A fellow blogger has insinuated that I am the next Hitler. That’s a mighty amusing accusation, one I’d just love to respond to, but my homework for tomorrow is something along these lines. When I’m done summarizing Proust (actually an explication de texte, and what with Vichy and all, perhaps I dig this hole that much deeper), maybe I’ll write a post pointing out that I’m not all that much like Hitler, but maybe I won’t bother because the whole thing’s just too dumb. Proust, by the way… Jewish. Half, and not religiously, but what do you think Hitler’s take would have been, eh?

Cross-posted at WWPD.

Latest posts by phoebe (see all)

About the author

phoebe

13 Comments

  • well, it was a rare and different kind of hitler comparison, that might count for something. Poor hebrew aside, the implication was that Jewish exclusive self interest and the rejection of universalism was something that Hitler accused us of, that some of the Jewish community’s self perpetuating don’t-help-others-before-you-help-us was more of a nazi stereotype of us that what we are/were about— not that you hold like Hitler about other things.

    Which is a novel question. Should we do anything differently just because nazis accuse us of something? i had this whole trip about, if I drop small change in the street, not picking it up, as a kiddush hashem or something. Is that bad?

  • Oh I already made that graphic for Phoebe tho its up to her to post it. Man… it’s like the season for BlogWars! Why on earth would Steven I. Weiss pick a fight with us and with Phoebe? What sort of enmity could possibly inspire the dreaded Hitler comparison? What could Steven I. Weiss possibly have against Phoebe?

    I wonder… hmmmm.

  • I think that Steven I Weiss was just trying to point out (very very very tongue in cheek) the similarities between Phoebe’s arguement and that of Hitler in Mein Kampf. Not to compare Phoebe herself to Hitler, but to put the ideas in perspective. That her point that Jews are universalist in part so as not to be seen as particularist proves Hitler’s point.

    The Jewlicious crew’s response was a bit over the top and kind of counter-productive. Just because a blogger disagrees with a particular post doesn’t mean that he’s starting a war, just that he disagrees with an idea. Yeah, saying that you are all amartzim was unnecessary, but how many people actually know what that means?

  • Well I sure didn’t know what the hell an amartz was. But calling us amey ha artzim is indeed a declaration of blog war. Plus he seemed really mean about it too. With respect to our response, we coulda been meaner, but we really like Steven I. Weiss’s wife. She’s really nice. We were just funnin’. You’ve done an adequate job defending him – the question remains however, why hasn’t he defended himself? That more than anything else is probably what kept us going. We continue to wait in anticipation for more words of wisdom from our wise friend.

  • Well, personally, as a Jew I only care about other Jews more than anyone else. Why? Because I already know there are plenty of other Jews that care more about others than they do about their own people as we have seen in this and other threads. I’d like to think that I’m leveling the playing field, but since there are so many Jews of the other kind in the world, I’ve got a long way to do. So I’m doubling my efforts today and caring about other Jews twice as hard while not caring twice as hard about everyone else. Sue me.

  • Hi,

    Would someone mind telling me if being of the earth means more like:

    a) “earthy”
    b) “bumpkin” or
    c) “base and unworthy” like Reuven vs. Jakov?

    I mean, clearly it means having excellent and eclectic culinary taste, that much I could glean from the the heartily-railroaded comments section at Canonist. =-) (And Phoebe, who knows, half the traditional German foods could’ve been invented by Jewish cooks in the day… Hungarian Jewish cooking includes spaetzlish things, I forget what they’re called.)

    Thanks for any edification,

    –LirotTov, formerly signing as
    “Newbie, Leftie, Working on Lashon Hara”

  • Does anybody need a challah cover?

    A cloth dinner napkin with “Shabbat” written in very large Hebrew letters in its center, say embroidered by you, or painted by you, can be useful. Just pre-shrink it in hot water and iron it, before centering the letter Bet where the quarter-folds cross. You can get the plastic template for the Hebrew letters in the children’s section of a Judaica store.

    Some people use an ornate throw-pillow cover -without the pillow in it, obviously. Hand wash and hang up to dry with a clip hanger.

  • Well, she is like Hitler, because she keeps trying to get her hands on France. And as for poor Hebrew, it’s more “yeshivishspeak” than it is Hebrew, at least that’s my take on it.

  • I have a feeling we won’t be on that site’s blogroll any time soon. Here is my last comment in that discussion:

    Yeah Harley, poor Mobius, he’s such a big victim and definitely needs a hug. Better yet, why not give one to the person likened to a Nazi?

    Weiss, I have no idea who you are but you’ve had enough time to respond and have elected not to do so…and therefore it’s time to offer some words of advice.

    It’s laudable to be loyal and protective of friends. Unfortunately, in your energetic but misguided defense of your friend – who does happen to have his own bully pulpit and unlike you does not have the balls to publish comments that confront him – you directly insulted a person who had not insulted anybody and who had not meant to cause offense to anybody. Phoebe merely expressed a position regarding some of the ideas raised by Beery and Siedraski’s petulant, childish, hateful responses to Beery’s article.

    Perhaps you were unaware that Phoebe has only joined Jewlicious very recently and therefore has little to do with Siedraski’s anger at some of us (namely, yours truly), and therefore decided that she’s fair game. Unfortunately, your insult to Phoebe includes a comparison to Hitler or at least to his ideas although you attempt to camouflage this frontal assault with semi-clever writing. This is shameful behavior, nothing less. If you had wanted to put up a red flag to Jewlicious, the amartzim comment or others like it could have signaled your intent just as well.

    The fact that you haven’t shown up in this discussion indicates you recognize you are entirely in the wrong and your humility and embarrassment prevent you from coming forth with an apology. Then again, ignoring the discussion you created may be an attempt to indicate that you are above it. In case it is the latter option, I’m glad to report that on the contrary, your absence does not point to you holding any moral high ground or to having a solid argument in your post above. It actually points to your inability to admit that you have committed unnecessary and unfortunate offense to a person who attacked no-one and meant only to explore an idea. You would do well to contrast her approach with your friend Siedraski’s two nasty posts about this topic. My link in the 4th comment above provides a link you to one of them.

    Moreover, your silence also indicates that you cannot admit to the paucity of your thesis and ideas with respect to this topic. This happens to the best of us – sometimes we make mistakes. In this case it happened to you while you falsely attacked a Jewish person with a Hitler analogy. Your positions and your tone with respect to Phoebe, not to mention Siedraski and even the larger points at play here are simply off the mark. You owe Phoebe an apology. She doesn’t need one, I’m sure, and probably won’t care if she doesn’t receive one, but at least you won’t come off looking like Siedraski’s court jester.

    Overall, you’ve been mightily unimpressive in this first visit of mine to Canonist. You have my permission to add that line to your “Others on Steven I. Weiss” section.

Leave a Comment