Posted on 04/13/2022 10:54:59 PM PDT by bitt
I lived for very many years in rural Vermont. I’d bought a long-abandoned, post-and-beam farmhouse on a third-class dirt road. The realtor was a German immigrant who’d come to Vermont with his wife and infant children just after the war. He suggested that I call a local builder, Bob, to inspect the house, which was superficially in dreadful shape, but the farm and basement were sound. Bob said he’d be glad to put it right, and he and his brother-in-law restored it to its 1805 perfection.
Bob’s family had lived through the war in Germany, and through the famine afterward, and through relocation in America, ignorant of the language. Bob taught himself carpentry and all the building trades, and became a much-respected member of the small town, where all of his contemporary men had fought against the Axis in World War II. His brother-in-law, Eric, had been in the Hitler Youth, and Bob was a glider commando in the Luftwaffe—the equivalent, today, of Delta Force, or the Navy Seals.
My family became friends with Bob, and his wife, Ilse, became a surrogate grandmother—or better, great-aunt—to my kids. His family was my first encounter with the German national character—hard working, honest, and uncomplaining.
Of course I was seldom unaware that the regime he had fought for was dedicated to the destruction of my people and my race (if Jews are a race … in any case, to my like). I asked Eric about the Hitler Youth, and he said that he’d missed one meeting, and was told by his group leader that, should he miss another, he’d be shot. And, Bob, and every other man of fighting age and ability, was conscripted, and what were they to do?
Just as Eric explained, and perhaps apologized for, his membership in the Hitler Youth, Bob would tell me that his father had risked his life saving a Jew of his acquaintance.
To both cases: perhaps, and perhaps not. I never met a German who had lived through that wartime period who did not share with me the history of his family helping the Jews. Putting aside the question of the stories’ truth, I was struck by their seeming necessity for the teller. The current self-protective rationale of the Nazi era invokes an occupation by the forces of evil, which they were mostly too powerless to fight. Most of the people who lived through it are gone, and their descendants are entitled to imagine a history with which they can live—neither absolutely false nor true, but one in which someone tried to act.
Over the last two years in America, I’ve witnessed our own forces of evil with incredulity, despair, and rage. Corruption, blasphemy, and absurdity have been accepted by one-half of the electorate as the cost of doing business; as has the fear this acceptance generates. Does anyone actually believe that men change into women and women into men who can give birth, that the Earth is burning, the seas are rising, and we’ll all perish unless we cover our faces with strips of cotton?
No one does. These proclamations are an act of faith, in a new, as yet unnamed religion, and the vehemence with which one proclaims allegiance to these untruths is an exercise no different from any other ecstatic religious oath. They become the Apostles’ Creed of the left, their proclamation committing the adherent physically to their strictures, exactly as the oath taken on induction to the armed services. The inductee is told to “take one step forward,” and once they do he or she can no longer claim, “I misunderstood the instruction.”
Those currently in power insist on masking, but don’t wear masks. They claim the seas are rising and build mansions on the shore. They abhor the expenditure of fossil fuels and fly exclusively in private jets. And all the while half of the country will not name the disease. Why?
Because the cost of challenging this oppressive orthodoxy has, for them, become too high. Upon a possible awakening, they—or more likely their children—might say that the country was occupied. And they would be right.
...more
p
Does he mean: Dedicated to the destruction of my ilk?
Regards,
Could be. I didn’t get “to my like”.
But a great article. So true.
It is like we are occupied. Their beliefs are irrational and on the level if a religion or cult.
Can someone maybe explain to me the meaning of the title? Or is this merely a run-on sentence / formatting problem?
Regards,
Another way of saying the likes of (whomever):
like noun (2)
Definition of like (Entry 5 of 9)
1a : one that is similar : counterpart, equal have … never seen the like before— Sir Winston Churchill
b : kind sense 1a —usually used with a preceding possessive put him and his like to some job— J. R. R. Tolkien
American Occupation
Brave dissenters willing to defy an oppressive orthodoxy are our country’s best hope
BY
DAVID MAMET
APRIL 13, 2022
Hadn't noticed that this article was written by David Mamet. What a coincidence! Only yesterday, I was binge-watching YouTube interviews of him - spaced over a decade (Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute in 2014; a three-year old interview with Ben Shapiro; Dave Rubin just days ago).
Two observations:
1. This was the first time I had ever actually SEEN D. Mamet (I hadn't even known that he is a Jew), and I was surprised that he looks more like a longshoreman than a playwright. He has coarse facial features - not the fine features I would have expected of an artistic intellectual. That is my purely subjective take! Take it for what it's worth! I, myself, attach no greater importance to it.
2. He is extremely repetitious! His interview with Robinson in 2014 hardly differed from his interview with Rubin last week: Same old stories and anecdotes with the same punchlines, same observations on life, same line of reasoning, same witty remarks. Delivered in the same somewhat unfocussed manner - as though he wasn't really aware of his interviewer or at least wasn't trying to tailor his speech to that particular interviewer.
As much as I agree with what he is saying, I am disappointed.
Regards,
“Same old stories and anecdotes with the same punchlines, same observations on life, same line of reasoning, same witty remarks.”
Alcoholism?
I have no idea, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything of the sort.
I'm no psychologist, but it sounds to me more like he has developed one very narrowly delineated and closely circumscribed worldview - a "world formula," if you will, that explains everything (or at least: everything political) - and feels that he has found the perfect five stories, three anecdotes, two jokes, and one reminiscence to convey it to the public - and he ain't budging from that!
I repeat: I have made no deeper study of Mamet: Is he perhaps slightly autistic? I get the feeling that he'd give the same "performance" if he were being interviewed by Robinson, Mike Wallace, or Charles Manson. I don't see any "connection" forming between himself and his interviewer.
As I said before: His affect in the interviews was that of someone who is rolled out onto the stage, then fed the occasional catchword or "nudge" to keep him going, and then rolled back out again.
A one-trick pony?
I realize that I am really speculating here - perhaps someone else can enlighten us - or at least present an opposing view?
Regards,
I wasn’t fully irresponsible when I wrote the A-word.
He was known to have been a very heavy drinker when he was a younger man.
This is a pattern that I see with many creative people, who have drawn inspiration from heavy drinking. If they don’t die young then after some point they go into repeating the witty things their younger mind came up with. Mamet is 74 now.
Okay, I didn't understand that you were expressing an informed opinion (thought you were just taking a "shot in the dark").
I have too little understanding of alcoholism to evaluate his "performance" in (staged) interviews.
In the three interviews (spaced over eight years) I viewed, he had a sympathetic (not adversarial) interviewer who was essentially allowing him to ramble on - punctuated by occasional plugs for his "new book."
Whether or not this is typical for alcoholics or for playwrights (or alcoholic playwrights) venturing forth into the political arena, I don't know.
After viewing (two days ago) the FIRST interview (recorded in 2014, with Peter Robinson for the "Hoover Institute"), I was sorely tempted to go right out and immediately order his (then) new book, "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture." The man seemed prescient!
Now, after hearing him two more times, being interviewed years later, "spouting" the same old stuff, I'm not so sure it would be worth the investment in time and money. I have the feeling that he is capable of blowing his entire wad in a single interview.
This story here about his buying a post-and-beam house on a third-rate dirt road sounds picturesque and interesting - as a story. His experience with WW II-era Germans might sound interesting to Millennials, but I have lived in Germany for four decades, and have infinitely more such stories from my personal history.
Regards,
Sadly, some do. The indoctrinated do.
And this is the inevitable result when men turn their backs on God. Something comes in to fill the vacuum, and it doesn’t matter how absurd it is. People desperate for safety and security will follow it.
Because it’s about power, money, and control.
They are lying and they know it, but the ends justifies their means so they have no compunction about doing whatever it takes to maintain that for themselves.
Not sure why you are nitpicking this to death, and the author, but you might want to reconsider your focus, and go after the same people he does in his article.
Regards,
LS
Alcohol?
No need to jump to any conclusions.
Remember that the Eagles do “Hotel California” every night.
Sean Hannity repeats the same few words in every broadcast for the entire show. If that is what he thinks he needs to do...
I was indeed indulging in some very close reading, hair-splitting, speculation (clearly identified as such), and second-guessing, and I agree that this was perhaps better suited to a private discussion between myself and Krosan.
I have no bone to pick with David Mamet overall, and certainly no real criticism of the essay here.
Regards,
I am, of course, quite conversant with the expressions "the likes of him," "the likes of them," or "the likes of me."
"To my like" sounds just... off. I genuinely thought it might be a typo for "ilk."
But he's the world-famous playwright, so who am I to argue, right?
Regards,
I wasn’t saying far-reaching things without reason.
When Mamet was still an angry young man he said he has connected an IV drip, that puts alcohol straight into his veins.
I just notice a pattern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.