false flag nuclear attack on an American city to drive the American voting public firmly and incontrovertibly back into being supporters of the neocon agenda, given the American public's increasing impatience and dissatisfaction with these policies currently?
Mr. Hersh's expression was the greatest indicator of the gravity the question had for him. His face went from happy, open and obviously positive, to an expression of deep concern and anxiety. The change was not just dramatic, it was, simply put, frightening. "Yes. Yes, I'm very concerned about that. Very concerned." The dual repetition of his assent amplified my own feelings gleaned from his dramatic facial mood shift, and the only inference this author could draw was that the great Sy Hersh, a man of towering stature among America's finest journalists, was scared. And fear, as everyone knows, is contagious. Mr Hersh, however, being of obviously exceptional intelligence and sensitivity, immediately felt my reciprocative response and he rushed to reassure me: "Don't worry, though", he smiled, warming his face back into the visage of upbeat optimism that had preceded my inquiry, “They can't possibly get away with it. Everyone knows that any such attack would be instantly questioned from that perspective by countless journalists, bloggers and other commentators." "
So…reeeally? Just as 9-11 was "instantly questioned," right? You remember, don't you, the constant hue and cry from journalists that there be an immediate and full investigation, lest there be a rush to judgement. Those journalists still haven't let up–everyday in the NYT or WaPo we see calls for fundamental questions about 911 to be answered, such as who was funding the Atta group, who was running the war games, what Norm Mineta was talking about when he said Cheney ordered the pentagon plane NOT to be shot down, and who profited from the options plays against the airlines. When will those journalists stop?
Perhaps he means journalists like Judy Miller, who bravely investigated and exposed government lies about WMDs in Iraq.
Oh.
Well, I'm sure this time, they'll cast a pose of real skepticism, after Detroit is nuked and martial law has been declared, and the first strike is already aloft, heading in towards Tehran. THEN those journalists will be like tigers unleashed, calling defiance against the State, fearlessly questioning the official storyline that Iran set off a nuke.
Riiight.
Let us hope these people are not insane enough to do this.
Jpod: what a repulsive human being. I'm sorry to have to share a religion w. him.
Wow Thomas – Nothing gets by you.
Hey, here comes the med train. Try not to cheek them this time.
Leave Mini-Poddy alone. The poor fellow is so dumb it brings tears to one's eyes.
I remember my mother would call me a "Poddy mouth" if I cursed. Now I know what she meant.
Percy–
What would you recommend? More David Brooks?
What an idiotic argument: any statement you disagree with, ask the author if they're off their meds.
What a moron. Go fuck yourself.
Way to go Phil:
"One of the favorite tactics of super-sophisticated Beltway media insiders is to band together and point to anyone who expresses views outside of their narrow orthodoxies and laugh at what crazy and unserious "wackos" they are — in contrast to the very serious-minded, sane and insightful Beltway elite. The current roster of crazy losers includes Mike Gravel and Ron Paul — the ones opposed to the war in Iraq and to American military domination around the world. They are insane lunatics, total losers, not fit even to be heard in public discourse among the Serious.
Thus, we are treated to an endless stream of snide little insults from the likes of Eve Fairbanks and Joe Klein scoffing at these "lunatics." And, as we all know, in 2004 Howard Dean was completely crazy — a total wacko — and Al Gore is vaguely insane, too.
By contrast, the pundits of The New Republic and Time who cheered on George Bush's invasion of Iraq and who work for Marty Peretz and who defend George Bush's lawbreaking and who spent years treating Dick Cheney like royalty and who carefully ponder with Great Angst whether we should start a new war with Iran are the deeply serious, very sane, mainstream thinkers who can banish the nerdy anti-war outcasts to the "lunatic fringes."
Joe Lieberman is, of course, one of the very serious — deeply, deeply serious — sane and mainstream political figures. Agree or disagree, he is a real serious and thoughtful and mainstream political thinker.
Last week, as Philip Weiss noted yesterday, Lieberman was the honored guest of evangelical Minister John Hagee and the group he leads, Christians United for Israel. As the Press Release distributed by Very Serious Moderate Lieberman aide Marshall Whittman demonstrates, Lieberman gave a speech there which Weiss, with understatement, calls "shocking."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/26/lieberman_hagee/index.html
Jewoyim, I used a reference to the Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, which correctly defines shegetz as follows: 'unclean animal', which makes the term "shiksa" rather indefensible, and you retort with a "Please remove the large stick up your ass", which says a lot more about you than me even if you don't realise.
BTW, the number of Jewish men marrying gentile women doesn't change the meaning of "shiksa" and its racist connotations. Until you are ready to argue otherwise, the only one I see foaming at the mouth is you.
Carry on. Keep it up. I know you can do better.
Facts: J-Pod aka 'Eating John' is morbidly obese. When he is upset he eats. He never stops. His tailor loves him.(For a related obese neo-con see Michael Steinhardt.)
A possible fact and persistent rumor: John's mommy didn't toilet train him until late in life and 'eating John' is still angry at her.
In German, Schickse (or Schicksel) is a slut.
In the past it referred to a slutty Jewish gal.
Thomas – You are absolutely right. Sy Hersh was either whistling past the graveyard or treating my friend like a child ("Yes, Sparky's in puppy heaven now").
I am deathly afraid that the likes of Chertoff are planting the memes so as to be able to say, "See? We told you so!". The fact that even Democrats with pseudo-spines eventually may accidently uncover outrageous criminal activity by Rethuglicans that even the most brain damaged GOP Kool-Aid drinker would recognize as unforgivable only ups the ante for invoking continuity directive 51.
If scandal after scandal and illegal, unconstitutional activity hasn't gotten a rise out of the lame-stream media and our elected representatives who are sworn by oath to defend the Constitution, then it would be up to the woefully ignorant masses to rise up and see they are being sheared.
We are sooo f*cked!
ADL claims copyright on "Hitler"; lawyers are working on "suffering" and "victim"–
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103092.html
"Ellison said, 'In the aftermath of a tragedy, space is opened up for governments to take action that they could not have achieved before that.' Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress, cited the Iraq war and parts of the Patriot Act, which granted the government greater arrest and surveillance powers after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"The Anti-Defamation League called Ellison's comments 'outrageous and offensive.'"
Remember when the Jewish community in Boston tried to block the building of a new mosque in Roxbury? (Joachim Martillo played a part in exposing that, I believe.) Well now the Jews of New York are doing their bit to promote Islamophobia–
http://www.nysun.com/specials/gibran.php
What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?
In fact, nothing.
But according to Islamist groups, Western media and the United Nations, they have everything in common. Anti-Semites hate all Jews, racists hate all members of another race, and Islamophobes hates all Muslims.
Whoever coined the term "Islamophobia" was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not "Muslim-phobia" or "anti-Muslimist," it is Islam-ophobia — fear of Islam — yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.
The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.
To cite three of innumerable examples: The Guardian published an opinion piece titled, "Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as racism"; the European Union has established the European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia; and the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia notes that "Muslims have also been the target of racism in Australia, often referred to as Islamophobia."
Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist.
Of course, some may argue that whereas conservatism and liberalism are ideas, Islam is a religion, and while one can attack ideas, one must not attack religions. It is, however, quite insulting to religions to deny that they are ideas. Religions are certainly more than ideas — they are theological belief systems — but they are also ideas about how society should be run just as much as liberalism and conservatism are. Therefore, Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism should be just as subject to criticism as conservatism or liberalism.
However, the only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity. People write books, give lectures and conduct seminars on the falsity of Christian claims, or on the immoral record of Christianity, and no one attacks them for racism or bigotry, let alone attacks them physically. The head of the Anti-Defamation League announces that conservative Christians are the greatest threat to America today, and no one charges him with racism or Christianophobia.
The statement may be an expression of hysteria and of ignorance, but not of racism. But if one says that Islam does not appear compatible with democracy or that the Islamic treatment of women is inferior to the West's, he or she is labeled a racist Islamophobe.
One might counter that maligning people for criticism is not only true of those who criticize Islam, it is also true of critics of Israel and of America — the former, it is said, are immediately labeled "anti-Semitic" and the latter are immediately labeled "unpatriotic." Neither is true at all. Both are, and I use this word rarely, lies.
No one is labeled anti-Semitic for merely criticizing Israel. People are labeled anti-Semitic for denying Israel's right to exist, for siding with those who wish to exterminate it or for singling out the Jewish state alone among all the nations of the world for attacks that most other countries deserve far more.
And no one in any responsible capacity has called anyone "unpatriotic" just for criticizing America. Sen. Hillary Clinton claimed during the last Democratic presidential debate that the Defense Department called her "unpatriotic" for asking whether the Defense Department has a plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Yet the term "unpatriotic" was not only not used in the response to the senator, it was not even hinted at.
The fact remains that the term "Islamophobia" has one purpose — to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.
Latest proof: This past week a man in New York was charged with two felonies for what is being labeled the hate crime of putting a Koran in a toilet at Pace College. Not misdemeanors, mind you, felonies. Meanwhile, the man who put a crucifix in a jar of urine continues to have his artwork — "Piss Christ" — displayed at galleries and museums. A Koran in a toilet is a hate crime; a crucifix in pee is a work of art. Thanks in part to that brilliant term, "Islamophobia."
Racism in the European context tends to be based in perceived ethnic or voelkisch differences while American racism tends to correlate with color.
In the former Yugoslavia Serbs will sometimes justify hating Bosnian Muslims because the Muslims are supposed to be Turkish colonists even though they are in fact Slavs and in practically every way culturally identical to Serbs except that Serbs tend to be non-practicing Orthodox Christians while Bosnians tend to be non-practicing Muslims.
Classical 19th century Judeophobia was often justified on biological, doctrinal, or economic groups. Usually I prefer to reserve the term anti-Semitism for biological determinist or social Darwinist forms of Judeophobia as conceived by Wilhelm Marr or German Nazi Judeophobes.
Since 9/11 a segment of the Zionist Lobby and organized Jewish community has been actively working to recast Islamophobia according to the model of late 19th and early 20th century Judeophobia.
I discuss this new Islamophobia towards the end of the essay that can be found at http://members.aol.com/ThorsProvoni/JewishPolitics/AJCattacks.htm or at http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/07/updating-ajc-attacks.html (an updated version).
Working for the abolition of the State of Israel is no different from working to abolish Apartheid South Africa, the Confederacy or Nazi Germany.
Zionism in its purest form is simply the belief that Jews have the right to plunder and kill non-Jews. Obviously, no state based on such a principle can be allowed to continue to exist, and the quicker the racist genocidal Zionist state is replaced with a legitimate civil nationalist Palestinian state the better off the world will be.
American Zionists and supporters of the Zionist State of Israel are a problem for they reject theoretically fundamental principles of the USA like democracy, anti-racism and support for human rights.
Many pro-Israel US citizens are involved in major subversion of the American political system while some Zionist US government officials have probably committed treason because they worked for the interests of a foreign state when they were supposed to be serving the USA.
Comments on this entry are closed.