It looks like Dennis Prager has at long last put himself on
the correct track to seeing life as it is, not as it has been drummed into his
head since childhood. This much comes out of his latest column, but the bad news
is that he may also be preparing to take the wrong turn ... not because he
wants to but because he does not know any better. And what all this means is
that his full integration into the human race, though promising, still has some
ways to go.
The Prager case being a metaphor representing the
rehabilitation of the Jews into the human family, it will be useful to read the
column he wrote under the title: “Learning the Wrong Lessons from Nazism” and
the subtitle: “The Worldview of the modern Left was shaped by its
misunderstanding of World War II.” It was published on December 10, 2013 in
National Review Online. Reading the column will show that these people can be
made to pierce through the fog of their own propaganda, and see the reality
that is beyond it. But there is a caveat as will soon become clear.
The first indication you encounter that there can be hope
for these people is expressed by Prager in Latin – unfortunately. However, it
is not the language that counts; it is the meaning of the expression he uses.
It is this: “sui generis,” which is Latin for “one of a kind.” And what this
says is that, at least this one Jew is beginning to move away from the notion
that if a single person does something disagreeable, it means that the entire
clan to which he belongs is disagreeable in the same way. If this is the case,
it would be a refreshing change.
Once you accept the idea that Dennis Prager – if not fully
transformed – is in the early stages of having a “Road to Damascus ” transformation, you will see his
article differently from the way you would normally see it. Indeed, you will
not see a family feud between the Jews who started the Leftist movement and
stayed with it, fighting the Jews who broke away from it and formed the Neocon
Rightist movement. Instead, you will see an attempt by this one author to
initiate an honest debate with possible interlocutors on the other side of the
ideological divide, whether they are Jews or anything else.
Prager is an avowed Right-winger who has been at war against
the Left for a long time. He begins the article by admitting, in a very subtle
way, that the unfinished war has had a profound effect on Europe and America , though
he blames the Left for the damage that was caused. Here is how he does that:
“The way to understand what is happening to America
and in Europe since World War II is to
understand the Left.” He then takes a more conciliatory tone: “One way to
understand the Left's enormous appeal to many decent people is to...” Never
before, to my knowledge, did he call a Leftie a decent person.
And he does not end the attempt at reconciliation here or
now. On the contrary, he goes on to rehabilitate the Left – if only in his
imagination – by justifying their having been wrong with an excuse that renders
the choices they made perfectly understandable. Here is that excuse: “The
lessons people draw from history go a long way toward explaining how they view
the world and how they behave.” See that? Here is one Right-winger who may not
be ready to blame the frailties of one individual on society, but is ready to
blame those of a whole bunch of people on historical events. Go figure.
Another trait of the Jewish culture that Prager seems to
topple in this column is the one I call: The first impression complex. This is
the one that compels the Jews to love everything that someone does if the first
thing they see him do is something they like. They also hate everything he does
if the first thing they see him do is something they hate. And this is how
Prager explains his new stance: “Everything the Left learned from Nazism has
been wrong … The first lesson was that the Right is evil. Because Nazism has
been labeled right wing, every right-wing position and leader has been
characterized as a danger to civilization.” The rest of the column describes
four more false lessons that he says the Left has learned from Nazism.
In any case, we can say so far so good because this is the
correct track for him to have taken. Unfortunately, however, he seems to
prepare taking a turn in the wrong direction right after he drops his sui
generis remark. He does so with this: “We have no contemporary movement that is
Nazi-Like. The closest is Islamist hatred of non-Muslims – but even that is
religious rather than race based.” It looks like ending his attacks on the Left
does not include the Muslims. And then there is the last part of the remark
which conveys the notion that if the hatred is race based, it would indicate
affinity with Nazism. But what if the indications are to the effect that the Jewish
hatred of non-Jews was race based? What would he say?
Kaboom! Is there any such indication? Yes, in a way there is
according to his piece. Look at this: “The association of Nazism with the
'right wing' is one reason many Jews loathe the Right. In the Jewish psyche, to
fight the Right is to fight incipient Nazism.” The first thing you notice about
this passage is that he used the word hate when talking about the Muslims, and
used the word loathe when talking about the Jews. But the two words are synonymous;
they are one and the same.
If the Jews are capable of hating, and given that the
question as to whether they are a race or a religion has not been settled, a
number of questions remain open to Dennis Prager: Does he consider all Jews to
be of the same race or ethnic background? Or does he consider Judaism to be a
religion that has acquired converts from many races and ethnic backgrounds? If
the first, he must view Israel
as being a Nazi-like state. If the second, he must view Israel as being
an apartheid state. Which one is it Dennis? Is Israel a Nazi state or is it an
apartheid state?
Unfazed by those unresolved questions or perhaps unaware of
them, Prager goes on to argue in favor of every talking point made by the
Right. Thus, he explains that waving the flag and expressing nationalism can be
a good thing. Judging other cultures and rating some as being inferior is not
such a bad thing. Opposing multi-culturalism and open door immigration can be a
good thing. Advocating pacifism can be bad; choosing war can be good.