Wednesday, August 06, 2008



David Brooks' latest column is quite interesting. But it only hints around the issue, although quite cleverly enough that I can guess that Brooks' thesis is exactly what I'm thinking it is ... but Brooks, after the whole neo=Jewish fiasco, just doesn't want to say it.

Obama a "sojourner"? Not really ever "fitting in"? And that's why people don't quite fully "support" Obama? Essentially part of what Obama has going against him is not his race (although there still are, alas, all too many racists about) but his perceived religion. And "Muslim" is merely a code word here for "Jew".

Of course, by "Jew", I don't mean people like me of the Hebrew faith. I mean the "Jew" that anti-Semites would have to invent if we didn't exist.

Interestingly, as pointed out in that New Yorker article everybody ignored because they were too busy arguing about the cover (and even if people paid attention -- all that would happen is that anti-Obama people would say "see, this article proves everything we said about Obama is true" and pro-Obama people would say "nu? what's in here that we didn't know?"), at one time Obama was definitely perceived as a "tool" of "the Jews".

Which makes the constant fretting of certain elements within the Jewish community about Obama quite ironic. However, this fretting is merely a synecdoche for how these elements view anti-Semitism as a whole ... they are so paranoid about it, they view any criticism of Israel as possibly being anti-Semitic yet at the same time they get into bed (no matter what diseases they could catch, so to speak) with some people who truly are anti-Semites.

If I were a sociologist, I think I could write a book and get tenure here ...

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?