Sunday, April 09, 2006
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 1 Comments
Jonathan Safran Foer made the list of New York Press' '50 Most Loathsome New Yorker's' with good reason. At the age of only 25 he received a 500,000 dollar advance for his first novel. That's extremely unusual for a first time novelist because a book advance is calculated against potential royalties and unless the first time novelist is a celebrity or somehow notorious, giving an advance that size either presumes that the book will make millions of dollars or that something is seriously wrong in the business.
In Jonathan Safran Foer's case the latter is true. With him everything you need to know begins with the fact that his brother is the editor of the New Republic magazine. The New Republic may not be well known outside of some elitist circles but it remains a prominent bastion of a certain class of old line intellectual liberal. It's also a major's writer's market. Little wonder then that Franklin Foer was able to elevate his brother's career on a silver spoon.
His first novel was written with Joyce Carol Oates as his advisor. On its initial release it received praise from John Updike, Salman Rushdie, Isabell Allende, Russell Banks and so on and so forth. It received reviews from major papers that were little more than bootlicking in print form. The Times for example wrote that the book was, "a work of genius," breathlessly proclaimed that Foer had "staked his claim for literary greatness," and declared that "after it, things will never be the same."
But Jonathan Safran Foer has not only relied on his brother's access to provide him with a silver spoon, he's cynically jumped on major tragedies to push his novels. Everything is Illuminated exploited the Holocaust as background for yet another tragi-comic piece about a man-child. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close shamelessly exploited 9/11 for a foul-mouthed story complete with a flipbook of pictures. And now Foer, who is an atheist, assaults Kosher food on behalf of PETA which has itself exploited the Holocaust and compared Holocaust survivors to pigs in its ads. Truly birds of a feather.
Now Foer who has proudly described himself as secular and an atheist, is going after Kosher Shechita in cahoots which PETA whose really agenda is to do what animal rights groups have often succeeded in doing in Europe, which is to ban Kosher Shechita as a vehicle for banning meat eating entirely. For an atheist like Foer attacking religion has its own worth but additionally his own success has been premised on a constant flow of publicity to force people to pay attention to him by exploiting serious issues. This is yet another example of that as Foer will produce a remix of the PETA video with commentary from left wing Rabbis who will typically distort Torah for their own agenda.
"The Torah makes clear that the very permission to eat meat is an exemption, it's a compromise," 'Rabbi' Greenberg is quoted as saying. Of course the Torah says no such thing and 'Rabbi' Greenberg, Clinton's apointee to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, who was forced to resign when he authored a petition to pardon escaped criminal Marc Rich, on museum stationary, knows this.
"Kashrut is an attempt to moderate, to make more gentle, our savagery toward the natural world," argues Conservative Non-Rabbi Wolpe.
Much of this follows the usual left wing attempt to pass off vegetarianism as the word of G-d. Never mind that Kashrut like all things we do is not about serving an ecological agenda but following the word of G-d. And the real point of the movie is of course to attack eating meat as evil and to promote vegetarianism. Abel who was a shepherd was favored in the eyes of G-d over Cain who worked with the earth. It was the man who 'exploited animals' who was the gentle one and the man who stuck to plants who was cruel. The Jewish leaders from our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov to Moshe and then later King David were shepherds. If 'exploiting' animals that is using animals for meat, milk, fur and leather was cruel, then Judaism is cruel too and that is the real hidden agenda behind the campaign against Kosher. It is as always an attack on Judaism.
PETA, whose tactics primarily focus on viciously slandering anyone who disagrees with them, distributing pornography, assaults and lawbreaking; drew its intellectual inspiration from Peter Singer, whose ideas go well beyond what anyone who supports 'Animal Rights' realizes. Peter Singer and current PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are supporters of legalizing bestiality. Newkirk herself pleaded with Arab terrorists not to use donkeys to carry out bombings but to presumably do their bombings the old fashioned way.
Peter Singer himself is an atheist who argued that human life has no more worth than the life of an animal. Singer wrote that infants could be killed up to 28 days after birth, particularly if he or she is crippled. Nazi-Hunter Simon Wiesenthal then wrote a letter condemning, "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns." Singer pushed a UN project supporting awarding 'Human' status to apes and supported the euthanasia of people with Alzheimer's disease.
PETA has meanwhile distributed booklets to children teaching them that if their father fishes they should keep their pets far away from him, because their father is a brutal murderer and might kill them. They sent their activists to schoolyards warning children that if they drink milk, they will get sick. They've driven their own mini-pornography industry, which has earned them condemnation from feminist groups and put up posters which contrasted victims of the Holocaust with pigs; in Germany.
Forget the slaughtered cows of PETA's Postville video, these are the people behind Jonathan Safran Foer's latest project and it merits a documentary far more than yet another PETA effort to manipulative and deceive the Jewish public. In his interview with the "Forward" Foer attempted to distance himself from PETA's politics, but his project is done under PETA's auspices, uses PETA video footage and propaganda and pushes PETA's agenda; so any such attempts at distancing are nothing more than attempts at plausible deniability.
Foer will put on a slick presentation to ask if Kashrut is moral. It's time to ask instead if collaborating with PETA and its sick agenda is moral.