| In Defense of Joey's Jewishness | |
|
by Michael Weiss, July 18, 2007
|
|
One commenter in the "Fire Foxman" thread calls himself "Just A Jew" but uncannily echoes the sentiments of an anonymous poster who's been haunting these parts saying that Joey is, inter alia, a vile goy with no right to opine on Jewish questions. Even though Joey has registered the domain name Goycy, taking a cue from his eloquent fan, I'd like to state for the record that the Kurtz is indeed 100% halachically Hebrew. More than that, his speech patterns and sweat glands practically herald the coming of the Moshiach.
For the record, Joey's reference to "mongrel" or "FrankenJews" in his dialogue with Jack Wertheimer applied to only a few of us at Jewcy who were born of virgin Gentile mothers (myself included). That's just the kind of Chosen Joe is: always choosing others over himself to speak from authority.
Anyway, some fuckwits are more interesting to read than other fuckwits:
The larger issue beyond the Armenian genocide (I am sure we can all agree at the very least it makes us uncomfortable for any American Jewish leader to do or say anything calling it into question) is where Joey Kurtzman - or Jewcy for that matter - gets off presenting himself as some kind of spokesman for Jewish authenticity. A self-described "mongrel" Jew among a bastion of fellow mongrels, who says that his own Jewishness has at best a vote in his conception of his compartmentalized identity, has no call to criticize any Jewish leader for not sufficiently representing his views. If you can not bring yourself to associate unreservedly with the Jewish people, to cast your lot with the fate of its people and none other, then you have forfeited your right to complain about its leadership. Jews whose Jewishness is not up for debate, who understand that identification with Judaism is of far greater substance than eating a bagel and lox or wearing a Jew-fro, can handle the discussion just fine without you.
The large issue beyond the Armenian genocide is whether Jewcy is the house organ of "Jewish authenticity," whatever that means. Now we're getting somewhere. What's the larger issue beyond the Darfur genocide? Whether Nick Kristof is a boxers or briefs man?
![]() |
Michael is a contributing editor of Jewcy. His work has appeared in Slate, Gawker, New York, Democratiya, The New Criterion and The Weekly Standard. His blog is Snarksmith. More... |
François Blumen...
I'm a big fan of people who
I'm a big fan of people who assume that there's *one* Jewish people as in *one* Jewish culture and *one* Jewish opinion on everything (and incidentally who assume that *they* can speak for that virtual group). Wonder where we'd have got to if that were the case. But then again I see that they have the masochistic trait of your typical Ashkenazi Jew (why do Ashkenazim *not* take aspirin? - Because it *might* ease the pain), since they apparently spend their time reading this site of mongrels whose opinions they so truly depreciate.
Alexander Chaihorsky
"If you can not bring
"If you can not bring yourself to associate unreservedly with the Jewish people, to cast your lot with the fate of its people and none other, then you have forfeited your right to complain about its leadership."
Lets re-write this for Americans:
"If you can not bring yourself to associate unreservedly with the AMERICAN people, to cast your lot with the fate of its people and none other, then you have forfeited your right to complain about its leadership.
That makes American Jews who care about Jewish fate to "forfeit their right" to criticize US leadership?
Mamma mia...
Anonymous
Alexander, I don't get this
Alexander,
I don't get this "you have forfeited your right to complain about its leadership". Since when do you have to belong to a particular group to criticize its leader (or even seek to change the leader)?
JewcyCraig
Eh
I think Alexander was quoting the nutbag in the post. Those aren't his words.
Edit: Weiss tells me that I have misconstrued Alex's post. Actually, we both reread it and are unable to decipher what he really meant, now. So, I apologize.
Alexander Chaihorsky
JewcyCraig: You were
JewcyCraig:
You were absolutely right - I was quoting from the Wiess's post (and he was quoting the "nutbag" quote (see his post above, cursive part, 6th line from the bottom).
What I wrote was that the idea that one cannot criticize one's democratic leadership if one is not "to cast your lot with the fate of its people and NONE ANOTHER" is a fascist statement that pronounces that only people with complete (i.e blind) loyalty to a "people" should criticize its leadership, i.e. vote free.
You have not misconstrued anything. Just read carefully.
Post new comment