Briefly: On Self-Lovers and Self-Haters
Definition: A "self-hating Jew" is someone so uncomfortable with his Jewishness that he holds that against himself and lashes out at all things Jewish, especially (according to hard-line definers of the term) the policies of the state of Israel.
Definition: A "self-loving Jew" [a term which I coined] is someone so much in love with this tribal identity that he'll embrace, without a moment's hesitation, anything that his gut tells him advances the interests of that tribe or works against its detractors. He becomes greater than himself by not having to work too hard to become a unique self.
Both individuals lack the self-confident personality that allows one to think of himself, first and foremost, as part of the larger human family. Both lack objectivity.
To the Self-Hater: "Come on. It's not like you were born into a black skin which you can't shake off. Ask yourself just what it is about having been born Jewish that really bothers you, and then be a man and deal with it. There's a wide variety within the Jewish community; perhaps your particular variety bothers you. Maybe you were a victim of brutality which you felt powerless against. Find ways to be strong and to help the weak, but don't merely idolize the strong. Under the right circumstances, even an Arnold Schwarzenegger can be forced to beg for mercy."
To the Self-Lover: "You can be your own man - and a great one at that - without having to kowtow to soulless secularist demagogues who are vying to be The Voice of Judaism. Truth be told, they can't hold a candle to the sages of the past. You would do well to follow their examples."
Jonah Goldberg
Question: What can you say about a panderer who writes a book entitled Liberal Fascism?
Answer: He's a very successful panderer indeed, since this oxymoronic volume managed to hit #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list. Go figure...
Bottom line: "I hate to break it to you, Jonah, but there's no such thing as a liberal fascist nor (if you'd prefer) is there any such thing as a fascistic liberal" - Steve Searle.
More Goldbergian silliness:
Jonah had this to say in his article entitled Hunting Nazis, in the September 7, 2009 issue of National Review:
QUOTE:
Indeed, while I don't think it is remotely right or fair to call Obama a crypto-Nazi ... the real problem with all of this loose Nazi talk is that it slanders the American people.
:UNQUOTE.
Okay, that being said, Jonah proceeds to slander the German people in his very next sentence, while indulging in some pretty loose talk of his own.
QUOTE:
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen may have overstated his case in Hitler's Willing Executioners, but he was certainly right that the German people were Hitler's willing enablers. The overwhelming majority of the American people - in their history, culture, bones, hearts, souls, DNA, and carbon molecules - are not like that. That goes for American liberals and leftists too. ... American liberals are still Americans, and Americans will not goose-step behind a Hitler, period.
:UNQUOTE.
Is Goldberg really touting the superiority of American DNA over Germanic DNA? Sounds kind of racist to me.
So why would this sham artist immediately follow up this one bit of stupidity with another in the very next sentence: "...Americans will not goose-step behind a Hitler, period?"
I'll tell you exactly why: Jonah Goldberg is indulging in a form of wishful thinking, of whistling-in-the-dark. He is making such a statement in order to kiss ass, by saying, "Yea, Americans! I know you could never be goose-steppers. You're genetically superior to that once-and-always evil race." Of course, JG can write anything he wants, while at the same time winking to his fellow Self-Loving Jews: "Hey, we've got to occasionally stroke the American goys' ego in the name of survival."
And Goldberg closes Hunting Nazis with one last pandering shot:
"But, by that point, this would be America in name only, if even that ("U.N. District 12" has a nice ring to it)."
Our wannabe propagandist is speaking directly to Americans who fear loss of their imperial sovereignty, who fear becoming just like everybody else and no longer being special. But Jonah deals in such fear-stoking, not because he loves America. But simply (or so he perceives) because only a strong and unfettered America can defend Israel.
And that's all he cares about, period.
Charles Krauthammer
At first I thought: "His last name is really Krauthammer? No way! Must be some kind of joke-name, meaning: One who hammers Krauts [a derogatory term for Germans]. But, no, his last name really is Krauthammer, though as a columnist he really lives up to the joke-name. For instance, when writing on Van Jones in The Chicago Tribune (9-14-09):
According to the Hammer, Van Jones is no longer in the White House, no longer part of the Obama team because:
QUOTE:
You can't sign a petition demanding not one but four investigations of the charge that the Bush administration deliberately allowed Sept. 11, 2001 ... and be permitted in polite society, let alone have a high-level job in the White House.
:UNQUOTE.
"You can't sign a petition...and be permitted in polite society..." Is that so? The Hammer seems to be implying that members of polite society don't ask questions and don't call for investigations. Polite Societers are more than content with narrowly-focused, bum's rush investigations; they want to believe in their leaders, want to "move on," want to "put all that behind us," and will brook no doubters.
Hammer must also want to exclude from "polite society" the (more than) 48 family members of 9/11 victims who had also signed that petition. Not to mention these signers:
- Daniel Ellsberg, a real American hero who released the top-secret Pentagon Papers.
- Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter
- Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN Magazine
- Edward L. Peck, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism [Reagan administration]
[NOTE: "Careful, Charles. If you exclude too many people from ‘polite society,' you'll end up being a very lonely man indeed. Ah, perhaps that's the crux of the matter, yes?"]
The Hammer includes this in that same 9/14/09 article:
"You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier..."
Personal note from Steve Searle to the Hammer:
QUOTE:
[sigh!] All roads lead to (or should I say "from" or does that really matter?) the Holocaust, eh? Whenever you disagree with someone, for any reason, you have to invoke the Holocaust? Oh, before you get your undies in a knot, here's my pre-emptive strike: "I firmly believe the Holocaust happened, to the magnitude which you believe it happened." So there!
And: You're right: A Holocaust Denier does not belong in the White House. So there, again.
But a truther does belong in the White House, but only in the sense of this definition:
A 9/11 truther is simply one of a large and diverse number of common-sense Americans who believe the prior investigations were a sham and who want an impartial, properly-funded, open-ended, unrushed, widely-sweeping investigation to determine exactly what happened and who was responsible, hopefully to decisively exclude the possibility that agents (rogue or otherwise) of the US government played any role in planning or supporting these attacks.
It doesn't really get any simpler than this, Charles: A truther is simply someone who seeks the truth. Is there any part of this that you don't understand?
:UNQUOTE.
By the way...
The average concerned layman should actually read the text of this petition signed by Van Jones. It's only 637 words in length and can be seen at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633 .
After having read it myself, all I can say regarding Van Jones is: "I feel sorry that he lacked the courage of his original conviction, saying now (falsely, I believe) that he didn't carefully read this petition before signing it."
This petition is the soul of tact, not containing the screaming rhetoric of the bomb-throwing anarchist. Oh, and before I let the Hammer get away with it, I will truthify his comment (indeed, his indignation) that petitioners were "demanding not one but four investigations..."
First of all, they weren't "demanding," they were "asking." Second, the magnitude of the events of 9/11 begged for inquiries from multiple levels, which magnitude alone can justify. Frankly, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with asking for four investigations, identifying possible investigators, and (hoping beyond hope) that at least one of these sources rises to the occasion.
Krauthammer comes across as a thinly-veiled propagandist, which you can readily conclude on your own after considering this part of the petition:
QUOTE:
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
- An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
- Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
- Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
- The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
:UNQUOTE followed by my supportive observations:
- Since the crime occurred within the state of New York, Spitzer should have investigated.
- Of course Congress should have held its own hearings, since that body would not have been constricted by the limits imposed on the (so-called) "independent" 9/11 Commission.
- I don't see how the Hammer could possibly object to the media being asked to do its job. Once upon a time in America, there actually was such a thing as investigative journalism - now only a shadow of its former self.
- A "citizens-based inquiry" would have been infinitely preferable to the one comprised of Dem/Pubs intended to be chaired by Henry Kissinger. [Remember: Kissinger was appointed by Bush but declined since he would have had to disclose his firm's client list - heaven forbid! Surely we could have counted on a guy like that for a through, no-holds-barred investigation - NOT!]
Reflections on Jewish Scholarship: Benay Lappe
Whenever I read the drivel poured out by the likes of a Krauthammer or a Goldberg, I feel that the Hun (read: the barbarian) is storming the gates of a grand citadel - that of the vast Jewish tradition of great writers on ethical matters. I am afraid too many people will believe these two imposters represent that vital and ongoing establishment.
And this is a very real danger, since they are famous and Rabbi Benay Lappe is not.
Ah, so who is Benay Lappe?
It would be too easy to simply think of Rabbi Lappe as "the first openly lesbian Conservative rabbi," as claimed on the SVARA website. She seemed to me like someone who was literally kissed by God. Which makes me wonder out loud:
"Why are people like Krauthammer and Goldberg so overwhelmingly embraced as voices of Jewish wisdom, when they are in fact neither very wise nor very Jewish? Justice cries out that someone like Benay Lappe should be more universally acknowledged as one of those voices."
About 8 years ago, I attended a class led by Rabbi Lappe during the month of Elul to learn about teshuva. I was one of the few non-Jews among her dozen or so students, and I remember being extremely impressed with her genuine love of scripture. Her belief was that God could be found within the pages of a book, and she was living proof of that belief. She was not a fire-and-brimstone preacher; she was kind and patient with her students.
She was not arrogant in her learning, though many scholars stumble into that trap. In fact, I had asked her a question to which she answered, unembarrassedly, "I don't know." The question was: "When was the last time God spoke to man - as a man would speak to another man (that is, in words orally rendered) - and what was said and to whom?"
I really wanted to know and I felt that she could tell me.
Rabbi Lappe's demeanor was that of a teacher who tried to process what her students were saying and to understand them on their own terms. Too many scholars try to twist questions to fit the pat answers they are comfortable giving. Not so, the good Rabbi.
From http://www.svara.org/ , we learn that SVARA is "a traditionally radical yeshiva" and:
QUOTE [ http://www.svara.org/ ]:
SVARA's name comes from the 2,000-year-old Jewish concept that one's internal ethical impulse informed by serious Jewish learning-together called svara-is not only a legitimate source of Jewish law, but can even "trump" Torah. Svara has been central to the philosophy and evolution of the Jewish tradition for these two millennia and underlies the unique nature of Jewish thinking itself, but has been, until now, a "secret" guarded by Talmudic scholars and rabbis.
:UNQUOTE.
In closing
I would be honored to close today's essay with this bio from the SVARA website:
QUOTE:
Executive Director and Rosh Yeshiva [of SVARA] Rabbi Lappe was ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York in 1997 and was the first openly lesbian Conservative rabbi. She is an award-winning teacher and is nationally known for her unique approach to the Talmud, which she has taught at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia, the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, and The Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, where she is a Visiting Professor of Talmud. Rabbi Lappe is an Associate at CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, a cutting-edge Jewish think tank in New York City, and is the Resident Rabbinic Scholar at Aitz Hayim Center for Jewish Living in Highland Park, IL. Benay's greatest joy is learning Talmud with other queer folk, and shabbos and Talmud study are her primary ways of doing Jewish.
:UNQUOTE.
Steven Searle was a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:
"I have the strangest feeling that if Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer were to publish pop-up books, they would easily top the New York Times Best Seller List" - Steve.
Founder of The Best Party Available
Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.
Help
Sign In
politics
December 2009 
Cinc
Access: Public
