A couple of friends have been telling me not to talk about Jewishness so openly or in the ways that I have. I'm feeling defensive about it. But one thing I'd say in my defense is that when I was growing up, and even afterward in New York, among Jews you always want to know who's Jewish, who's not. Thus the famous opening joke in Nathan Glazer's essay on Jews in Beyond the Melting Pot. When a Jew tells another Jew about a social gathering his friend has two questions: How many Jews were there? And how do you know? So again I'd say that This is the sort of thing Jews think about all the time. I'm just trying to open up the conversation to a wider audience, because of the new Jewish position in American society. When Jews say that antisemites are Jewcentric, they're right. But the difficulty is that Jews are also Jewcentric.
My sister in law who is anything but Jewcentric just darted into the room to talk about cell phone plans with me. She gets annoyed with me when I think about this stuff, says the world has to move past it. I agree, I want the world to move past it. Indeed, when I think of scenes from elite life this summer, I think that the elite is moving past it, that say when it comes to environmentalism, development, conservation, energy, general issues of public policy, the New York-Martha's Vineyard set is pretty cohesive, and it's racialist to start studying last names. But not Middle East policy. And that's one big beef I have with the neocons. They think about Jewishness night and day, as much as I do, more. Americans should know what's on powerful people's minds.
When I hear about a talk on some Zionist topic, the first question I ask, "were there any liberals there?"
When I hear of a Palestinian presentation, the first question I ask "was it presented polemically or informatively?"
(substantively the same question, was there a variety of opinion expressed, and was it expressed respectfully)
The significance of belonging to a group, really identifying with it, is NOT that one insists that the actions of that group never be criticized, but that one is sensitive to demonization.
That same juxtaposition.
Criticism vs demonization.
The difference is in what is said, how it is said, and to whom it is said.
Brilliant, Richard. Let's have none of that demonization around here.
But now back to the subject: Does tribalist thinking lead to different foreign policy prescriptions than univeralist thinking, and can the difference lead to great suffering in the world?
BTW, Phil's description of the "who's-in/who's-out" game was nothing unique to his life. It's the almost universal experience at all Jewish dinner tables. That's why the Zionist charge that critics of the lobby are "judeocentric" is so laughable.
Perhaps Richard would like to share some of his own favorite techniques for avoiding missteps in his desire to auto-associate. Facial characteristics?
"Tribalist thinking".
There is an Indian green political movement that was prevalent in Bengal and Tripura that used the term "samaj" (society) to describe itself.
A decentralist movement, a nationalist movement. The difference between it and fascist nationalist movements also branded as "tribalist", was in one of its slogans "universalism in context".
Meaning applying a univeralist approach, but at home (not far away, not them, US).
When Israel/Palestine issues came up among that community, there was an often rancorous debate. Some argued that the essence of the story was that Israel denied Palestine the ability to develop (a true, but incomplete, statement from my understanding).
Others stated that Israel was an example of a young version of what "samaj" refers to, that it is in a young adult stage of social ethical development, and that it would eventually grow into maturity (more likely if encouraged to).
Guess which side of the debate I supported?
All of the radicals expected the originator of the movement to side with the Palestinian oriented interpretation. He didn't.
I'm just glad that there is an ongoing discussion. Thanks for your part in this, Philip.
I agree with your friends. Jewishness is obscene to the eyes of a normal human being. We cannot contemplate the existence of such rituals you describe as common jewish day-to-day social practices. No wonder people refuse to consider it as reality. They must resort to the idea of jewishness as a product of the insane imagination of demonic antisemites. But this is a defensive method. Their refusal to recognize reality is the force which retracts the coil of the trap.
And that's the root of the problem. "Antisemites" want the reality of jewishness exposed and it's terrible consequences contained. Jews want it concealed because they know it's pathology is the reason for it's success. Judaism is one optimal solution to human resource competition and like any optimal solution is extremely non-robust, that is the smalest disturbance causes catastrophic results (think about a highly efficient though overcrowded lane traffic halting completely as a result of a slow car on the fast lane – Phil is the slow car).
But being an elite survival strategy judaism counts on gentile anger to clean it's lower ranks through absortion when they are few or through decimation when they are too many. The survivors rejoyce in their choseness and embrace each other the same way survivors of high rate killing disasters consider themselves spared by divine powers.
On my part I belive this is inevitable human dynamics. Take out all the jews and another group will take it's place. There is nothing exceptional in jewish sucess or judaism in itself. It's only that nature abhors a vacuum and it is an imensely pro-optimizing force. Some creatures go for the crest of the wave, others contemplate the stars. Jews are filling certain blank spaces normal humans cannot endure and they need the psychological relief of not being alone to do that. Poor devils.
As for America you either summon courage to follow Martillo's advice to apply the law equally to humans and jews or receive the full power of a holocaust-made-us-do-it-powered bolshevik coup.
A couple of friends have been telling me not to talk about Jewishness so openly or in the ways that I have. I'm feeling defensive about it.
You shouldn't feel defensive. And tell your friends, from me, that this discussion is long past due. I hope you caught the Susan Isaacs link (HuffPo). What do your friends say about that article?
Wait. I'll go and find the link again.
The Shmegege Vote: 2008
link to huffingtonpost.com
:-)
Oops, should have previewed
As for America you either summon courage to follow Martillo's advice to apply the law equally to humans and jews or receive the full power of a holocaust-made-us-do-it-powered bolshevik coup.
:-)
Rich, I call your attention to our friend, "Anonymous". You tell me again that your buddy Phil doesn't agree with that. He writes for them, They like what he writes. Tell me again that he is not the classic Jewish anti-semite.
Be careful SOG–you're still stuck thinking of Jewishness as a racial category, while most of us here are discussing an ideology.
Anonymous' post could be the subject of the great twenty-first century novel. If only gentiles were allowed to write about Jewishness.
Enlighten me. To me the statement that Jews are obscene is ant-semitic in the extreme. What am I missing?
Stories regarding immigration raids in Postville, Iowa, and its relation the the Hasidic kosher meatprocessing plant there can be read on Znet, Democracy Now, and elsewhere. I haven't checked to see how this is being covered in the NYT, etc. But, it is being covered in Jewish publications, since Chicago & Minneapolis Jewish organizations are involved in the protests. First, the focus should be on these victimized people. Second, I don't think this is equivalent to the ridiculous Darfur phenomenon–I think there's a real hunger for moral credibility among liberal Jews. Unfortunately, it will continue to ring hollow until they look at Palestine as seriously as Iowa. Beyond that, there's a lot of complicated intra-Jewish cultural stuff to sort out here between the secular and the Hasidic. I'd like to know what others think. I don't know if Weiss reads these comments, and I don't know how to e-mail him.
Some ideas are indeed obscene, Bill. But luckily we all get to choose which ones we believe in. It's not in our genes.
If you would like to argue that there is nothing racist in the assumptions underlying Zionism, go ahead and try. But don't pretend that you don't understand the charge.
If you were only to read this blog and nothing else, you would be convinced that most Jews were neo-cons,voted in huge majorities for Republicans and love Israel-loving Bush. But you would be very wrong. In just about every election, Jews vote in large majorities against neo-cons. They largely hate Bush and hate the war. They will not vote for Israel-loving McCain but will probably be the largest white ethnic group voting for Obama.
David Green, the story about Postville goes a little deeper than the plight of illegal immigrants. See the book–
Postville: A clash of cultures in heartland America, Harcourt 2000.
But you're going to have to read the book, because the MSM isn't going to tell you about it. Here's a review from the jewish press–
link to bnaiemet.org
He didn't say anything about Zionism, although I would argue that point. He said Jews.
"Are you Jewish Klaus?"
That was the question that nearly everybody asked me when I was in Israel for a couple of weeks in December 2002. (I was traveling on my own, not in a German tourist group.)
When I said "no, just German" that was okay. But they wanted to know.
That's what a Danish guy who was working in Israel also told me:
"They first want to know whether you are Jewish or not."
__________________________________________
"Anti-Semitism is the world's oldest social pathology."
David A. Harris
American Jewish Commitee
I have mentioned this statement before. Harris wrote it in a letter to the International Herald Tribune and in a paper on the AJ Commitee's web site.
I thought about it again and have to conclude that it logically implies this:
- Before a people called the Jews came into being – in the first millenia B.C. – the world was sound. The world's societies went sick – and have been ever since – only after/because the concept of Judaism came into existence.
Am I right? I mean logically?
I always run the risk that what I say can be dismissed because I am German.
- If I would say something very philosemitic and Israel-supporting it could also be dismissed: 'He just wants to atone for German crimes by now being very pro Israel and philosemitic.'
Are you arguing that Zionism is an aberration of Jewishness? It seems to me it's at the very core of contemporary Jewish identity.
(BTW it's none of my business, but is it fair to say that you're not a particularly religious person yourself?)
(Sorry Klaus, my comment was directed to Bill Pearlman.)
"When a Jew tells another Jew about a social gathering his friend has two questions: How many Jews were there? And how do you know? So again I'd say that This is the sort of thing Jews think about all the time."
In my eyes this writing is not obscene, but the practice it describes is.
In your eyes the writing is obscene, but the practice isn't.
We operate are under different ethic frameworks. One of inclusiveness the other of exclusiveness. Nature accepts both, but it's a law of nature that the bounded one (yours) cannot successfully contain the unbounded one (ours.)
Make your bets. You will lose and with it you will lose the small patch of land in the Middle East which could have been yours forever if only you could restrain your greed the same way you restrain your charity.
That was Rome's verdict. It will also be America's, unless you remember you owe americans much more than you seem willing to give credit.
PS. You absence was felt in our bikini thread. Why a guy so prone to sexual verborragy cannot formulate a joke or two about a wordly topic? Even LeaNder went there pretending to be a representative of the Big Marble Penis Cult. You used to be more fun to be around when you were still Pearlman. But then came Walt and Mearsheimer and your world became one of shadows and anger. Poor thing.
======================================
PS I'm not chassidic
Posted by:Bill Pearlman | December 19, 2006 at 11:17 PM
======================================
Most Jews who aren't overcome by self loathing and liberal angst back Israel to some degree. But again that's not what that guy said. He said that Jews are obscene. He likes Phil Weiss, Phil likes guys like him. What's so hard to figure out.
We're not talking about "backing Israel", Bill. We're talking about backing the principles of separatism and choseness on which Zionism is based. Come on, you've been lurking here for three years and you still don't know what the conversation is about?
Maybe the fetishization of "anti-semitism" is making it hard for you to hear what others are saying?
"And that's one big beef I have with the neocons. They think about Jewishness night and day, as much as I do, more. Americans should know what's on powerful people's minds."
Yes, I agree. Encouraging existential paranoia, tribalism, moral particularism and anti-Semitism seem to be the main way Jewish elites manipulate ordinary Jews.
Remember when Saddam was the new Hitler? Wait, no, Ahmadinijad is the new Hitler, yeah, and Jews face the greatest existential threat since 1933 (Dershowitz et. al.)! Anti-Semitism is everywhere, especially since the word was redefined to include everyone left of Likud.
Remember how the *Passion of the Christ* was going to incite all those secretly genocidal Christians to commit pograms against their Jewish neighbors?
It sure doesn't help ordinary Jews when their leaders publicly weigh the value of Obama or McCain in terms of their willingness to follow Israel into the abyss should she choose to start a war with Iran.
He said that Jews are obscene. You can spin that whatever way you want but personally it makes me happy that there is a second amendment.
He said that Jews are obscene. You can spin that whatever way you want but personally it makes me happy that there is a second amendment.
I've heard you say far worse, Bill. Zionist have a long history of saying vile and dehumanizing things about others yet that gets a pass for some reason.
I remember watching the begining of Spielberg's movie "War of the Worlds" and thinking "why does an experienced movie director resorts to a barrage of screams from a little girl in order to provide a sense of terror?" Annoyed I turned the tv off and went on my business concluding Spielberg had lost his talent (if he ever had any) long ago. I feel the same when I read the hysterical reactions of the Pearlmans of the world. They believe their screams will make people freeze and focus not on the substance of the dialogue but on the psychological cost of bearing the incoming screams. "See, it's about my feelings, I am the victim here, I must be protected at all costs, you should stop hearing what they say unless you want me to start screaming again! do not think! do not think! do not think!"
Endless moral blackmail enveloped in preemptive baby screams. That from a bunch of supposedly adults.
Bad script, bad director, bad performers, bad movie. You have lost the power to make people be moved by your tale. Rejoyce in your million dollar bat mitzvahs but do not come to the house of the simple man crying about your woes. We will have none of it.
We no longer give you unconditional support. We will not keep your dream of perfect isolation afloat. Live with it, or start considering swimming instead of screaming.
And for your knowledge I live in the shock-and-awe sphere of influence, not in the second amendment one. But you know that already don't you?
"Jewishness is obscene to the eyes of a normal human being" was the quote.
Anonymous.
In writing.
Think about how that makes everyone that is anonymous look.
Since when do you care about how "everyone that is anonymous look?" Since the last two minutes because that is what is good for the Witty jew?
Hypocrite! You only care about yourself and your self-association, but pretend to be worried even about the state of affairs of the anonymous web user whe it suits you.
You really need to up your medication.
Where is the Top Sog? Is that all you can do with your small brain which people told you so many times was inherited from a superior branch of homo ultra sapiens?
"You really need to up your medication."
Is that it? Ashkenazi genius?
You got f***ing OWNED – Sword of Pearlman's Witty Gideon!
'I think that the elite is moving past it'
It's not the elite you need to worry about, especially now that half of it is Jewish.
'you're still stuck thinking of Jewishness as a racial category, while most of us here are discussing an ideology'
Precisely. It's not the Jewishness (oy vey, bring it on) – it's the Zionism. The murderous nationalism that is endangering all of us, Jews most of all.
'Thanks for your part in this, Philip.'
Keep on truckin' Phil. You're much more polite than me – I would have said to those friends and relatives 'why don't you just fuck off and quit telling me what to write, or say, or think'. What country do they think they're living in, after all?
I never said I was superior to anybody. But compared to you. My dogs shit is superior to you scumbag.
"And that's one big beef I have with the neocons. They think about Jewishness night and day, as much as I do, more. Americans should know what's on powerful people's minds."
But it isn't just Jews of the neocon variety who are shoving Jewish interests on the rest of us.
I rarely heard Jews mentioned growing up, outside of philo-semite Christian babbling, or a WWII documentary or movie. The media and culture are saturated with Jewishness today, and it's not just from Jews of the neocon variety.
That's bullshit. I have orthodox relatives who don't think about Jewishness has much as Phil Weiss. He counts up the number of Jews at dinner parties.
"I have orthodox relatives who don't think about Jewishness has much as Phil Weiss."
But that may be because there are no gentiles in their lives, Bill. Do they even allow themselves to break bread with them?