From the New York Times today:
… There is a law that governs the relations between the Jews and the rest of the world. That law was articulated in one form at the time of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, when the great Jewish thinker Gershom Scholem faulted Hannah Arendt for falling short of “ahavat Israel” — for showing insufficient “love of the Jewish people.”
This love is precisely what is required of an American president in dealings affecting Israel. …
I cannot claim any knowledge of Donald Trump’s “heart” or of the sincerity of his commitment to the Jewish state. But there have been indications going back decades.
One was provided by John O’Donnell, a former chief operating officer of Trump’s Atlantic City casino, who, in his 1991 book “Trumped!” quoted Trump as saying: “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
More recently, there was a 2013 tweet storm in which, desperate to show that he was “smarter” than the “overrated” Jon Stewart, Trump saw fit to rip off the mask behind which stood Jonathan Leibowitz, the Jewish name Stewart was born with.
And then, in mid-campaign, there was the meeting in which Trump told donors from the Republican Jewish Coalition: “I know why you’re not going to support me! It’s because I don’t want your money.”
These statements suggest, to say the least, a certain contempt.
More precisely, they reflect that well-known variety of contempt that, according to Freud, serves to anticipate and defend the ego against the presumed contempt of the other.
Whether the original disdain is real or imaginary matters little.
Whether Jon Stewart or the Jewish Republican donors disdained the kitschy builder with his flamboyant hair, his money, his bling and his properties, including the now world-famous Trump Tower, is obviously not the question.
The essential thing is that President Trump thinks they did, that he seems to see Jews as the caricature of the New York establishment that, for decades, took him for an agreeable but vulgar showman.
This is a perfect example of the self-defensive contempt that has so often fed anti-Semitism, with the Jews appearing, once again, as representatives of an elite that patronized him and against whom he can, now that he is in power, quietly take his revenge.
It reminds me of a story from the Talmud that illustrates this logic well.
It is the story — part history and part “aggadic” embellishment — of Rabbi Yehudah Nessia, one of the foremost figures of Jewish thought of the third century.
Rabbi Yehudah ran a school that a young Roman swineherd would pass by nearly every day. The students at the school, their heads full of knowledge and a sense of their own superiority, never missed a chance to mock and beat the pig farmer.
Years later, Rabbi Yehudah was summoned to the distant city of Caesarea Philippi, to appear before Roman Emperor Diocletian. It seemed that the emperor was full of consideration for his guest. He sent to him one of his most distinguished ambassadors and ordered that a sumptuous bath be provided to allow his guest to cleanse himself after his dusty voyage.
But Diocletian also sent his ambassador on a Friday, so that Rabbi Yehudah would be forced to travel on the Sabbath, violating the most important of commandments.
The emperor also heated the baths to such a degree that the rabbi would have been boiled to death — a fate from which the rabbi was saved by the last-minute intervention of an angel, who cooled the waters.
When the rabbi appeared before Diocletian, he recognized the former swineherd, who said to him with spite, “Just because your god performs miracles, you think you can scorn the emperor?”
I cite this story because it provides a good metaphor for the West today, where, as in ancient Rome, the triumph of nihilism can enable a pig farmer — anybody — to become emperor.
It is a good example, too, of Jewish wisdom, which responds to the situation as follows: “We had contempt for Diocletian the swineherd, but we are ready to honor Diocletian the emperor provided he, like Saul — who, before becoming king had tended donkeys — heeds the prophecy, rises to his office, and becomes a new man.”
* Such terrible contempt; when everyone knows that Jewish lobby groups are the only lobby groups to donate money purely as an act of charity and with no desire for inluence. They even prove it by funding each side in equal meausure.
* Shorter Levy:
Worship us Jews, just don’t notice us.
* If you had Trump’s billions, would you not want your accountants to be skilled and trustworthy? To interpret his statement as reflecting contempt turns its intention inside out. It may be crude and blunt, but it actually conveys a kind of respect.
* Perhaps Trump could present BHL with some of his old shirts that haven’t lost their top three buttons?
It’s the least America could do, what with Lafayette and all.
* So Jews want to be able to “mock and beat” working class white gentiles, while also manipulating our president. That’s quite an article to write.
Apparently Jews also think that white gentiles are on the level of pig farmers. Levy even mentioned that he’s angry that “anybody” (including pig farmers) can become president.
* He is also an avid proponent of European population replacement.
Of course Jewish nationalism is the one form of nationalism that is entirely kosher.
* I think French universities must teach a long winded and indirect style because their authors seem to all suffer from these defects. Sartre is also painfully bad to read.
* It’s surprising he seems so comfortable admitting that the Jews in his parable actually feel superior and never miss an opportunity too ‘mock and beat’ a passing pig farmer.
He thinks it’s a great moral lesson of Judaism — a Jew will change his opinion if that Pig Farmer rises to the challenge of being a great Emperor. A Jew is apparently willing to alter his opinion and will actually accept the Emperor – if he proves worthy.
It’s kind of a warpy lesson from a man with warpy morals.
The Pig Farmer and the Emperor are the same person – you would hope both the Farmer and Emperor are inherently worthy of respect. Niether deserves to be mocked and beaten.
If this is the ‘morality’ of ‘one of the foremost figures of Jewish thought’ – I think I’ll take a pass.
* 21st Century version of this story: “The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we’re seeing now,” – Anthony
* There must be an increasing disconnect going on between the majority of Jews and the official position of Jewish interest groups on Islamic immigration. I doubt the majority of Jews are any more keen on Islamic immigration than the majority of blacks or Hispanics, but Jewish elites seem intent on defending the rights of Muslims to come to the West.
There’s probably an element of urban elite desperation going on here. Strongly liberal Jews know most Jews are becoming more anti-Islamic and apathetic about defending open borders, so they are trying to make up for lack of popular support by being increasingly histrionic. It’s a bit like the why liberal urban whites tried to shame rural and suburban whites into not voting for Trump.
It’s a similar story with the Jewish neoconservatives, most Jews (being urban white collar workers) oppose increased defence spending and an aggressive foreign policy, hence the neoconservatives have to make up for their lack of popular support among fellow Jews by being more fanatical than their opponents.
* Levy really picked the wrong fable to extol Jewish virtues. Most people reading this story would concur that the swine-herd and his friends should have come back to the little shul and beat the crap out of those spoiled boychiks for mocking, stoning and beating a poor, beaten-down swineherd. Does give an insight, though, into how the warped mind of Levy works.
* “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
How is this an insult? It’s an indication that he regards Jews as more trustworthy than for example big tall Swedish German blonde guys like Trump’s late brother, who might decide that they want a little taste of that casino cash themselves to spend on booze and whores. It’s “heads I win, tails you lose”. Supposed Trump had said “the only kind of people I want counting my money are big tall blonde guys” – that would have been bad too. Somehow whatever Trump says is bad either way – you might begin to think that Levy doesn’t like Trump and has prejudged him already.
In Yiddish, if you want to say that you regard someone as highly trustworthy, you say “I would trust him with uncounted money”, which is exactly what Trump was saying.
Also I don’t buy the idea that it’s insulting to attach a positive stereotype to a race. What people who take offense at that are saying is that you aren’t supposed to “notice” anything about any race, good or bad – if you notice that Jews are good with numbers, next thing you might notice that blacks aren’t and we can’t have that – you have to be really stupid and PC and hire Buddy Fletcher as your money manager in order to show your open mindedness (but vice versa is not true – no one says that you have to get short guys with yarmulkes to play on your NBA team).
* If French Jews want to combat anti-Semitism, they should read BHL as a guide of what not to do and say in a gentile country.
* The point of the original story is twofold – first of all that you respect the office, not the man. Diocletian the Emperor is entitled to deference because he is the Emperor.
Levy adds his own twist and changes the story to mean something completely opposite – Trump has to rise to his office. The stories in the Talmud are meant to be instructive to the Jews – they aren’t telling these stories so that Diocletian (Trump) will learn from them. The real moral of the story is “be careful of who you disrespect on your way up because you might meet them again on your way down.” Or in Leftist terms, “Don’t punch down.” Yehudah ended up literally in hot water because his underlings had been disrespectful to someone who later rose to a position of power. The lesson is to treat everyone with respect because you don’t know where they will end up someday. This is a story which Obama should have perhaps listened to before he kicked the swineherd Trump at the Correspondent’s dinner.
But Levy COMPLETELY misses the point of the story and twists it to mean something totally different.
* I’m beginning to see signs of “Jew Fatigue” complicating my already bad case of Negro Fatigue. Jews seem to want to be accepted unless they’d rather be exceptional. And it’s always their option. They’re not afraid to ask: “Is it good for the Jews.” Isn’t it time that white people asked: “Is it good for white people, whether or not it’s good for Jews, blacks, Mestizos, etc.
* I don’t have to remind you that the bigger (and more blameworthy) Jews have tended to be more isolated from the repercussions, than the little (and less blameworthy) Jews. It’s really long past due that the little Jews give the big Jews their walking papers.
* My theory is that Jews have more animus against Christians because Christians were more tolerant. It sounds perverse, but it makes sense. Muslims didn’t give Jews as much room to move amongst them as Christians did. Muslims let Jews in as advisers here and there, but as a broad social matter, there was never a promise of assimilation, of being accepted as equals. The Muslim caste system never gave Jews the idea that they could rise to the top. They could get as rich as they liked, but they would still only be Jews, on the other side of the wall. Christians, on the other hand, gave Jews more breathing room, and as a consequence, showed vulnerability to Jewish gaming. Jews got it into their heads that they were owed something by Christians.
In short, I think Jews in the Muslim world never got as much reason to get uppity. They knew their place. Iranian Jews today are instructive. They mind their business, and live in their little walled-off Jewish world. Jews in Christendom were walled off, but more by their own choice, and they got the impression “hey, we could actually run the show from here.” Ultimately it proved a false dream, but they usually managed to make substantial progress before being put back into their place.
Animus against Christians has more strategic value for Jews, than animus against Muslims. Critique of Muslims gets them little, and is seen as feeding into some political strains that Jews want stamped out in diaspora territory. Critique of Christians legitimizes their rule and prevents those political strains. Though this dynamic has been altered by the Israeli colonial project (notice how almost all Jewish criticism of Muslims is centered around or motivated by Israel).
* It’s exactly like the endless retailing of gang-rape fantasies among feminists. You’re no one–no one!–unless you can tell a bigger, better story of oppression than your compatriots. Eventually the fantasies begin to beg credulity, which is when the big guns come out to enforce compliance.
That the feminists claiming the gang-rapes are generally among the last creatures on earth ever to be chosen for gang rapes is somehow seen as a feature.
