This is from the
I tell, you, I’ll never tire of pajama boy. And, this one is precious! The rationalizations and errors in this piece is staggering when one considers the person apparently had the ability to write, or otherwise convey a thought which made it’s way to virtual print.
Right Wing Anger at ‘Jewish’ Star of Viral Health Care Ad
Notice the semi-quotes around the word “Jewish”? Even the start of the article is wrong.
Surely the silliest kerfluffle of a political year that contained much silliness was the recent conservative hand-wringing over “Pajama Boy.”
Nah, sis, that’s not “hand-wringing”, it near euphoric mockery. It’s perfect! But, I’ll get to that in a minute. The author continues with utter inanity. Now wait for it ….. deep down, you knew this was coming …….
The Right went apoplectic, calling Pajama Boy “a metrosexual in a plaid onesie,” “an insufferable man-child,” and various other vaguely sexist and homophobic epithets. Apparently, real men don’t wear pajamas.
Or glasses. What’s interesting about the Right’s freakout about men who don’t measure up to the standards of the 1950s is how Pajama Boy’s obvious Jewishness has been subsumed by these other characteristics.
Yes, Virginia, Pajama Boy is a member of the tribe. Look at him. Pale Ashkenazic skin, Jew-fro’d black curls, Woody Allen specs. Even the smart-ass expression on his face screams of the Wise Son from the Passover Seder.
Parenthetically, the model himself is one Ethan Krupp, an Organizing for America staffer who is, in fact, Jewish. But whether Krupp himself is circumcised or not, Pajama Boy is semiotically Jewish, even stereotypically so.
I find this a remarkable part of the article. But, next is even more remarkable, but, consistent with the bizarre rationale this lunatic uses.
In fact, Pajama Boy stands at a centuries-old nexus of anti-Semitism and misogyny.
Wait, what? anti-Semitism and misogyny? How does the author (Jay Michaelson) make such a jump? Because Jews look like girlymen, even to other Jews!!!
Jewish men have been accused of being unmanly for hundreds of years – including by other Jews, such as the early Zionists, whose muscular Judaism was a direct response to diaspora Jewish emasculation. This is an old, old motif.
The Jew is the Other is the Effeminate is the Liberal. He is the urbanite, the parasite, the usurer, the lawyer. His effeminacy corrupts the Volk or the Heartland or the real American values. He wouldn’t know how to drive a pick-up truck if it was on cruise control. And he definitely votes for Obama.
Sigh, there’s not enough space to run through that bit of utter rot and conflation of entirely different views of people. But, I will say, Freud was really onto something, even if many of his thoughts have been invalidated. But, you see what he did there?
“Corrupts the Volk”….. really? You lunatic!!!!!
The author lives in a glass house while throwing rocks. So, because conservatives mock and ridicule some effeminate leftard ad by a bunch of leftards believing this would encourage anything other than mockery ….. because we respond with mockery, we’re the stereotypical pick-up driving rednecks — the other —- which is German —- which is anti-Semitic Nazism.
I don’t know which is more insulting. The insinuation that pajamaboy gets mocked because he looks Jewish, or that he calls people Nazis because they mock pajamaboy. The insult to all Germans is bad enough. I wonder how long all Germans will pay for the crimes of their forefathers? Volk? Really?
Of course, in all of the mockery I’ve seen, I never once saw anyone bring up the “Jewishness” of pajama boy. Nor, have I seen it inferred or even mentioned in private conversations and laughs about pajama boy. (I recently had a couple of get-togethers and all I said was one word, pajama boy, and my family all laughs, and we move on to a different topic!!) But, that, my friends, is proof positive that people who mock pajamaboy are engaged in anti-Semitic racism.
Needless to say, in this brave new world of Eric Cantor and the Republican Jewish Coalition (whose executive director makes over half a mil – must be a real man), the Jewishness of Pajama Boy is conspicuously absent from the vitriol. But as soon as you see it, you can’t un-see it. Which makes you wonder what the Review’s Charles Cooke – in another line conspicuously omitted by the discussions of this issue – meant when he said “the advertising machine behind the Obama administration seems not to really know what normal human beings are like.”
Because it’s absent, it is there. Take your meds you lunatic. I believe what Mr. Cooke meant was “the advertising machine behind the Obama administration seems not to really know what normal human beings are like.” But, that’s just a guess. I could employ the leftarded decoding ring and read crap which just isn’t there, but, then I don’t have a need for medicated induced mental stability.
But, the lunatic isn’t done living in a glass house while living in a glass house.
…… Whether or not the Pajama-Boy bashers are unconsciously anti-Semitic or not, I don’t know. Consciously, they are against everything “Judaism” stands for, at least as construed by its enemies: outsiderness, cosmopolitanism, liberalism, a progressive rather than nativist agenda, an opposition to the notion that there is one kind of “normal” person, a sympathy for the underdog and the immigrant as opposed to the successful and the privileged, and, yes, a rejection of a certain gendered, masculinist understanding of justice wherein the strong survive and the weak are trampled underfoot like the untermenschen they are.
Yes, Jay, way to fight the stereotyping, prejudices, and racism. For this, I’ll have to apologize, I don’t have a “Jew looking” .gif to put up in mockery of our paranoid delusions about knowing people are either consciously or unconsciously anti-Semitic because they didn’t write or speak anything anti-Semitic.
For the record, this pick-up driving, smoking, spitting, gun toting, plain speaking, conservative never considered the Jewish people as being “outsiderness, cosmopolitanism, liberalism, a progressive rather than nativist agenda (which is a false dichotomy in itself). But, I do understand there are Jews who embrace leftardism, as do many others across the racial, religious, and ethnic spectrums.
Volk and untermenschen, really?
You see, what the problem is the lunatics, such as Jay Michaelson are personally offended by our ridicule of pajama boy because they believe he’s the embodiment of what they believe, and who they are. Their feelings are hurt because the rest of the nation joined together to laugh at the absurdity of Zerocare and their idiot propaganda machine. Jay, I don’t care if you wear onesies or not. But, that ad isn’t going to reach anyone other than a basement dwellling leftard, and even they probably would be chagrin to associate with the character pajama boy was trying to portray. But, then, leftards hate mirrors.
But, because all of this, Zeerocare, team Zero, “progressives”, and pajama boy, are the embodiment of leftardism, can anyone tell me what is “progressive” about compelling a group of people, under the force of law, to purchase something their neither want, need, or can afford? If I considered things in such a manner, in terms of grouping people by their race, religion, heritage, etc ….. then I would think if anyone would being against this forced purchase, Jews would see this as another mandatory purchase of a boat ride to Poland.
But, you go on, Jay. You keep spewing your nonsense, keep refusing to take your meds, and I’ll keep on mocking pajama boy and the many other things which make you leftards a punch line in a bad joke.