Love Jews Or Hate 'Em? Conservatives Can't Decide

[donsu]

http://www.downwithbush.com/#38

The Right Wing is playing a fascinating game. Earlier this week, hack New York Times columnist David Brooks opined that criticism of neoconservative policy amounted to hatred of Jews ("con is short for 'conservative' and neo is another term for new, although some see it as short for 'Jewish'," Brooks wrote).

Now, in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, Peggy Noonan, in not-so-coded language, says that she doesn't like Howard Dean, in part, because he acts too Jewish.

-snip-

The Right seems to be dividing Jews into two camps: New Jews ("good" Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol ) and Old Jews ("Hollywood Jews" and pugnacious doctors (like honorary Jew Howard Dean)).

And it's being done in the pages of some of the country's most respected publications.
---------------------------------------


(this possibly could go in the other GD, I wasn't sure which)

I've noticed two groups - those who back Sharon/Smirk and those who don't.

[el_gato]

1. what did noonan say exactly ?

and I did not see any of this info on the link you provided

[donsu]

5. scroll

nt

[salinen]

2. Neo-con Jews like

Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, represent the paranoid faction of Judaism, IMHO. My older relatives were also paranoid by the return of anti-semitism on a Hitler type scale. If these jew neocons were christians instead, they'd be on the 700 club warning of the second coming.

[ikojo]

8. Wolfowitz and Perle et. al are

Court Jews of the worse kind. They think, wrongly as history proves, that only if they suck up to power enough they will be tolerated.
They need to read more Jewish history to see that Court Jews suffered the same fate and their less fortunate brethren.

[LeahMira]

13. Well...

America has been good to us. As Jews have become assimilated into the U.S., some of them have done quite well for themselves. Assimilation, though, means exchanging some of who you were when you arrived here for some of what you find when you get here, and I think some of these Republicans have shed the wrong things. I, for one, would certainly like to hear these folks' explanation for how a pre-emptive attack on Iraq and more especially the tax breaks for the wealthy and the policy of leaving the poor behind stands up against Jewish values.

[agingdem]

14. Listen...

My parents were Holocaust survivors. They loved this country but hated the Joseph McCarthys of this world. When someone commits a a crime I pray the doer isn't Jewish..here we have Jewish doers who masterminded the Iraq debacle..if my parents were alive they would hang their heads in shame.

[tom_paine]

27. Isn't it ironic in a Straussian Way...

That those who followed Strauss' hypocritical teachings should usher in the nex Hitler, though he is a "kinder and gentler" Hitler who is much closer to Caeser.

It shows the Jews aren't special. We are just as capable of following or initiating evil as anyone else.

For more on the wonderful fascist teachings from "fascism-hater" Leo Strauss:

http://www.straussian.org/biography.html

[janx]

3. Peggy Noonan--

"The Right seems to be dividing Jews into two camps: New Jews ("good" Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol ) and Old Jews ("Hollywood Jews" and pugnacious doctors (like honorary Jew Howard Dean)).

And it's being done in the pages of some of the country's most respected publications."
____________________________

Again, the "conservatives" delight in division.

:puke:

[Must_B_Free]

4. Can anyone smarter share their historical knowledge with me

I love History when presented in a form I can easily digest.

Two mysteries for me:

1. I was studying cristalink and noticed that there were these things called "pogroms" or something where it seems groups have committed genocide against specific jewish populations around europe from the 1500s and the 1600s. It made Hitler's holocaust seeme like it was another event in the same vein.

Being an American, it is difficult for me to understand why are people always getting mad at Jews? What is it that these people are feeling threatened by or otherwise holding against the victims of the pogroms? I have never understood that.

2. What is the relationship between Rome and Judaism at the time of Christ? Controversial people are always spouting that "jews killed jesus" - but wasn't it the Romans? I don't understand the structure of the powers at that time.

[arendt]

7. Why do people get mad at Jews? Its that peace-loving Christian religion.

The medieval Christian Church was also the State.
Since the Jews would not convert to Christianity,
they were:

1) segregated into ghettos
2) given "unclean" jobs, such as money-lending
(remember that to the RC church, ANY interest was usury.)

From time to time, when things got bad (famine, plague,
war, what's the other horseman of the apocalypse?) the
powers that be would encourage the peasants to vent their
anger on the outsiders, primarily Jews, but also witches
(any women with a brain).

Over time, the pogrom becomes self-fulfilling. The marginalized
population accumulates a long "rap sheet" that justifies
constant suspicion and vigilance, and further brutality.

You know, like Homeland Security alerts and the Moslem-American
community.

Pogroms are the state-encouraged massacring of legally-
hobbled minority populations for purposes of social
control. Southern lynchings were pogroms against blacks.

> What is it that these people are feeling threatened by
> or otherwise holding against the victims of the pogroms?
> I have never understood that.

They aren't threatened. The pogromees are the designated
punching bag for the frustrations of the shafted common
folk.

arendt

[Must_B_Free]

16. Thanks

"You know, like Homeland Security alerts and the Moslem-American
community."

as I suspected... So it is pure opportunism to find someone to rally against.

[arendt]

19. More info

And, of course, when the state was neutral or
friendly towards Jews, there were no pogroms.

For example, there was a large Jewish population
in what is today Southern France, but was then a
separate mini-kingdom, Aquitania. Aquitania was
very wealthy, largely due to land and sea trade
with both Moslem Spain and Africa, and with Christian
Europe.

Then, there was the Cathar Crusade/Albigensian Inquisition;
and all of the sudden, Jews were ghettoized.

Another case:

Jews, of Khazar descent (see Arthur Koestler), were
dominant in the highly democratic and highly tolerant
kingdom of Poland-Lithuania from about ?1400 to 1600?
At that time, Poland was a bulwark of Christianity
(e.g., John Sobieski relieving the siege of Vienna
by the Moslems).

Once again, when not stigmatized and ghettoized, Jews
were not a problem. But, when Poland was partitioned,
the part of it under Russian (and thus Russian Orthodox
Christian) control put the word "pogrom" into the
dictionary. Same country, same people, different
political leadership.


So, these further examples add to the case that Pogroms
against Jews are part of a Christian agenda.

arendt

[kiahzero]

20. A few corrections:

Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Death

Witches weren't only women - plenty of male "witches" were killed as well.

On usary: My understanding of history is that the Jewish people weren't "given" these jobs, except possibly by default. There was a niche, and Christians wouldn't create businesses to fill it, leading to market dominance by Jewish people. This lead directly to the stereotype of the miserly Jew that persists to this day.

[arendt]

22. The Jews were prohibited from many jobs

Given some time, I could dig up a list.

What you say about their "choosing" money lending may
be true. But, their choices were extremely limited.
It may have been like ghetto kids today "choosing"
to be drug dealers, because that is one of the
few avenues open to them.

They also chose goldsmithing and jewelry making
because gold and jewels were small, high value
items that could be quickly hidden when one was
fleeing for ones life from a pogrom or being kicked
out of the country for no reason at all. These
occupations are reflected in many Jewish surnames:
Safire (sapphire) like William, Dimond (diamond),
Ruby (like Jack), Silver (like Ron), etc.

So, in both positive choices and forced choices,
the ghettoization and lack of basic security from
robbery and murder forced Jews to pick the kinds
of occupations they did.

Thanks for your comments.

arendt

[arendt]

25. The original target of witchhunts were midwives...

the RC church didn't like them relieving the
pain of childbirth. According to RC, the world
was about pain and suffering, and women, being
the "cause" of mankind's "fallen" condition
(Eve and the apple), they deserved the pain of
childbirth.

Also, midwives were knowledgable medics who made
Churchmen look stupid and callous. As usual, a
homo-social society can't stand "uppity" women.

Finally, the midwives might have helped with
birth control and abortion. Say no more.

Also, the witchcraft campaign was started up
after the Albigensian Inquisition. The Cathars
valued men and women equally, just like the
EARLY GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS. So, in addition to
stamping out the Cathars, just for good measure,
the RC church decided to make sure that women
got back to being chattel.

The RC church was founded by misogynists (Peter
and Paul), run by sodomite monks and priests for
a millenium, and generally has always hated women.

----

Eventually, witchcraft became something that men
were killed for, but it was after the whole witch
hysteria had taken on a life of its own. I mean,
there had been wizards (e.g., Merlin) in Christian
countries for a long time without pogroms against
them.

In fact, some of the male witches were actually
Alchemists, proto scientists - another bunch that
the RC church has always scorned and reviled.

arendt

[arendt]

10. Jesus, Jews, and Romans is one of the biggest ongoing brawls in academia

The cutting edge of current scholarship (which has
ZERO to do with anything the fundies say) is that

1) St Paul hijacked Jesus' story and grafted him
onto the Mithras "mystery religion". (Ever seen
a "Mithras Loves You" bumper sticker?)

2) Mithras was big in the Roman Empire, and Paul wanted
to sell his bogus religion in the empire.

3) Therefore, the inconvenient fact that crucifixion was
a Roman punishment, for the Roman crime of insurrection
had to be WHITEWASHED.

4) So, the Pauline branch of early Christianity wrote
Gospels which pushed the blame onto the Jews so as
not to piss off potential Roman converts.

Serious scholars see the prominence of the Pharisees in
the "official" gospels (as opposed to the Gnostic ones)
as an anachronism, since Pharisees did not really become
so prominent until the second century CE.

There has also been a lot of scholarship to show that the
supposed meeting of the Sanhedrin, which supposedly sent
Jesus to Pilate, was against Jewish Law on many points.
The Sanhedrin could not meet at night, during Passover,
or outside the Temple grounds. If the Gospels are right,
it did all those things. Also, the Sanhedrin had the right
to condemn Jesus by stoning. If the Jews had wanted to kill
Jesus for blasphemy, they had the legal right to do so, and
the Romans would not interfere. Plus, there was never any
custom of freeing a prisoner on Passover. The Romans were
not making nice to the Jews. The Romans were brutal occupiers.


I personally recommend you do not get into this. It is a
swamp of fevered devotees, splintered cults, etc. In general
its a waste of time unless you are a devoutly religious person.

But, if you want to have some fun, read The DaVinci Code, and
then "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

arendt

on edit: more detail on Roman practices.

[Must_B_Free]

17. fascinating that this is a grey area in history

pretty easy to see however that the romans are like the republicans of today and only want the masses to have knowledge useful to their rulership... They don't want to encourage any "deep thinking".

Interesting questions on what does the koran say. which contains a purer version of christianity? That and ethopian christianity seem to have withstood Roman revision, according to "Forbidden books of the Bible".

Did Mythras have the crucifixtion?

[arendt]

21. "a gray area" - That is an understatement

First, the Romans demolished Jerusalem twice (66 AD,
and again in 130 AD), thereby vaporizing many primary
sources of Biblical scholarship (and many Christians
of a strongly Jewish background.)

Second, just prior to Constantine's reign, when the
official books of the Bible were politiced for in
the Council of Nicea (325 CE), there was an anti-
Christian emporer. This emporer burned a lot of
Christian books. So, when Nicea produced its Bible,
all the competition had been conveniently burned.

Finally, at some point in this period, the Christians
set fire to the library at Alexandria. This library
was THE library of the ancient world, containing
priceless and irreplacable works from Egypt, Greece,
Rome, and Israel. Its burning was yet another
Orthodox Christian "erasure" of anyone who disagreed
with them.

----

To your questions:

The Koran says that Jesus is another "prophet", not
the Messiah. The Koran says a substitute died on the
Cross for Jesus.

> Did Mythras have the crucifixtion?

No. That was how Paul made Jesus out to be so unique.
Whatever, died and born again tradition the Mithras
cult had, it was completely a-historical/mythical.

IIRC, Mithras was somehow related to Zoroastrianism.


arendt

on edit: parenthetical comment about Jewish background
in first paragraph.

[LeahMira]

11. Simple form...

Being an American, it is difficult for me to understand why are people always getting mad at Jews?

Jews have not been any more than a very small number of people in any of the countries where they lived, but they have always insisted on living as Jews, not Germans or Russians or whatever else. Jews have been "a people apart" or "a separate people" throughout history... by their own choice. That irritates the majority. Although certainly not intended to be seen in that way, the majority seem to look at it as an implied criticism. Go figure!

What is the relationship between Rome and Judaism at the time of Christ? Controversial people are always spouting that "jews killed jesus" - but wasn't it the Romans? I don't understand the structure of the powers at that time.

Jewish power at that time was bupkiss... nothing. If Jesus is a historic figure, then the Romans killed Jesus, and they decided to do it all by themselves.

[Must_B_Free]

18. I wonder what Mel GIbson is proposing

this gets in to the whole controversy of Gibson portraying the Jews as killing Jesus in his new film. And the pope said it is as it was... Interesting...

I personally tend to lean towards roman revisionism... If you think about it, it must have been methodical for a conquering empire to salvage the manpower available to them as a resource.

[Halle]

33. Yes, if one goes by history,

the Jews should no longer exist. They were all supposed to become Christian rather than just some of them. Some stayed Jews, did not believe Jesus was the son of God but rather simply a good Rabbi (simply means 'teacher').

It's hard to say if Jews have been a people apart or a separate people because so many were forced to choose between converting, being expelled or living in ghettos. The word ghetto originated with Jews, I'm sure you realize. So, those Jews who did not wish to deny their faith or their history did become separate in order to survive. Others became Christian in order to survive.

It's a long sad history and I'm sure you are able to grasp the meaning of a such a small portion of a people surviving for so long against so many odds. The pressure to assimilate and 'go along to get along' must have been almost too much to bear.

[economic justice]

24. Must Be Free: An Answer To Your Question

You asked an honest answer and you deserve an honest answer. I saw this thread earlier and started to post a reply to your question but chickened out. It's a touchy issue and one does not want to give anybody the wrong idea. We can talk around your question all day, but you really do deserve to know why many THINK they don't like Jews.

- Jews have a long history as the "moneychangers"....Jewish men over the years have been hugely successful business people and bankers. This has created the stereotype of the Jewish mogul being a money grubbing SOB. (Hence the despicable phrase about getting "jewed" out of your money.)

- Jews have always been incredibly talented in the performing arts. Because of this you will find a big percentage of Hollywood actors, directors, and studio owners through the years being Jewish. It doesn't sit well with a lot of Hollywood wannabes. This same antagonism toward Jews goes way back to the days of early, early (ancient) drama.

- Personality. Many Jews were raised in a very competitive, supportive family network that always pushed a near perfectionist view of everything. You can chalk this up to many things, but overcoming meant overachieving and with success came the pressure to continue being successful. With this, (among many Jews), comes a very dominant, driving, demanding personality that is not understood by many. Hence you hear about the "typical arrogant Jew"). The roots are nothing more than family expectations of overcoming obstacles and succeeding at whatever you do.

That is Jew anger 101 made simple. It is much deeper than all of the above, but that gives you a taste. It is a stereotype that is believed by millions around the world and passed down from generation to generation. All touchy stuff, but that's the "brass tacks" regarding a lot of ignorant thinking that has brought so much hatred -- and in the most infamous reaction -- mass death.

[arendt]

28. Well,...

You made three points, which i will comment upon:

1) moneychangers - already posted about that (#7, #22)

2) performing arts

> a big percentage of Hollywood actors, directors, and studio
> owners through the years being Jewish.

Time out. This makes sense if you say:

a big percentage of the EARLY Hollywood studio owners and
directors were Jewish. I will be more than happy to grant
that the writers and technicians were also heavily Jewish.

But, there was strong anti-semitism in the US. So the early
ACTORS were not too often Jewish; and when they were, they
were ethnic acts like the Marx Brothers.

But, more importantly, the studio owners and directors were
more about getting finance, and controlling the actors
mercilessly. There was very little "performing arts" involved
in being a studio owner, unless you count the "casting couch".
Hollywood today is noted for the most arcane financial dealings
in the world. Witness deals in which "profits" come to investors
AFTER all the actors and all the studio moguls get their
guaranteed percentages first. Some deal! So, the moneylending
heritage is not ungermane to Hollywood.

As to actors these days, Hollywood is nepotism central. You can't
get in unless you are related to someone. So, you get a lot of
actors who are children of Jewish founders of Hollywood. Like
all the other children of famous folk there, their celebrity has
more to do with their parents than their talent. Just so you
get how widespread this is: I hate Gwyneth Paltrow. She is a
no-talent bum with well-connected parents. I am very unbiased
when it comes to nepotism.

3. Personality and competitiveness

> "dominant and driving personality"

Sorry, but this definitely cuts both ways.

If you google up a copy of Gibbon's decline and fall of the
Roman Empire, in which Gibbon blames the RC church for the
fall of Rome, you will find in Chapter 15, an argument you
won't like.

Gibbon claims that the Jewish personality has always been
unreasonably STUBBORN. In Roman times, everyone was tolerant
of each other's religions. After all, it was a polyglot empire.
Everyone, that is, except the Jews.

Gibbon claims that the one part of Jewish culture that did
make it into the orthodox cannon was this sense of Exclusiveness
and Uncompromisingness. Now this uncompromisingness was what
got the Jews snuffed by the Romans, and Gibbon did not count
it a virtue. He found the same uncompromisingness to be one
of the reasons for the downfall of Rome. I.e., the Christians
refused to behave like good citizens.

> family network that always pushed a near perfectionist view
> of everything.

As for strong families as a Jewish tradition, this is a
wonderful thing until you take it too far, as often happens
in Jewish culture. In the mid-80s, in "melting pot", post-1960s
America, the Jewish community went on a tear against Jewish
kids marrying outside their faith. Have you heard any other
American faith have such a worry in the last twenty years?

I mean, the Jewish community got exactly what it asked to get.
It became accepted everywhere, to the point that everyone from
the elite to the commoner was delighted to marry Jewish people.
And what does the Jewish community do with that marvelous
accomplishment and enlightened gift? It dumps all over it.

Just as with any large community, there are good people and
their are bad people. Jewish family life is a pressure cooker
that produces really excellent people and really awful people,
and very little in the way of mediocre. Some of the more awful
ones are the neocons.

I sure hope you do not include outrage at neocons in "Jew
anger 101".

arendt

P.S. I sure hope that I don't get flamed for being anti-semitic.
I just put a large number of statments down that could easily
be twisted into some of the boilerplate of the KKK. The point
is whatever you think of the Jewish community, you cannot ignore
it. So, I will gladly retract anything you want me to. Because,
on this topic, I would rather survive than be right.

on edit: clean up section on nepotism

[renegade000]

30. indeed the romans were in charge

but roman policy was such that after the military conquest, the remaining indigenous political/religious/societal structures in the region could remain roughly intact so long as they answered ultimately to rome. varying degrees of this could probably be found throughout roman history, and this is one of the reasons they could maintain such a vast empire.

biblical history basically says that indeed it was the jewish religious establishment (pharisees, scribes as they are refered to) that called for the crucifixion of jesus and leaned heavily on the roman authority (personified by pontius pilate) to do so. pontius pilate is alluded to often in situations of "well if you say so" attitudes in similar circumstances.

[arendt]

31. WHOSE bibilical history? WHO "allude to often"...?

The whole point of my post is that REAL scholarship,
as opposed to the indoctrination they hand out in
fundamentalist madrassas says that it was the Romans
who killed Jesus. The same scholarship says Pilate
was brutal, not indecisive.

> biblical history basically says that indeed it was the jewish
> religious establishment (pharisees, scribes as they are refered to)
> that called for the crucifixion of jesus and leaned heavily on the
> roman authority (personified by pontius pilate) to do so. pontius
> pilate is alluded to often in situations of "well if you say so"
> attitudes in similar circumstances.

Real scholarship says that, except for the recently
discovered Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Gospels,
plus an obscure hunk of the Bible floating around
Eastern Europe, the RC Church managed to destroy every
bit of evidence about any alternatives to the Biblical
version of the story. They had a millenium and total
spiritual and secular power.

But, upon rigorous historical analysis, the Biblical
story does not conform to the known history of the time,
plus it buries groups like the Essenes and the Zealots.

I'm not wanting to get into a war of citations. I just hope
you can acknowledge that there is, due to historical research
over the last fifty years, a strong case against the taking
the Bible at face value on the events related in the Bible.
The Bible is like Rashomon. One event, many witnesses, many
stories. Only the RC church killed all the dissenting witnesses'
writings.

arendt

[renegade000]

32. ya...when i said biblical history i mean

mainstream thought concerning biblical history.
i'm definitely no expert...

[Karenina]

6. A match made in Hades.

X-tian RW & Likudniks. I personally find it a BIZARRE match of "chicken," both sides playing two ends against the middle.

[David__77]

9. A lot of them are anti-Semitic of course.

When they rail about "elites" and imply some fringe with a conspiracy, they echo fascism. Of course many of them mean "liberal Jews." They want a "Christian nation" and are willing to allow for Jews to have a role in terms of foreign policy, but not the rest of it.

[theboss]

12. What coded language?

I read the column and she never mentions Jews. She says that Dean is a WASP that doesn't act like a WASP. But since when is the opposite of a WASP a Jew? You could take it to mean that he acts Catholic or Sicialian or Serbian.

Unless I am missing something, this is a really bad argument.

[theboss]

15. I still would like a link

Thanks

[Faygo Kid]

23. FReeper thread today: "Jews Won't Back Bush"

About what you expect. Many on the Religious Right back the Jews and Israel only because of their role in prophecy. Touched a nerve, though; over 150 comments. Here's one (and to be fair, a condemnation), along with the link:
To: bmwcyle
They rejected God when he came to earth. What do you expect?

Yours is perhaps the most stupid and ignorant comment I've read on FR in some time.
44 posted on 01/12/2004 9:19:07 AM PST by af_vet_1981

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056325/posts

[theboss]

26. Still would like Noonan's quote

Since I can't find it and wonder if this whole discussion is specious.

[Mari333]

29. The Bush base is right wing xtremist fundamentalists

beware of them if you are a Jew...they are only interested in converting you, or damning you to Hell if you dont do what they want..they are insane..

http://www.iraqwar.org/Armageddonupdates.htm