| « | A Short Question |
»
|
|
Friday, December 19, 2008
Respectable Anti-Semitism
What, you didn't know it had come back into fashion? Well, have a gander at this:
Working from the deep, respectable, cushioned inside, Bernard Madoff inflicted more damage and misery on Jewish families, charities, and institutions than all of the homegrown cells of jihadists running wild in the imaginations of Pamela Geller, Debbie Schlussel, Francis Porretto, Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz, and the flat sodas at Pajamas Media. These great bloggers have been scanning the horizon for pirates, oblivious to the bomb about to go off below deck.
Bernard Madoff, the modern-day Charles Ponzi who bilked billions out of his clients and will shortly be incarcerated for it, is Jewish, as were a great many of his clients and client institutions. More, he committed his crimes in the American financial marketplace. That makes his religion an acceptable target...if you're James Wolcott or one of his breed.
Note Wolcott's insane comparison between Madoff's crimes and those of jihad-minded terrorists. Note his blithe assurance that fears of further assaults against America or Americans are mere phantasms -- that to concern oneself with the possibility marks one as paranoid, perhaps dangerously so. You'd think that one who lives in the Islamists' preferred target city, most of whose other residents are aware of Fort Dix, the Maryland snipers, the two attacks on the World Trade Center and the rooftop celebrations of them on the other side of the Hudson, might allow for a smidgen of doubt about that.
America has been fortunate, these seven years since Black Tuesday, to have averted any further mass attacks on its shores. Actually, "fortunate" isn't quite the right word. We've been quite capably protected by the deployment of a simple yet brilliant strategy: take the fight to the enemy's home turf. Our armed forces have gone to the homelands of the jihadist forces and have given them, if you'll pardon the expression, holy hell. Our expeditionary forces have drawn Islamist militancy back to its home, simultaneously concentrating our enemies where they can be dispatched en masse, keeping them away from America's homeland and civilian population, and liberating 50 million people from two of the worst totalitarian dictatorships ever to afflict this unhappy planet.
Had it not been for the swift and effective mobilization of America's military and security forces, there's no telling what further strikes al-Qaeda and its affiliates might have mounted against the United States. There had already been enough thrusts against us extraterritorially to give a thinking man pause. Because no such events have occurred here since 9/11, the microcephalics among us -- they dislike to be called "liberals;" apparently the word has acquired some unpleasant connotations -- have luxuriated in blissful denial of the threat from Islam-powered terrorism. It calls to mind David Lloyd George's exchange of fire with an adversary, on the floor of the House of Commons, back when Britain was still Great Britain. The adversary excoriated Lloyd George for lending his support to a set of costly "and quite unnecessary" military precautions. Lloyd George riposted at once: "Is my esteemed colleague quite certain that those precautions would have proved unnecessary had they not been taken?"
Wolcott is quite certain. Indeed, uncertainty seems never to afflict him. If he ever encountered Kenneth Johnson's aphorism that "education is the process of moving from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty," or Bertrand Russell's pronouncement that "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt," you may be sure he would disagree.
Wolcott is equally certain of his moral position. He can't possibly be wrong; he's James Wolcott, Manhattanite literateur, Vanity Fair contributing editor, and scourge of conservatives and Republicans everywhere! And don't you dare tell him he's mistaken, either; one of such elevated morals could no more be mistaken than he could levitate the Pentagon. Therefore, for Wolcott to vent his anti-Semitic spleen at a choice target such as Bernard Madoff must be entirely acceptable, perhaps even admirable. And a lot safer than criticizing Islam or condemning Islamist terrorism, at that.
Let it be admitted that, in the post-World War II years, Jews in the Western nations have occasionally been accused of being over-sensitive about their security, even here in the United States. Now and then the accusation has had some substance. But a look at developments in Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia, and Australia, where anti-Semitic events have been accelerating both in number and in violence, should compel a decent man to allow that for Jews anywhere to be alert for the least hint of threat is entirely understandable. To read the insane emanations from the great mosques and academies of Islam, from which annihilationist rhetoric pours forth daily, should cause a decent man to do all he can to reassure his Jewish friends and neighbors that he's on their side against all enemies, come what may. Certainly a decent man wouldn't use his position at a relatively prestigious publication to imply that the world is in greater peril from conniving Jewish bankers than from jihad-minded Muslims. Not after more than 12,000 lethal attacks by said Muslims on civilian targets... a great many of them Jewish.
But we weren't speaking of a decent man, were we? We were speaking of James Wolcott.
Comments
I have to admit that while reading that, rather than paying any attention to what was written, I was just thinking, “Wow, you got a mention in Vanity Fair, and in the company of Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz no less.” Not bad for a little hole in the wall off the beaten path of the blogosphere, eh?
Posted by on 12/19/2008 at 04:09 PMI was just getting ready to post some smart-alec comment about how Mr. Porretto need to take it easy and not let his new-found fame go to his head… But Aaron went and beat me to it.
Vanity Fair, Francis? Really? Well done, man! And with the likes of Malkin and all them? We’re not worthy!
In a seriousness, though, what is up with the recent revitalisation of anti-semitism? It seems to be coming back into vogue. Although Mel Gibson taught us all that any anti-semitic content need be veiled and implied, as opposed to out-and-out, it has still become a sort of game, in my opinion, to see who can be the most bigoted, most hateful towards the jews without getting caught. What is up with that?
Posted by on 12/19/2008 at 04:54 PMYou can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies.
-- Doctor WhoWell done, sir.
Posted by on 12/19/2008 at 06:04 PMI wonder. Is any evil totally stomped out, unless all advocates are completely silenced or eradicated? We “finished off” the Nazis back in WWII, yet they have started to emerge in some numbers back in the “fatherland”. Islam (though total numbers were never really down to a minimal level) was, if nothing else “mostly passive” or at least self contained to the middle east and environs. Then starting with the late 60’s, they started to grab more attention with acts of violence and protest. Look where they are now.
So now the anti-Semite. The cockroach (apologies to insect variety roaches everywhere) of the human species, once again has spread in sufficient numbers to start making public utterances, within “polite” society.
As most of these putzes (and I mean that in the very Yiddish meaning of that word) wouldn’t be effected by scorn (Or would go “private” with their poison.) What is a valid solution to this? (hard to boycott that which I don’t read-Vanity Fair or Wolcott-)
Happy you have drawn enough ire to be mentioned by one of the dark sides larger publications. Would be happier still if you were in print in American Spectator or some such.
Posted by Guy S on 12/20/2008 at 03:39 AMMr. Porretto,
It’s one thing to disagree with another person’s views, but your attack on Mr. Wolcott - if based solely on the paragaph below - seems a little out of line. Especially, during this holiday season.
I hope you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and that you all prosper during the coming year.
“Working from the deep, respectable, cushioned inside, Bernard Madoff inflicted more damage and misery on Jewish families, charities, and institutions than all of the homegrown cells of jihadists running wild in the imaginations of Pamela Geller, Debbie Schlussel, Francis Porretto, Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz, and the flat sodas at Pajamas Media. These great bloggers have been scanning the horizon for pirates, oblivious to the bomb about to go off below deck.
Posted by on 12/20/2008 at 09:20 AMOh, don’t trouble your little head, Will. I have plenty of reasons for holding Wolcott in contempt; this is just the latest in the series. You might try searching this site for his name—and then searching his sites and blogs for mine.
Have a nice life.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 12/20/2008 at 09:32 AMSo conversely, following Will’s logic (??!!) it is quite alright for Wolcott to spread his overly fertilized hubris not only during “this holiday season”, but the rest of the year as well? But we should, at least during “this holiday season”, turn our collective kosher and non kosher cheeks? It is to laugh!
Posted by Guy S on 12/20/2008 at 12:04 PMMr. Porretto,
I took half of your suggestion and searched the Wolcott blog site for articles about you. That search led me to several of your Eternity Road posts - from which I extracted a few of your comments. I read those posts, so I know the context in which you made the statements, and their contexts cannot excuse the raw, hateful sentiments you expressed. Furthermore, I have no doubt that you were completely sincere when you made these statements. Perhaps you can list a few of Wolcott’s pronoucements that you believe can stand toe to toe with your starements - in terms of hate and prejudice
I do sincerely hope that you and your family have a Merry Christmas.
“Anyone who dares to call me insincere to my face had better have his gun drawn.”
“Perhaps liberals who want the privilege of spouting anti-Constitutional tripe and denouncing those who disagree should be required to drive cars with no brakes for a year or two. It might not teach them respect for the braking functions of constitutions and written law, but at the end of the experiment, we’d have fewer liberals. Fewer vocal ones, at least.”
“I have said it before, and I’ll say it whenever anyone asks, whether in public or in private: I am a racist. That is, I am persuaded that as statistical aggregates, the conventionally recognized races differ in ways that can be contextually significant. So any mealy-mouthed leftists in the audience who think they can cow me by calling me a racist already have my reply: Damned right I am!”
“The Internet is a blessing in many ways. Had Smith been within arm’s reach when the above took place, I’d have done my best to thrash him to within an inch of his life—and my best is very good. So at least I won’t have that on my conscience. But what I do carry there, as I mentioned above, is the fulminating anger that would have propelled that beating. I’ve found no way to exorcise that demon.
Alongside that is my unslaked desire to tell the folks who didn’t speak up for me exactly what I think of their silence. I haven’t done that, and I don’t think I ever will. But to say the least, it galls me to think that they held me, their co-contributor whose participation they actively solicited, in such scant regard. Well, the association is ended now, so perhaps I only need some time to get over it. What will take me longer to get beyond is the desire to reciprocate the slights I was dealt, a desire no follower of Christ is supposed to indulge. “Posted by on 12/20/2008 at 01:58 PMYou will notice, “Will,” that I’ve allowed your condemnation of me to appear here. That’s because I’ve never seen so perfect a demonstration of self-righteousness, humorlessness, and low reading comprehension in a single comment, even though I’ve been blogging for nearly eleven years and have been pelted by some of the most vicious voices on the Web. I want my other readers to see you for what you are—an approximate portrait of what you accuse me of being.
Gentle Readers: Choose according to your tastes.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 12/20/2008 at 03:39 PMI’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/12/re-respectable-anti-semitism.html
Posted by Consul-At-Arms on 12/21/2008 at 04:34 PMyou discuss some important subject. thank you for your efforts
Posted by on 01/02/2009 at 07:10 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
