Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unacceptable
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles ^ | 10-24-2003 | Michael Tolkin

Posted on 10/23/2003 8:06:58 PM PDT by Nachum

After The New Republic’s Gregg Easterbrook wrote in his online column that Jewish executives in Hollywood "worship money above all else," he apologized.

Every group in some way lives up to its stereotypes, and even knows that about itself — otherwise there’d be no specific humor within each tribe or dismay about the tribe within the tribe. Tribes and nations have opposing codes, and smaller groups within bigger nations or cultures will always suffer for the differences. None of us live without summary judgments of other tribes, in the largest sense of that word. The scapegoat mechanism is biological, and a civilized person, knowing this, doesn’t bring his uglier opinions forward, because he knows that our summary judgments belong to the same rough instinct as road rage. We feel it, we control it, and sometimes we slip.

The problem with summary judgment is that for every particle of truth, the scapegoat mechanism uses the lie to protect us from the mirror. This is called projection, or as the founder of Christianity said, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye, with never a thought for the great plank in your own?"

As far as I know, Halliburton and the big defense contractors who got the no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq are controlled by Christians, but no one would say of them that Christians are warmongering profiteers bent on destroying America’s middle class to immiserate all but a few million families, who will then refeudalize the world. Or no one would say of Disney that because some of the largest holders of Disney stock, the Bass and Disney families, are Christians, we can say that Christians exploit the Jews’ undeniably fluid understanding of numbers to make the Christians rich and give some Jews the illusion that financial partnership equals social acceptance. Then, when the Jews are no longer needed, like, say, Andrew Fastow at Enron, the Christians hang them, or even, as with Dennis Kozlowski, the old-line WASPs use the crimes of anyone outside of their tribe to obscure their own role in the conspiracy. No one would say of them that Christians worship money, just because of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

So who is guilty for Columbine? Blaming mass culture for destroying society isn’t new. Blaming the Jews for the destructive mass culture is also not new. Read "Mein Kampf." "Scream" and "Kill Bill" were written and directed by Christians. Is Easterbrook saying that Wes Craven and Quentin Tarantino were abducted in the night by Jews, their blood drained for the matzah and replaced with monster-movie Jew juice? Or that Christians, going back to ancient Rome, have an uncontrollable lust for images of blood, which the Jews exploit?

What is unforgivable in this is the phrase "worship money above all else."

Some may think that Easterbrook absolves himself of anti-Semitism with his aside that there are Christian executives who also worship money. But framed as it is, he puts the Jews in first position at the blood-soaked money altar. We started it. When you say the Jews worship money, when you say that Jewish executives worship money above all else, when you say that Jews don’t care about the screams of the innocent, you’re talking like a Nazi.

Easterbrook wrote: "Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice."

Otherwise, what?

Adding to the distress, Leon Wieseltier, his editor at The New Republic wrote, "Insofar as Gregg’s comments impute Jewish motives for everything that Jews do, insofar as they suggest that everything any Jew does is intrinsically a Jewish thing, they are objectively anti-Semitic. But Gregg Easterbrook is not an anti-Semite."

Wieseltier is wrong. Writing without an editor, or cautious self-censorship, Easterbrook wrote what he really thinks: that the Jews control everything, and that the Jews, for their own good, should remember what happened in Germany. There is no support possible for Easterbrook, the damage has been done and the Jews have been hurt. The apology is not accepted.

Author Michael Tolkin is the co-writer of “Changing Lanes,” which has been named the Best Picture of the Year by Catholics In Media. His most recent novel, “Under Radar,” is published by Atlantic Books.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antisemitic; greggeasterbrook; thenewrepublic; unacceptable

1 posted on 10/23/2003 8:06:59 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yonif; SJackson; Yehuda; Nachum; Mr. Mojo; Thinkin' Gal; veronica
FYI
2 posted on 10/23/2003 8:09:16 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
bttt
3 posted on 10/23/2003 8:09:59 PM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Is Easterbrook saying that Wes Craven and Quentin Tarantino were abducted in the night by Jews, their blood drained for the matzah and replaced with monster-movie Jew juice?

Well, it would explain a lot...

4 posted on 10/23/2003 8:11:16 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Be a bit careful, there! As I remember, the person offering an apology must first make good the damage he caused, make a public apology, and the apology must be sincere. The wronged party can refuse.

Then the first party repeats his earlier attempts (and the wronged doesn't get to keep the restitution offered and refuse to forgive, either). Again, the wronged party can refuse.

The third time is most interesting in that if the wronged refuses for the third time the offered restitution, and the public, sincere, apology - then the roles are reversed and the wronged party becomes the guilty party.

That legal mechanism was evolved to avoid lingering feuds, promote civil peace, and assure that one couldn't be successful with asocial behavior (no profit in theft if you have to make good that which you steal).

An elegantly simple system which stands the test of time.

It should be interesting to see if the author goes to the efforts required.
5 posted on 10/23/2003 10:09:25 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
I tend to agree with you; it's fine to refuse an incomplete apology, but if you leave no "road back to redemption", you risk discouraging the offender from further repentance.
6 posted on 10/24/2003 6:40:22 AM PDT by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson