Every time you engage in writing a piece,
you embark on an intellectual journey whose aim is to inform others of what you
know, and want the others to know it as well.
But you don't know all of it all at once.
You know the beginning of it, which is what motivated you to start writing in
the first place. You also know the ending, which is the point you'll be trying
to make ultimately. And then, there is the in-between road-map that's supposed
to take you from A to Z, but remains fuzzy in your head till you get to the
end.
That, however, is the beauty of the
journey because the fuzziness opens opportunities for you to discover ideas and
emotions you didn't know were hidden deep inside your psyche, aching to come
out and be revealed as relevant pieces of the mosaic that makes you who you
are. Thus, the journey turns out to be not just an exercise to inform others of
what you have in mind, but also one of self-discovery.
This is what takes place in every debate,
be it a one-on-one kind of give-and-take, or a general debate where everyone
that has something to say on a given subject, tosses their contribution into
the marketplace of ideas, and waits to see if it will produce an echo that might
indicate how it was received by others, and perhaps require you doing a
follow-up.
But something can also happen that is
entirely different from all that. You have a stark example of it in an article
that came under the title: “Today's anti-Semitism festers in online sewers ––
and the pages of the New York Times,” written by Rich Lowry and published on
April 29, 2019 in the New York Post. Please note that Rich Lowry is also the
editor of National Review, which means his influence on the literary and
journalistic scenes is considerable.
What you see in that article is the Jewish
form of communication known as the haggling. It is the standard manner by which
Jews communicate with each other, and known to everyone else as aimless
rambling. Most Jews also use this form to try and communicate with everyone
else, which is why they are little understood by others, and why they remain
deaf to what the others are saying.
In that article, you have a beginning that
is entrenched deep in the past, which you'll see expressed in the opening
sentence as: “The ancient hatred has migrated to the internet.” Of course, a
discussion can legitimately start with that thought, but you would then expect
the writer to take the reader on a journey that moves forward one rational step
after another. But that's not what you see in the Lowry article because what's
there, is a haggling that sets-up a static catalog of grievances instead of
expressing dynamic ideas that move the discussion forward to a satisfying
ending –– usually described as cathartic.
This does not mean that every article
cataloging grievances, is a rambling piece that's devoid of value. In fact,
many are written in such a way as to shed light on truths that are hidden
behind the cataloging. This is done by exerting the mental effort that's
necessary to enhance the presentation and add value to the discussion. For this
to happen, the cataloged ideas are reorganized to juxtapose them in such a way
as to highlight their differences, contrast their messages or point out their
contradictions.
When you do that with a catalog, every
element in it becomes a source of energy, known informally as “food for
thought.” It pleases the readers as well as informs them. It does something
else too. It stimulates the mind of the reader, encouraging it to see branches
sprout from the regrouping of the elements. And it begs the readers to build on
them, which is how the cross-fertilization and multiplication of ideas take
place.
Nothing like this happens in Judaism
because it is a politico-religious kind of culture that has a beginning called
Passover, and a predetermined ending known as the Rapture. Thus, designed to be
delineated at both ends, the road map that's in-between is subordinated to the
requirements of the dogmatic design. This is why creativity is forbidden to
play a role, and out-of-the-box viewpoints considered heretical.
And so, article after article, no matter
from which direction they come; they all end up going nowhere. That's because
all are required to sound the same, lest they deviate from the acceptable
dogma. Here is how a condensed version of the Rich Lowry article sounds like:
“The ancient hatred has migrated to the
internet. The attack came six months after the shooting at the Tree of Life
synagogue. Anti-Semitism is a millennia-old phenomenon. Today's anti-Semitism
is based on old lies, at the bottom of which is the belief that the Jews are a
parasitic force conspiring against their host. The shooter cited a lie that
Jews used the blood of a Christian boy to bake their Passover matzohs. A
different sort of anti-Semitism, rooted in hatred for Israel, is getting
normalized. There will be a next time”.