There is nothing surprising about the omission of the Capital of the Jewish State and the chief Jewish contribution to society and reason, the notion of One G-d, from the Democratic Party platform. The two propositions are inextricably intertwined; only under the influence of recent western nihilism can a man acknowledge the existence of G-d and not remember the Jews; and only comparatively recently could a man acknowledge the Jews and not remember G-d. The party of Derrida that inhabits a portion of the Democratic Party is the party of forgetting and antinomian musing . It was no shock to witness them forget both. I’ll grant them their claim that it was an “oversight” precisely because the myopia of the Radical left is their very raison d’etre; forgetting distinctions and borders, reality, and simple yet profound truths is a way to sculpt and shape a society away from the freedom G-d granted and the Morality that the Hebrews disseminated into one of those amorphous horrendous post modern sculptures, the only virtue of which is the solemnity of its external praise.
The human mind, however, is an intractable organ. Memory is a powerful property, a faculty that has a tendency to undermine the tyrant and the mob, or the mob’s tyranny. To combat this pernicious and seditious organ, new myths must be formed to replace the real and the immanent. The relevant myths to counter the notion of G-d and his people are ubiquitous throughout history. But the most modern incarnation is the totemic image to which man’s mind has been affixed for nearly three centuries: the utopian state.
The state has replaced G-d as the arbiter of rights and the arbiter of Justice. Like a court with no judge and two baffled litigants, society has descended to the level of serial rhetorical abuse. The one who screams the loudest wins the suit; it is usually the one with nothing to lose, and nothing to pay for their offense, that files the suit and wins the judgment. The crowd can be invoked to judge —“all those in favor”— and an ancient predicate of society, the tune of which is steady and heartfelt, is enveloped and legislated out of the symphony. To be a conservative today is to lose every battle you engage in. Preservation is always more difficult than destruction.
The high chord of human babble —or is it Babel? — can now be heard. The state, it is believed, is this benevolent creature, an amoeba like yet congealed amalgamation of diversity and rights. The deity demands daily sacrifice. To it penitent prayers are chanted. And they are chanted effusively. In return it waters our fields and pastures—Welfare— mends our wounds — Medicaid — and sees us to our hoary years — Social Security. At birth we have no initiation, circumcision or baptism, but we are assigned a number. This number keeps the deity informed of our daily sacrifices; we will get out what we pay in. The state’s priests educate and inculcate k through 12 the necessary mental utility to either become a producer or a ward; both are allowed.
But it is entirely of our own making and is entirely terrifying. Traditional societies saw in suffering a purpose; today it is a method or strategy of politics; to the mendicant goes the charity and the mendicant in return gives thanks to the deity by way of votes. The Jewish political arrangement had it such that society was composed of obligations and not of rights. To the poor donations were to be given. Care for the poor was an individual demand, not a state sanctioned event. Thus spoke the Lord: leave the edges of Your field for the poor, at once demanding charity and making distinct that its only by way of private property that it can be given. Private property was not considered a “right” by our common and debatable definition but a means by which G-d’s Justice can be done. Purpose saturated the ancient world.
The polity of today demands of the modern State something akin to the miraculous—to enforce formerly religious obligatory practices at the expense of the rights it was once designed to protect. It does not take a deep philosophical mental movement to realize that the two are inexorably discordant demands. But the deity is all powerful in as much as it can blind and obfuscate the issue to the point of haziness. The masses are a malleable lot, they no longer believe in much; they can therefore be made to believe anything. Thus, on the steps of the Capital, as the debate over Obamacare raged in the empty court, a young woman was interviewed stating that “healthcare is a human right.” That the right of a Doctor not to practice medicine and instead write books would be circumscribed by such a demand didn’t need to enter her ruminations because she can count on the deity to enforce it. The Gulags of the Soviet Union did not exist because of some mere malevolence of its leaders, but precisely as a deterrent to those who desired to write books over practicing medicine, or make steel in lieu of mining coal. By appealing to rights outside of its negative implication in the individuals relation to the state, in a secular society, is to invite gulags, a materialist secular hell in replace of a transcendent spiritual one. They popped up all over Europe this last century like flowers blooming in the fauna of secular spring.
The right to abort fetuses, infanticide, is now also regularly enshrined, constituting a logical and ethical absurdity the likes at which even the pederast Greeks would scoff— mostly on its logical shortcomings. But that is the mode of the masses of the Party of Derrida, picking and choosing, subverting and negating biblical proscription to comport with their new society waxing towards a bestial indulgence of the appetites.
The party of Derrida understands this. They can never allow us to return to the Biblical polity, for spurious categories of rights might be impugned; so, like Marx, they must come up with clever new theoretical models and tactics that force what they find aesthetically and ethically pleasing. The Feminist “Philosopher” — I hate conferring that term on those who seek not truth but power — Kelly Oliver provides a startling glimpse into this tactic writing,
“in order to be revolutionary, feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, “natural facts.” Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories — not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories.”
One can replace the words “feminist theory” with any left wing inanity advanced today. The number of logical fallacies in this above statement almost runs parallel to the number of words. The one that jumps out immediately is if we are not describing facts than what inclines us to regard oppression as a real phenomenon that a theory not derived from facts can so forcefully adjudicate? The axiom of many a member of the party of Derrida is that there exist no truths, an argument whose weight hinges on the fact that we have thus far had difficulty discovering them, a blatant fallacy. But it is never in the interest of the Party of Derrida to find truth, but to deconstruct creation and destroy everything that is good and right about the world. It is a tendency as old as Scripture.
The faster they can remove G-d from human consciousness, a tactic, the faster they can destroy our homes and infants, our business and autonomy. Necessary to this endeavor is to destroy the people of the book who hold tight to a world that may have been spartan but was at least sane. The means by which they accomplish this is manifold: berate Jews for their particularist self respect and cohesiveness, deny their right to their ancestral homeland by invoking their universalist ethic, and demote them to the role of fascist invader.
The Jews are a nation. The idea of a nation is, in the post war west, an antiquated if not dangerous idea due to the fact that European Nationalism was the cause of so much chaos and bloodshed. Of course, that this may be a malady of the European mind and only the European mind and not a malady of nationalism itself is not a path of inquiry that is regularly traversed. The guilty are never fully repentant. While the Germans can have Berlin, the Jews are denied Jerusalem because the profligacy of a myth of a Palestinian people whose existence is contingent on their hatred of the Jews . The xenophobia of the Palestinians towards Jews is worse than the vilest of western racists. However, as long as the myth can be used for secular and leftist purposes, to assuage their guilt for the holocaust, the Palestinian Social machinery of death will continue to grind the sovereignty of the Jews to dust.
These are the animating forces behind the omission of G-d and Jerusalem from the Party of Derrida’s platform. To our President’s credit, he forcefully shoved them back into the lions den, resulting in a great deal of weeping and gnashing of teeth. But the acrimony unveiled the hidden enemy of humanity, the party of Derrida that has surreptitiously taken over the Democratic Party and the consciousness of all political discourse. There are surely many a Leftwinger who believe both in G-d and that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. I know a few of them, decent people all around. But I hope that they understand that the radical elements of their party are forcing us to make a choice.
To close, let me offer a glimpse into the mind of Derrida and compare it to another mind of more traditional persuasion. As it happens, I am up writing this at the early hours of the 11th anniversary of the murder of nearly 3000 people by Islamic Literalists, so the topic of comparison is appropriate. In an interview, Jacques Derrida, who has done just about as much damage to the western soul as the Islamic world did to their physical bodies, was asked:
September 11 [le 11 septembre] gave us the impression of being a major event, one of the most important historical events we will witness in our lifetime, especially for those of us who never lived through a world war. Do you agree?
Le 11 septembre, as you say, or, since we have agreed to speak two languages, “September 11.” We will have to return later to this question of language. As well as to this act of naming: a date and nothing more. When you say “September 11″ you are already citing, are you not? You are inviting me to speak here by recalling, as if in quotation marks, a date or a dating that has taken over our public space and our private lives for five weeks now. Something fait date, I would say in a French idiom, something marks a date, a date in history; that is always what’s most striking, the very impact of what is at least felt, in an apparently immediate way, to be an event that truly marks, that truly makes its mark, a singular and, as they say here, “unprecedented” event. I say “apparently immediate” because this “feeling” is actually less spontaneous than it appears: it is to a large extent conditioned, constituted, if not actually constructed, circulated at any rate through the media by means of a prodigious techno-socio-political machine. “To mark a date in history” presupposes, in any case, that “something” comes or happens for the first and last time, “something” that we do not yet really know how to identify, determine, recognize, or analyze but that should remain from here on in unforgettable: an ineffaceable event in the shared archive of a universal calendar, that is, a supposedly universal calendar, for these are—and I want to insist on this at the outset—only suppositions and presuppositions. Unrefined and dogmatic, or else carefully considered, organized, calculated, strategic—or all of these at once. For the index pointing toward this date, the bare act, the minimal deictic, the minimalist aim of this dating, also marks something else. Namely, the fact that we perhaps have no concept and no meaning available to us to name in any other way this “thing” that has just happened, this supposed “event.” An act of “international terrorism,” for example, and we will return to this, is anything but a rigorous concept that would help us grasp the singularity of what we will be trying to discuss. “Something” took place, we have the feeling of not having seen it coming, and certain consequences undeniably follow upon the “thing.” But this very thing, the place and meaning of this “event,” remains ineffable, like an intuition without concept, like a unicity with no generality on the horizon or with no horizon at all, out of range for a language that admits its powerlessness and so is reduced to pronouncing mechanically a date, repeating it endlessly, as a kind of ritual incantation, a conjuring poem, a journalistic litany or rhetorical refrain that admits to not knowing what it’s talking about. We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this way: September 11, le 11 septembre, September 11. The brevity of the appellation (September 11, 9/11) stems not only from an economic or rhetorical necessity. The telegram of this metonymy—a name, a number—points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify, that we do not know what we are talking about.
And here a Jewish man discusses September 11, 2001 in an article on Chabad.org:
We monitored the forecast out of concern for falling showers, but nothing could have prepared us for the prospect of falling towers.
Chassidic master Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin once said, “Not only is it announced in heaven whom you will marry, it is also announced in heaven the location, the date and the people who will attend the wedding.” Remarkably, the day chosen in heaven to feature our wedding would play host as well to the most catastrophic hour in American history.
9/11/01. The day the Twin Towers were toppled.
9/11/01. The day Esty and Dovi Scheiner were wed.
Late on my wedding day, when I should have been taking a refreshing shower, I found myself weeping bitterly, my face bathed in hot tears. I asked my spiritual mentor, “How can I tell my legs to dance as thousands of my fellow citizens prepare to bury their loved ones?” My rabbi explained that this was not a question of Happiness vs. Sadness; it was a matter of Good vs. Evil.
The events unfolding in our city did not call for surrender; they called for swift retaliation. Terrorists had just torn down a magnificent structure; now it was our calling to help build it back up.
Marriage in Judaism centers on the creation of a Jewish home. A Jewish home is constructed not only physically, but essentially spiritually. A Jewish home is one in which G‑d is a dominant partner. Prayer and Torah study, charity and hospitality form the true foundation of the Jewish home.
So, as rescue workers were sifting through the rubble at the site of the World Trade Center, Esther and I donned our hard hats and headed towards our chupah, just over the bridge in Brooklyn. With a plume of black smoke suspended in the skies above our wedding canopy, it was clear to both of us that our challenge in life would be to build more than a Jewish home—it would be to build a Jewish tower. Hour by hour, deed upon deed, we hope to raise our tower until its turret touches the sky. A lasting tribute to the Twin Towers that will be remembered forever.
Which of the two treatments of this topic more comports to a sense of reason and humanity, of reality and suffering, of good and evil, of triumph and tragedy, all the elements of being human? I can think of no sane man who would choose the former over the latter. The former is radiant in its incoherence, cold and distant from the affairs of humanity, the product of the University. But, thank G-d, the university does not exhaust the cosmos, and the ruminations and emotional ruptures experienced by a young man on his wedding day give us more glimpse into the real of the horror than the self-promoting nonsense manifest in the Party of Derrida and their patron Saint.
The choice is clear: Do we want to live in a world of Marx, Derrida, and Foucault , or one of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? And yes, to those post-modernists out there, the law of excluded middle still holds fast.