(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
I can't let Passover pass without recording a good crack my mother got off at me over matzoh ball soup. I was telling her that I was trying to raise money for this website when she said, Oh what about the Koch brothers? My mother is no fan of this site, and the crack touches on the fundamental political difference that I have with her (and yes, I'm wringing my oedipal laundry here, at the undignified age of 55, but, so it goes). She believes in "the bastards" theory of political agency.
The bastards is a concept that I believe Jews brought over from Eastern Europe, where we were at the mercy of the czar from above-- the bastards-- and of the peasants from below. The essential political dilemma of Jewish life, as a segregated minority with financial utility to the larger society, was how to propitiate both these forces without getting caught in the grinder. Caught we were, of course; but Zionism, Communism, integrationism, assimilationism, all these belief systems had their roots in this dilemma. It's my contention that we had more to fear from below than above, from the nationalist populists becoming resentful and murderous (the Hungarian role in the Holocaust, for instance, had a confiscatory impulse; or just read Isaac Babel's descriptions of pogroms in the Ukraine), and I have noticed that my mother always treated help well-- workers-- as I have too, when I was not one myself. But the bastards, the goyim in power, they always received the full measure of our scorn. And just as James Merrill used to speak of a daisy chain of gay poets going back from him to Ginsberg to Auden to Hart Crane to Melville to Whitman, so the bastards had unbroken pedigree in my family's cultural/political memory from Coolidge to Hoover to Dulles to Eisenhower to Nixon to Reagan, right on up to the Bushes and the Koch brothers. These were the real powers in political life; and I think there is some bastard-ism in Chomsky's analysis and in the New Yorker magazine's; the New Yorker pilloried the Kochs...
And this is my chief critique of the Bastards theory of history. We are wealthy and privileged in America. I look around my mother's seder table and I don't see her grandfather Philip the tailor or my grandfather Herman the auto mechanic or my grandmother Rose the social worker, no I see entitled people. We are as likely to be the bastards ourselves as the civil rights attorneys filing suits against the bastards. We are not Satter's middlemen, we are not excluded from the real sources of power. To believe otherwise is a piece of nostalgic self-service.
Our political role has changed. The neoconservatives are the best evidence of this. They hatched the Iraq war. It was their brilliant idea, there can be no question of this. And yet my mother, who with pride ascribes great intellectual powers to Marx and Freud to turn society on its ear from the safety of a Viennese couch or the British Museum, can discern no such social power in Abrams, Feith, Kagan and Wolfowitz. No they merely served the bastards. Jews can't be the bastards.
I understand the emotional necessity of this construction of history. At the risk of gross oversimplification (which has never stopped me before) we served an intermediary role, as Satter says. We were of vital necessity to the bastards, we could say with assurance that a society that failed to honor the place of the Jews would not prosper, even as we were discriminated against. And thus we could make an identification with the classes below us, the peasants etc, against the bastards. We could fight the bastards on the poor's behalf. Even if we were not poor ourselves, even if we had a country house. And we could gain street cred by waging that fight-- some indemnity against the poor's resentment.
And yes, some of us made noble sacrifices in this endeavor. Beryl Satter's father. Schwerner and Goodman the martyrs of Mississippi. Or the Jewish lawyers who are quoted in Ailsa Chang's superb reports on racism inside the New York Police Department today on WNYC.
I'm just saying, I don't think the model works any more. We must consider our enlarged place in the American establishment and jump up to it. We must listen to Helen Thomas and not just vilify this accomplished woman.
And of course this is the lesson of the Israel lobby, which I believe determines US policy in the Middle East, including-- o Elijah!-- the affliction of the Egyptian people for the last 30 years...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
Uh-oh, if Weiss keeps this up, he's going to get the shunning treatment that Goldstone received for violating the Law of Moser.
Oh, wait a minute. He already has, and his mother's caustic quips are part of the process.
You see, these Zionists are so ruthless and fanatical, they'll knife even their own children in the back for failure to adhere to the God of Zion.
I wish the God of Zion would go to hell, already...he's truly schizo, psychotic, and warlike, and always has been. The world will be better off without him and his multitude of Jew and Goy useful idiot supporters, who never seem to evolve in any meaningful way, and are preventing humanity from making its next great leap -- a true leap, I mean, not the kind of closed-loop "Great Leap Forward" advertised by Mao and his Jewish Bolshevik/Zionist muses that was originally engineered to serve racist Jewish and tribe-clinging purposes, anyway.
The Old Testament truly never belonged anywhere near the Gospels, and including it in the Bible may have been the greatest mistake in the history of mankind.
Weiss: "It's my contention that we had more to fear from below than above, from the nationalist populists becoming resentful and murderous (the Hungarian role in the Holocaust, for instance, had a confiscatory impulse; or just read Isaac Babel's descriptions of pogroms in the Ukraine)..."
Yeah, sure, as if the organized Jewish narrative vis-a-vis "the pogroms" and their treatment at the hands of the Christians is any more reliable than the Jewish Zionist narrative vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Weiss is being naive, here. He, of all people, should know that organized Jewry is comprised largely of pathological liars. They've been grossly exaggerating and outright lying through their teeth since the Biblical era through the Zionist era of today.
Lying, exaggerating or twisting and embelishing reality and history to suit whatever contemporary agenda is part of their culture.
Everyone who has studied the Palestinian issue and its true history in depth and compared it to the claims and narratives of the Zionists can see this, so what makes Weiss think that the Jewish myths revolving around "the pogroms" are any more reliable?
Chris makes an important point. If the Jews have lied about their conflict with the Palestinians, why would they not be lying about their conflict with the Russians the same way? The same thought has often occurred to me.
The Jews are so powerful that every single American president was Jewish, right? I can't see any references to the effects of the Diaspora and the strict limitations placed on which areas Jews could work in. The Christians salved their consciences by allowing Jews to finance them; many Jews are talented people, so of course they excelled in banking and finance. I understand that this caused and causes a lot of resentment towards them, hence the pogroms, from about 32CE, to the Holocaust, to the current wave of anti-Semitism; interestingly, the latter phenomenon in the UK is largely driven by some left-wing groups; the National Union of Students and the Oxford University Labour Party are two examples.The mindset of those who believe that Zionists organised and financed the Final Solution is way beyond my understanding. Such sentiments, however, help to maintain my firm support for a Jewish homeland, despite the deeply unpleasant activities of Israel's current government and armed forces.
you know the real truth why
THEY LIE BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE!
Jesus of Nazareth asks the Talmudic Jews:
Why is my language not clear to you?
It’s because you are unable to hear what I say.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?
If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?
Whoever belongs to God hears what God says.
The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
AND HE WAS A TORAH BELIEVER!
JESUS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES
The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah; where he would be born, his lineage, what he would accomplish, how he would die. We also know that he would be a king like David (Jeremiah 23:5-6), a priest like Melchizedek (Psalms 110:4) and a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18: 15-19).
This article is about what it means for Jesus to be a ‘Prophet like Moses’.
What did Moses Say about Jesus?
Moses is one of the most revered figures in Judaism as he is the one that God chose to give the Torah (Law) to at Mount Sinai. The “Torah” is the first five books in what Christians call the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
“To believe Moses” means to believe what he wrote.
Jesus said to the Jews that did not believe in him that if they really believed Moses, they would believe him;
Post a Comment