Trending Topics:

Palestinians can have human rights when they start winning Nobel Prizes — Bret Stephens

Media Analysis
on 100 Comments

There is a big controversy unfolding over Bret Stephens’s latest column, in which he says that the secret of Jewish genius is that Jews are more imaginative moral thinkers than anyone else. Even Fox News is saying that it is racist, and quoting Sen. Brian Shatz saying that the column crossed a line.

Stephens’s argument is that Jews are not just smarter by IQ data, but they think differently. Jewish intelligence is “so often matched by such bracing originality and high-minded purpose.”

One can apply a prodigious intellect in the service of prosaic things — formulating a war plan, for instance, or constructing a ship. One can also apply brilliance in the service of a mistake or a crime, like managing a planned economy or robbing a bank.

But… Jewish genius operates differently. It is prone to question the premise and rethink the concept; to ask why (or why not?) as often as how; to see the absurd in the mundane and the sublime in the absurd. Ashkenazi Jews might have a marginal advantage over their gentile peers when it comes to thinking better. Where their advantage more often lies is in thinking different.

A lot of smart people are taking Stephens apart on-line. Begin with Ben Ehrenreich here. I have three points:

–However smart Jews are or aren’t, there is something unseemly about a mid-level thinker like Bret Stephens attaching himself to the coattails of Albert Einstein and Rosalind Franklin and Kafka on a racial basis. Stephens can boast none of those individuals’ breathtaking accomplishments. In fact, his own commentary should be judged by his own “highminded” standard: when he wrote that there is a “disease of the Arab mind,” or repeatedly praised Netanyahu or said that Israel is justified in its slaughter of unarmed protesters and that the hundreds killed and thousands maimed are suffering from Palestinian “victimhood” and a bad culture. Stephens is an entitled twit.

–This is not a column about intelligence, but Israel. You are waiting for the reveal and it comes near the end. It turns out that Jewish specialness has caused a lot of Jew hatred, and it’s directed at Israel. “It’s no surprise that Jew hatred has made a comeback, albeit under new guises. Anti-Zionism has taken the place of anti-Semitism as a political program directed against Jews.” This just goes to show what a sloppy thinker Stephens is. The issues of measurable intelligence and human rights are completely unrelated. The short version of his column is, We’re smarter so we get to do this, and Palestinians can get their rights if they start winning Nobel Prizes. Such an argument deserves contempt and contumely and opprobrium and any other word you want to throw at it.

–Stephens’s self-satisfaction is widely shared in the Jewish community. I know because I’ve been there myself. Our intellectual record in the west in the last century was justly impressive, but it breeds arrogance, when it ought to foster reflection, especially in light of where we are now. Whatever we can claim in the past, we can’t claim it now. When Stephens says that Jews are better thinkers, and uses explicitly moral terms (highmindedness) he invites a full-on scrutiny of Israel’s immoral record and the U.S. Jewish community’s overwhelming complicity in those crimes. There is a moment in an Amos Oz book when Ben Gurion waves off a problem by saying that “Jewish genius” can fix it. I repeat, that attitude was widely shared among Jewish intellectuals… Then you walk into Gaza and see what feelings of cultural superiority have wrought.

No good Jew should want any part of that; and it’s a shame that the New York Times stable is now crowded with arrogant writers like Tom Friedman and Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens when there are many more thoughtful writers on pressing social questions available, to begin with Yousef Munayyer, Nada Elia, and Mairav Zonszein. I’ve met all three, and they are smart as they come.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of Mondoweiss.net and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

100 Responses

  1. John O on December 29, 2019, 11:59 am

    Even without the crude racism, Stephens shows himself to be a sloppy thinker and poor stylist. Formulating a war plan is “prosaic”? Why use the example of a war plan when redecorating one’s house would do as an example? (Most wars don’t go to plan, of course, and the generals formulating those plans are often fools fighting the last war rather than the one they need to plan for.)

    Building something as complex as a ship has never been “prosaic” but has been at the peak of human achievements since the Stone Age.

    • echinococcus on December 29, 2019, 11:20 pm

      Well, the Stephensian elucubrations seem to be even more revealing than that:

      “Prosaic” is applied in the context of things “One can apply a prodigious intellect in the service of”: “formulating a war plan…”, as opposed to “a mistake or a crime, like managing a planned economy or robbing a bank”.

      Get it? Socialist economy is criminal, or at the very least “mistaken”, on a par with bank robbery, while planning wars, the typically and exquisitely if not uniquely Zionist endeavor, is merely “prosaic”. Of course it cannot be poetically inspired like the high artistry of writing racist paeans in the war-criminal Paper of record but it is still to be classified among the highly useful activities, always according to the letter of Stevens’ text.

      Brett Stephens seems to have filed his candidacy for the Schleicher Prize.

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 6:52 pm

        “Brett Stephens seems to have filed his candidacy for the Schleicher Prize.”

        All too true. It wouldn’t surprise me if Bret Stephens’ last words are: “Keep the right wing strong!”

      • echinococcus on December 30, 2019, 7:35 pm

        As opposed to the Left Wing, wherein dwell John S / 66 and Fredman…

      • oldgeezer on December 30, 2019, 9:20 pm

        Of course Stephen’s also doesn’t understand that even if it was true that Askenazi Jews, as a group, tended to have higher IQ’s that doesn’t mean he isn’t a blithering idiot with an incredibly low IQ. That latter proposition he managed to prove with his article.

        As Bari Weiss is the opinion editor presumably she read and approved this article???? Note the question mark.

        The two of them are racist garbage.

      • Mooser on December 31, 2019, 11:36 am

        Nobody seems to see the problem with maintaining intelligence through endogamy in a small group carrying certain recessive genes?

      • echinococcus on December 31, 2019, 12:40 pm

        Mooser,

        You sound like you haven’t read and checked the 40-page paper referenced by Stephens (don’t worry, Stephens couldn’t have read it himself, either.)

        It’s a very cleverly prepared, painstakingly documented (and even more painstakingly cherry-picked and insidiously annotated) scientific paper. A lot of idiots who couldn’t even start to understand what it says are dismissing it for the wrong reason, that of having been written by a notorious “White supremacist” among its authors.

        The point of the paper is to discuss a theory that maybe the hereditary lipid disorders go together with high intelligence. Not necessarily that they are a cause but that they somehow would present together. Or get selected together due to high endogamy. As a hypothesis it cannot be dismissed out of hand just because it sounds farfetched– and certainly not because of the politics of the authors.

      • Mooser on December 31, 2019, 1:32 pm

        “The point of the paper is to discuss a theory that maybe the hereditary lipid disorders go together with high intelligence.”

        This is nonsense! There’s not a goddam thing wrong with my lipids. My IQ test proves it.

      • RoHa on December 31, 2019, 10:15 pm

        Echi, I fear you have not kept up with the tergiversations of post-normal science. Here are a few basic points you should familiarise yourself with.

        1. No-one actually reads scientific papers beyond the abstract and the first page. As long as there a few impenetrable equations somewhere, you can fill the rest with alternate quotations from Hooke’s Micrographia and Pope’s Dunciad. No-one will notice. The aim of the exercise is to add another publication to your list in your quest for tenure.

        2. If your results can be interpreted as supporting the fashionable opinion, call a press conference and proudly announce them. The assembled journos will eat it up. They won’t ask any hard questions because they know nothing about science, but they do know what the editor wants. Of course, if your results are inconvenient, publish them quietly (you still want tenure) and try to get better ones next time.

        3. Data and logical arguments have no bearing on science. You need “credibility”. This means that you agree with whatever the journos say the scientific consensus is.

        4. Most important of all, the politics of the authors of a paper are precisely the criteria on which the paper will be judged. Make sure yours are acceptable. Don’t give the university an excuse to fire you.

        I hope this helps.

      • echinococcus on December 31, 2019, 11:14 pm

        RoHa,

        Good advice, for which I thank you profusely — but too late. “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been’.”

        But then, we have always lived in a post-normal world.

    • JWalters on December 30, 2019, 6:13 pm

      Characterizing Stephens as a “sloppy thiker” is too kind. His absurd article torpedoes its own claim of “Jewish genius”.

  2. Boomer on December 29, 2019, 1:02 pm

    I recall R. Cohen of the Washington Post favorably reviewing a book or article claiming Jewish superiority many years ago. It’s not, as you say, a new or rare claim. I have a book, published years ago, that accepts the claim, but debates whether the superiority is due to genetics or cultural factors. So maybe all is not lost for those of us who don’t have the right genes. Maybe if we emulate the superior values and practices we too can share some of the benefits.

    But as you say, the notion of “imaginative morality” seems particularly problematic. Flexible morals, “creative” morals, can, no doubt, be an advantage in many contexts both for an individual and for a subgroup. From a particular utilitarian perspective, that may indeed amount to “superiority” of a sort. But as one surveys history, one may find reason to question the adequacy of such a definition, even for the subgroup.

    • Boomer on December 29, 2019, 1:19 pm

      PS: with regard to the NYT giving a platform to Stephens et al., I’m ambivalent. They represent a powerful force in American society, and there is at least some merit in letting the rest of us see the reality. As I grew up in middle class, mid-century, middle America, I had many Jewish friends and neighbors. Later, after I started my career, I had many Jewish colleagues and bosses (and a few subordinates). As well as Jewish doctors, dentists and accountants. It wasn’t until years later that I had reason to suspect that some of them regarded themselves as inherently superior.

    • RoHa on December 29, 2019, 11:41 pm

      “Maybe if we emulate the superior values and practices we too can share some of the benefits.”

      I recall reading, many years ago, that Britain gained more Nobel prizes per head of population than any other country. I don’t know it that is still the case, but, if it is, perhaps Britishness is a better route to intellectual eminence than Jewishness.

      • RoHa on December 30, 2019, 12:52 am

        I’ve just had a look at this list.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita

        Considering the climates of the Faroe Islands and St Lucia, I’d say the best bet is to copy St. Lucian practices (in St Lucia) and be a happy second.

      • Boomer on December 30, 2019, 9:21 am

        The question remains, exactly which values and practices are the key? If it is circumcision, I should be be all set, because 70 years ago that was standard practice among much of the American medical profession, even for non-Jewish kids. No doubt I should expect a call from the Nobel Committee any day.

      • MHughes976 on December 30, 2019, 11:58 am

        I got round to that list as well and thought that the achievement of the UK was quite impressive, that of the Swiss and Scandinavians even more so. Austria beats Germany, which is rather interesting. Something about the Jewish contribution to Vienna as a scientific hub? I’m sure that RoHa’s right to suggest that some high achieving Americans owe something to the UK education system.
        I think that anyone who used this evidence to say that we have one of the best education systems in the world would be greeted with reasonable scepticism, anyone who proclaimed that British blood is intelligent blood would be greeted with derision and scorn.
        I don’t grudge people a bit of reflected glory but would say that if it is pleasing that Jewish scientists and creative people get the recognition they deserve and that a bit of glory is reflected from them, that just reminds us that everyone has things due to them, very much including the Palestinians, who have somehow been denied the normal right to be enfranchised citizens of a sovereign country.

      • jackal on December 30, 2019, 2:30 pm

        The problem with the Wikipedia list, of course, is that it does not list the winners in any of the countries by their ethnicity. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find out that the majority of those might be of a Jewish background. There is an old Confuciast saying: “”Why do some smart people act so dumb?”

      • echinococcus on December 30, 2019, 5:27 pm

        The problem is not only with Wikipedia but with the equally barbarian, unwashed BBC that recorded each person’s origin according to the political state entity, and not only that, not at the time of his(her?) birth but in 2010 or so. Someone born Russian in the Russian Empire in 1904 is now from Azerbaijan or “Belarus” or whatever, while an American born in Korea during the war is “South” Korean… and acquired citizenships were also recorded, as doublets — as with those participating in the Zionist crime of invasion.

      • RoHa on December 30, 2019, 8:23 pm

        “The question remains, exactly which values and practices are the key?”

        If you want to emulate the St. Lucian success, you could start by drinking rum and playing cricket. Both are more fun than circumcision.

        (Do not attempt to emulate the Faroe Islanders unless you really like the smell of wet wool.)

      • RoHa on December 30, 2019, 8:26 pm

        “It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to find out that the majority of those might be of a Jewish background.”

        There are not many Jews in Britain, and rather a lot in Israel. If the Nobel prizes are won by Jews, it means that the British Jews are much brighter than the Israeli Jews.

        Or perhaps Britain is a better place for Jews than Israel.

      • RoHa on December 30, 2019, 8:31 pm

        On second thoughts, Boomer, perhaps cricket might not help after all.

        Australia ranks below NZ (surely the Kiwis cheated!) and Pakistan and India – both ferocious cricket countries – are down near the bottom.

        Just stick to the rum.

  3. Misterioso on December 29, 2019, 1:26 pm

    Thank you Tom Friedman, Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens! Your support for “Israel” and Zionism is well serving the Palestinian cause.

    • Mooser on December 29, 2019, 2:19 pm

      “The bedbug and the Bell curve.

      • Boomer on December 30, 2019, 8:34 am

        Thanks for the link. Among the guilty pleasures:

        “Bret Stephens is mediocre even at being terrible. He’s a dull person’s idea of an interesting writer, a dumb person’s idea of an intellectual, a sociopath’s idea of a man of virtue, and a legacy’s idea of someone who succeeds on merit.

        He is celery. Racist celery.”

      • gamal on December 30, 2019, 9:44 am

        “He is celery. Racist celery.”

        A Nemean laureate then…when there’s celery in the mix don’t bet on the bay,

        but is it not the case that most Americans believe themselves to be practitioners of the best culture, ever, and to be endowed with the finest morality, compassion, tolerance and creativity…disruptive creativity…. ever…the profoundest of knowledge, the perfection of mores and laws, the height of intelligence, the pinnacle of civilization, clearest of vision, Saviors of Humanity…the superior, the rational, the secular, the finest of persons , no wonder they (you) are so often anxious and depressed and enraged and prone to dismal projection, celery is not as medicinal as it is supposed to be, in cold climes it loses its savour and can get a bit slimy but slugs love it as I can attest.

      • RoHa on December 30, 2019, 8:39 pm

        “most Americans believe themselves to be practitioners of the best culture, ever, and to be endowed with the finest morality, compassion, tolerance and creativity…disruptive creativity…. ever…the profoundest of knowledge, the perfection of mores and laws, the height of intelligence, the pinnacle of civilization, …”

        I’m sure the Mycenaeans thought pretty much the same things about themselves.

      • echinococcus on December 30, 2019, 9:50 pm

        “I’m sure the Mycenaeans…”

        Let’s not be too sure of that. Remember, we have a lot of material in Homer, and what it shows of Mycenaeans suggests that they were rather modest regarding things cultural (as opposed to boasting of their muscular strength); they did give credit where it was due, even while bashing in the head of the guy whose culture was being eagerly adopted, and, most important indicator, they were pretty syncretic when meeting other peoples’ divinities — as opposed to our monotheistic priggishness.

      • RoHa on December 30, 2019, 10:52 pm

        How annoyingly modest of them! They have thwarted my attempt at using them as an object lesson in ὕβρις.

        Could you, perhaps, suggest a more co-operative alternative group?

      • echinococcus on December 30, 2019, 11:09 pm

        Why, the English, of course.

      • RoHa on December 31, 2019, 8:28 pm

        Oh, come now, echinococcus. They won’t do. A more humble, reticent, unassuming, and self-effacing group than the English you could never hope to meet.

        Besides, they are still around. Who knows, they may make a post-Brexit comeback, and set up a new empire.

        I really wanted some group who thought highly of themselves, and who are now barely remembered. But the moment has passed.

      • Mooser on January 1, 2020, 1:21 pm

        “I’m sure the Mycenaeans thought pretty much the same things about themselves.”

        And so does every Cretan.

      • RoHa on January 1, 2020, 6:50 pm

        Is that what they told you, Mooser? You can’t trust what a Cretan says.

  4. JohnSmith on December 29, 2019, 2:50 pm

    What an amazing achievement for privileged populations to have more achievements than populations that are denied schools, hospitals, roads, water, and sanitation.

    I could probably win more Nobel prizes than Israel all on my own if governments would just shovel billions (trillions?) of dollars my way to set up research laboratories and technology businesses. All the money would go straight to research, with no money spent on expensive fripperies like supporting racist populations or paying for vast crusader-castle settlements on hilltops so they can look down on the people they abuse.

    I wouldn’t even spend billions of dollars on propaganda and military repression, that’s how kind and noble I am!

    • RoHa on December 29, 2019, 11:44 pm

      And I will point out again that around half the Israeli Nobel Prize winners were not educated in Israel, and did not carry out their research in Israel.

      They were often the products of European education and American resources.

  5. Stephen Shenfield on December 29, 2019, 2:52 pm

    Those who boast of their intellectual superiority fail to understand many important things. They fail to understand the unearned advantages that have made intellectual achievement easier for them than for others. They fail to understand the arbitrary and defective nature of conventional measures of intelligence such as IQ tests and Nobel Prizes. They fail to understand the resentment that their claims of intellectual superiority arouse in others and the costs of such resentment to themselves. Moreover, boasting is a very boring and simple-minded pastime; truly intelligent people do not indulge in it. For these and other reasons boasting of intellectual superiority demonstrates a high degree of stupidity and is therefore self-contradictory.

    • Abern on December 30, 2019, 12:34 am

      I doubt those with higher intellects among Jews do much boasting. I imagine most of the boasting is done by those like Stephens.

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 1:53 pm

        “I doubt those with higher intellects among Jews do much boasting.”

        Not true. Not true at all. Take me, for instance; I’d be more than happy to boast about my intellect if I had one.

    • Abierno on December 30, 2019, 5:03 pm

      … over 800 Arab Nobel laureates. Stephens also has little sense of Arab contributions to medicine (Al Raza, Ibn Sena), mathematics, physics, chemistry. Also, he appears to have little knowledge of the exceptionality of current Arab Palestinian scientists such as, for example, Munir Nayfeh, particle physicist who has done much to move forward the critical domain of nanotechnology.

      Obviously, he has little sense that Palestinians – Arab, Christian and of other religious persuasions have the high levels of educational competence, with education being highly prized. Is it “Jewish genius operating differently” to destroy schools, detain teachers, frighten and harass children on their way to school, invade Arab universities – teargassing students, arresting student leaders as subversive, denying exit permits from the West Bank and Gaza so students lose their European, US and Canadian scholarships?

      I would urge Mr. Stephens to look closely at those haunting pictures of children doing their homework by candle light, attending outdoor classrooms in the punishing sun (after their schools were destroyed and even the desks and blackboards hauled away) and elementary school courtyards choking in tear gas as IOF soldiers run riot.

      This is a population which will – through hard work, disciplined action and sporadic international support – soon outpace their more privileged Israeli peers in virtually every field. Israel’s political will is irrevocably turned toward weaponry, the military (conscripting virtually every young adolescent citizen, except the orthodox) and feting the most aggressive of actions and commentary. Thus, it is not surprising that infrastructure such as schools and universities, with a few exceptions, are not a priority. To the intense frustration of many, many Israeli citizens who would preference studies, academic excellence and continuity of education through university above the current status quo. Writers with the platform of Mr. Stephens do these citizens no good service as by default, he lauds the status quo.

      • pgtl10 on January 1, 2020, 10:01 am

        I like to point out that Arab and Christian are the same. Christianity is a religion. Arab is ethnicity.

      • Talkback on January 1, 2020, 12:00 pm

        pgtl10: “Arab is ethnicity.”

        It started that way. But when the Arabians conquered other people they mostly arabized them. Culture, language, etc. Only 5% of Palestinians actually have Arabian genes.

  6. Brewer on December 29, 2019, 3:40 pm

    Stephen’s idiocy is sufficient, all on it’s own, to bring Jewish average IQ down to sub-normal levels despite Einstein et al.
    There is so much wrong with his bloviation it is hard to know where to start so I’ll just cut to the finish. Applying individual examples of either merit or disgrace to an ethnic group defines bigotry or, if you prefer, racism.

  7. Keith on December 29, 2019, 3:47 pm

    PHIL- “…the New York Times stable is now crowded with arrogant writers like Tom Friedman and Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens….”

    Power breeds arrogance.

    • Keith on January 1, 2020, 4:45 pm

      Folks, below I quote Norman Finkelstein’s reaction to the Bret Stephens article.

      “There’s a big brouhaha over at the N.Y. Times. One of their regular Jewish supremacist columnists, Bret Stephens, wrote a meditation on “The Secrets of Jewish Genius” (27 December 2019) that effectively posits the genetic superiority of Jews. Stephens came under attack for his political incorrectness so the Times had to publish a half-hearted “correction.” Honestly, I can’t fathom what’s the big deal. First, Stephens is the former editor of the Jerusalem Post, house organ of Israel’s uber Jewish supremacists. Surely the Times knew what it was getting when Stephens was taken on board. Second, I’ve never met a Jew who didn’t believe Jews benefited from superior intellectual endowments. (My close comrade Jamie Stern-Weiner swears never harboring this sentiment, but that’s just proof positive he’s a self-hating Jew.) Stephens’ transgression was saying out loud what every other Jew thinks. Third, can it really surprise that none of the Times’ editors spotted Stephens’ “slip”? The paper might as well be christened The New York Jewish Times. Not a single week, literally, passes without a Holocaust story featured on the homepage (“New Recipe for Cheese Blintzes Found Buried in Auschwitz Barracks”). In part, the Times is just pandering to its readership base of alte kaker billionaire Jews on the Upper East Side. But it’s also true that the Times truly believes Jewish life is inherently more sacred, its loss more tragic—which is why the Nazi holocaust is still newsworthy after 75 years, unlike, for example, the several million Vietnamese killed by Americans less than 50 years ago.” (Norman Finkelstein) http://normanfinkelstein.com/2020/01/01/the-new-york-jewish-times/

      • Talkback on January 2, 2020, 9:33 am

        Finkelstein: “I’ve never met a Jew who didn’t believe Jews benefited from superior intellectual endowments.”

        I did, but they were intelligent individuals who had no need to compensate a deeply rooted inferiority complex which imagined positive collective traits.

        Finkelstein: “The paper might as well be christened The New York Jewish Times.”

        Way more hits when googling “Jew York Times”.

  8. eljay on December 29, 2019, 3:56 pm

    … Jewish genius operates differently. It is prone to question the premise and rethink the concept; to ask why (or why not?) as often as how; to see the absurd in the mundane and the sublime in the absurd. …

    So…Jewish Zionists aren’t hateful and immoral (war) criminals and supremacists because they’re insane hypocrites but because they’ve done the calculations and, thanks to “Jewish genius”, they’ve concluded that their preferred brand of evil is better than the good and the morality of justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied. Wow.

    • eljay on December 29, 2019, 4:51 pm

      || eljay on December 29, 2019, 3:56 pm ||

      Not only that, but thanks to “Jewish genius” Jewish Zionists have been able to conclude:
      – that deliberately undermining international laws and human rights and the protections they are meant to afford all people can’t possibly have any negative consequences; and
      – that doing their preferred brand of evil in the name of all Jews can’t possibly result in blowback against all Jews.

  9. ronzie on December 29, 2019, 4:06 pm

    Here’s some of what an actual Nobel prize winner said when he was asked if he wanted to be included in a book highlighting Jewish Nobel laureates:

    “To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory” — Richard P. Feynman to Tina Levitan, February 7, 1967
    Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From the Beaten Track
    Kindle Edition

  10. Danaa on December 29, 2019, 4:33 pm

    So, if Jews are so accomplished in all things powerful, is it OK to call them now Mandarins (for the Empire)?

    Also, it might be fun to compare apples to apples – how come the jews of israel, with more Ashkenazis per square foot than America , accomplished so much less than the jews of America? could it possibly be that the real genius comes from that unique little America gene (good luck searching for it..)?

    More questions; may be the trick for producing “jewish genius” – especially of the moral kind, per Stephens – is in being a decided minority in their place of domicile?

    In which case – to continue this line of thought on all things racial and superior – perhaps more imaginative moral genius could come out of an Israel where jews become a minority (but with equal rights!).

    • Mooser on December 29, 2019, 5:45 pm

      Genes determine a lot.

    • Keith on December 29, 2019, 7:45 pm

      DANAA- “… is it OK to call them now Mandarins (for the Empire)?”

      Birthright Mandarins! Yes, yes, and yes! But you can say it and I can’t. Keep the faith, Danaa.

      • Danaa on December 30, 2019, 12:46 am

        @ Keith

        Keep the faith

        Always…..

    • Elisabeth on December 30, 2019, 4:37 am

      It seems to be the case that the Christian Arab kids (yes, those with the diseased mind) in Israel outperform the kids with Ashkenazi genius in school nowadays.

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 2:16 pm

        “outperform the kids with Ashkenazi genius in school nowadays.”

        Really? Are they out-performing pure Ashkenazi children?
        The poorly performing Ashkenazi children are probably blighted by out-marriage in their family history.

      • pgtl10 on January 1, 2020, 10:03 am

        *Christian Palestinian kids

  11. Jim Holstun on December 29, 2019, 4:54 pm

    Note: according to Bret, only Ashkenazim are smarter; Mizrahim and Sephardim are also dummies.

    • Mooser on December 29, 2019, 5:34 pm

      “Note: according to Bret, only Ashkenazim are smarter”

      So Ashkenazim should only marry Ashkenazim, to concentrate and refine this extra genetic intelligence.

    • Danaa on December 29, 2019, 5:54 pm

      You beat me to what my next comment was going to be. Namely the insiduous prejudice of the Askenazi jews against the mizrahi and Sephardic ones, something that has been and is still pronounced in israel. Nearly all Ashekenazi in israel regarded themselves as far superior to the Mizrahi (who were brought into israel en mass for use as cheap manual source of labor), even if they have become somewhat “mixed”. The counter movement from the Mizrahi is now in full force, still animated by resentment and fury over the way their parents and grandparents were treated. Indeed, the Mizrahi now way out-number the Ashkenazi descendants and as they became more numerous, they are flexing their muscles to make their claims upon the soul of israel manifest.

      One can see this playing out in the political sphere, as it is generally acknowledged that the Mizrahi community supported most fervently the far right parties as well as the orthodox and national orthodox ones. It is them who did and still do prop up Netanyahu, and it is them that encourage – often explicitly – the ever increasing sectarian religious element that is now taking over most Israeli schools, including the secular ones.

      Still, in the well-off communities of Tel Aviv and the hi-tech bubbles, the educated Ashkenazi continue to believe their god-given superiority, especially in its secular manifestations. They still despise the “darker’ races including their own. But even as they pride themselves on being a “start-up nation”, their relative numbers continue to decline, both by demographics and through emigration to more hospitable Western countries. Even the Russian immigrants will not be enough to prop up their “pure Ashkenazi” numbers. In another 10 years the landscape will be very different, something everyone in israel acknowledges. But the one thing that’ll remain is the superiority complex, which seems, somehow, immutable, and reistant to all manner of cures.

      • Misterioso on December 29, 2019, 7:32 pm

        @Mooser and Danaa, et al

        For the record, briefly:

        The Ashkenazi establishment in Israel was not pleased with having to populate the country with dark-skinned Arab and other eastern or so-called oriental Jews. “This distaste of the western Jews for the Orientals was not a new phenomenon; even in Ottoman times European Jews living in the empire had demanded the separation of their living quarters, food and worship from their Oriental co-religionists.” (Michael Rice, False Inheritance, p. 178)

        “Herzl and other early Zionists were not at all enthusiastic about “ingathering” those Jews living in Arab and other Muslim countries: “Zionist ideologues, for their part, had always shown an ambivalent attitude toward the Jews of the East precisely because of their non-Ashkenazi ‘otherness.’ In their texts and congresses, European Zionists consistently addressed themselves to Ashkenazi Jews and to the colonizing empires that might provide support for a national homeland, while rejecting the non-Ashkenazim as ‘savage’ and ‘primitive.’ At the first Zionist Congress (1896), they opposed ‘Levantization,’ the ‘tainting’ of the settlements in Palestine with an infusion of ‘Levantine Jews.'” (Ella Shohat, “The Invention of the Mizrahim.” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXIX, # 1, Autumn 1999, p. 9)

        Ben-Gurion declared that the Mizrachim no longer played any significant role in world-wide Jewry. In his view the leadership of the faith had long since been assumed by the Ashkenazim of Europe: “The ancient spirit left the Jews of the East and their role in the Jewish nation receded or disappeared entirely. In the past few hundred years the Jews of Europe have led the nation, in both quantity and quality.” (Quoted by Segev, 1949…., p. 156)

        Ben-Gurion cursed the Holocaust’s near annihilation of European Jews whom he saw as “the leading candidates for citizenship in the State of Israel.” (Quoted by Segev, 1949…p. 157) Like Herzl, who had called for a “Western-style capitalist-democratic miniature state [sans Palestinian Arabs] to be made possible by the grace of imperial patrons such as England or Germany,” Ben-Gurion dreamed of an Israel that was a “Switzerland of the Middle East.” (Ella Shohat, The Invention of the Mizrahim,” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. XXIX, #1, Autumn 1990, p. 7)

        Ben-Gurion considered Mizrachi culture with its Arab/Islamic influences to be inferior to that of Ashkenazi Jews and insisted that it not be allowed to survive in Israel. Indeed, his view of the Mizrachim can only be described as racist: “[T]hose [Jews] from Morocco had no education. Their customs are those of Arabs…. The culture of Morocco I would not like to have here. And I don’t see what contribution present [Jewish] Persians have to make…. We do not want Israelis to become Arabs. We are in duty bound to fight against the spirit of the Levant, which corrupts individuals and societies, and preserve the authentic Jewish values as they crystallized in the [European] diaspora.” (Quoted by Joseph Massad in “Zionism’s Others,” J of P S, Vol. XXV, No. 4, Summer 1996, p. 57)

        As well as suppressing Arabic spoken by Mizrachim, Ben-Gurion and his associates also wanted to minimize the use of Yiddish, the language of Eastern European Ashkenazi immigrants. Thus, it was decreed that a modernized version of Hebrew would be the official language of Israel.

        Ashkenazi Jews, especially those in public life, also Hebraized their names as Ben-Gurion (born David Green or Gruen) and many others had already done: Yitzhak Shamir, born Yitzak Yzernitzky in Poland; Golda Meir, born Golda Mabovitch in the Ukraine, married Morris Meyerson in the U.S.; Ariel Sharon, born Ariel Shinerman; Yigal Allon, born Yigal Faikovitch; Moshe Sharett, born Moshe Shertok, Shimon Peres, born Shimon Persky. The adoption of the Hebrew language and Hebrew surnames also served to establish a link between the modern Jewish state and the ancient Israelites, albeit a fictitious one.

      • Danaa on December 29, 2019, 7:58 pm

        @ Misterioso:

        Yes, Ella Shohat’s analyses were some of the most comprehensive on the issue of “Zionism’s Internal Colony”. The article I recommend most highly on the issue of the hierarchic separation between the mizrahi/Sephardi population and the dominant Ashkenazi one is titled “Sephardim in israel: Zionism from the standpoint of its Jewish victims” which is contained ina book called “prophets Outcast”, edited by Adam Shatz (a book I bought and highly recommend for its collection of articles).

        This lengthy piece contains and articulates many of the points you brought up at some length. Is the article you cited by her “The Invention of the Mizrahim” available on-line? I checked and couldn’t find it within the two minutes I allotted to the search, so perhaps I need to try harder?

        Also, do you have the full citation for the Michael Rice article you mentioned? Tx.

      • Keith on December 29, 2019, 7:58 pm

        MISTERIOSO- “For the record, briefly:”

        Thank you for your very pertinent, informative comment.

      • Misterioso on December 30, 2019, 10:01 am

        @Danaa

        Re: Michael Rice, “False Inheritance,” Kegan Paul International, London and New York, 1994, p. 178. Excellent reviews. Check it out here: https://books.google.ca/books/about/False_Inheritance.html?id=qhuOMll75O0C&redir_esc=y

        Re: “The Invention of the Mizrahim” by Ella Shohat – Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXIX, # 1, Autumn 1999, p. 9. Check your nearest library, preferably one at a well respected university. If you are unable to find Vol. XXIX of the Journal of Palestine Studies, contact the Journal at the University of California – https://jps.ucpress.edu/content/editorial

        I hope this helps.

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 1:18 pm

        Well, there it is. How does a prospective Ashkenazi Jewish parent balance IQ test against ‘carrier test’?

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 1:32 pm

        “Still, in the well-off communities of Tel Aviv and the hi-tech bubbles, the educated Ashkenazi continue to believe their god-given superiority, especially in its secular manifestations.” “Danaa”

        Oh, the Ashkenazi must be a whole lot smarter. Look at the way they put one over on the Mizrahi and suborned them for Zionism’s purposes.

      • Danaa on December 30, 2019, 8:24 pm

        Thanks Misterioso! I’ll check out what I can find on-line.

  12. Talkback on December 29, 2019, 7:02 pm

    Well, the high intelligence of some Jews came obviously with a high price for the rest, including Bret Stephens.

    • Talkback on December 29, 2019, 9:43 pm

      I have to add that a Palestinian called Arafat did actually win a Nobel Prize.

      But the racist exclusivist Stephens actually wants to tell us that nobody has the right to violate human rights, except Jews.

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 1:41 pm

        Well, you know, this Bret Stephens is a very smart person, so he must know Americans like nothing better than to be told who their intellectual and moral betters are.

  13. iResistDe4iAm on December 29, 2019, 8:10 pm

    Supremacist bullshit from a card-carrying supremacist, parading as an intellectual.

  14. RoHa on December 29, 2019, 11:49 pm

    “Our intellectual record in the west in the last century was justly impressive, ”

    Justly?

    In science, at least, we start seeing Jews making scientific advances in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Where were the Jewish geniuses in the previous centuries?

  15. Boomer on December 30, 2019, 9:43 am
  16. Vera Gottlieb on December 30, 2019, 10:00 am

    Mal rayo te parta…May lightening strike you. And you think YOU are superior because you happen to be Jewish? Or superior because you happen to belong to the white race? People like you are a disgrace to humanity – or what passes as such.

    • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 1:22 pm

      “And you think YOU are superior because you happen to be Jewish? Or superior because you happen to belong to the white race?”

      Like the old saying says:
      Azoy vert dos matzoh tzekrochen, in a halb-beykt kraker

  17. Lillian Rosengarten on December 30, 2019, 3:13 pm

    He reinforces the lies and manipulation of Zionism. NYTimes should be ashamed to have this man on the staff. He is a disgrace.

  18. Sulphurdunn on December 30, 2019, 3:24 pm

    The average IQ in Israel is about 95, which ranks it somewhere around 40th in the world. While Askenazi Jews score above average on the mathematical and verbal components of IQ tests in the US, they score below average on measures of spatial intelligence. Einstein, who was considered a relatively poor mathematician, with no gift for gab by his peers, possessed outstanding spatial intelligence. What does it all mean? Who the hell knows? What is know is that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding all the permutations of intelligence. What years of using IQ tests taught me is that they are useful in measuring the aptitude of people with intellectual deficits regardless of nurture, but that when measuring higher aptitude, cultural and economic factors influence them as much if not more than heredity. Which end of the cart the horse is hitched to in all of it is still impossible to know with much certainty. Regardless, for a group of people to congratulate themselves on their superior intelligence is really stupid.

  19. bcg on December 30, 2019, 5:47 pm

    It sounds to me like Stephens is edging towards the Cherry Tomato Argument: we invented cherry tomatoes so we get to take the land from other people ( I actually heard this from an Israeli – we made the desert bloom so we get to own the land, the Palestinians never did much with it).

    These questions about I.Q. and racial characteristics really have nothing to do with the human rights violations going on in Israelistine.

  20. vwbeetle on December 30, 2019, 6:23 pm

    bcg……..that Israeli was also talking crap. The 1945 Survey of Palestine, which goes into great detail on agricultural production in Palestine, shows that in the mid 1940’s about 90% of Palestine’s agricultural output was produced by Arabs. The “we made the desert bloom and the Arabs did nothing with Palestine” is a myth….a very nasty myth.

    • Talkback on December 31, 2019, 6:26 am

      Jews did indeed manage to cultivate some land that was deemed uncultivatable. Swamps, etc. But if one wants to know if they made the desert bloom just have a look how green the Negev is today:
      https://www.google.com/maps/place/Negev/@31.3291168,35.1394965,354270m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x15018aa67bba4d49:0x3478e9b056cc687d!8m2!3d30.7140861!4d34.8757476

    • mondonut on December 31, 2019, 9:55 am

      @vwbeetle , about 90% of Palestine’s agricultural output was produced by Arabs.

      Not even close. The Palestinian Arabs had 92.8% of the land under production but only produced 71.25% of the gross weight and 78.4% of the total value. The Palestinian Jews had 7.2% of the land and produced 28.75% of the gross weight and 21.6% of the value.

      In simpler terms:
      The Arabs produced 3.12 Palestinian pounds per dunam.
      The Jews produced 11.07 Palestinian pounds per dunam.

      https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story665.html

      • Misterioso on December 31, 2019, 11:39 am

        @mondonut

        vwbeetle’s assertion that “about 90% of Palestine’s agricultural output was produced by Arabs” is correct.

        To wit:
        “During the 1944-1945 planting season, nearly 210,000 tons of grain were cultivated in Palestine, of which 193,376 tons were Arab crops, compared to 16,579 tons of Jewish crops. Almost 80,000 tons of olives were cultivated that year, over 78,000 tons of which were grown by Arab Palestinians. Of the over 244,800 tons of vegetables produced in Palestine that season, Arab farmers were responsible for more than 189,000 tons; of the 94,700 tons of fruit, Arab orchards produced 73,000 tons. Nearly 143,000 tons of melons were cultivated, over 135,600 tons of which were Arab-produced, while almost all of the more than 1,680 tons of tobacco grown were on Arab farms, as were 20,000 tons of figs and 3,000 tons of almonds. Eighty percent of the 40-50,000 tons of grapes and 4-5 million liters of wine were produced in Arab vineyards. The survey found that in Jericho, Tiberias and in the central coastal plain, ‘about 60 per cent of the area (nearly 8,000 dunums) planted with bananas is Arab owned.’ The overall price of the Palestinian agricultural yield that season was more than £21,800,000. Jewish cultivation was responsible for nearly £4,711,000 compared with Palestinian Arab production of over £17,100,000, accounting for almost 80% of total value.” (Quoted by Wide Asleep in America, “Operation Desert Bloom: The Zionist Myth that Won’t Spoil, Wither, or Die,” 30 June 2011)

        BTW: The Zionist claim that Israel has dramatically increased the amount of land under cultivation within its borders is another fabrication as is Shimon Peres’ assertion that such land was “redeemed from swamp and wilderness.” In fact, as of 1979, “About 80 percent, and probably more, of the 2,185,000 dunums ‘brought into cultivation’ [by Israel] since 1948…constitute farmland belonging to Palestinian refugees.” (Alan George, Making the Desert Bloom…” p. 99)

        The truth is that during the first three decades of Israel’s existence when it received a net import of capital totalling $31.5 billion (Maariv, 1 July 1977) and had the use of modern agricultural equipment as well as sophisticated farming techniques, its record of land cultivation was quite poor. “[T]he area within what became Israel actually being farmed by Arabs in 1947 was greater than the physical area which was under cultivation in Israel almost thirty years later…. The impressive expansion of Israel’s cultivated area since 1948 has been more apparent than real since it involved mainly the ‘reclamation’ of farmland belonging to the refugees; this is probably as true for the Negev desert as for the rest of Israel.” (Alan George, “Making the Desert Bloom…”, p. 100)

        .

      • mondonut on December 31, 2019, 12:08 pm

        @Misterioso , vwbeetle’s assertion that “about 90% of Palestine’s agricultural output was produced by Arabs” is correct.

        No, it is not. The original quoted source is the British 1945 Survey of Palestine, which I also used a direct source. You have not disputed any statistic I provided, you instead chose a secondary source and a pile meaningless stats (who said anything about melons?).

      • Talkback on December 31, 2019, 1:54 pm

        mondonut: “No, it is not. The original quoted source is the British 1945 Survey of Palestine, which I also used a direct source. ”

        You are correct. It seems that more than 90% refers to all of the land that Arabs and other Nonjews owned in Palestine. Nowadays more than 90% is reserved for the Jewish people. I wonder how they acquired that land. Certainly not by legal means.

      • mondonut on December 31, 2019, 5:09 pm

        @Talkback 90% refers to all of the land that Arabs and other Nonjews owned in Palestine.

        The statistics refer to cultivation, not ownership.

      • RoHa on December 31, 2019, 9:03 pm

        “The statistics refer to cultivation, not ownership.”

        I thought the whole point of this stuff was to claim that cultivation gives rights to the land that outweigh the rights of formal ownership.

      • Talkback on January 1, 2020, 6:14 am

        mondonut: “The statistics refer to cultivation, not ownership.”

        Which statistics? According to the same survey:
        Ownership of Land in Palestine

        24,670,455 Arabs and other Nonjews 93,73%
        1,514,247: Jews 5,75%
        26,320,505: Total
        https://www.palestineremembered.com/images/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Volume-II/Page0566.jpg

        So how did Jews manage to legally transform about 93% of land owned by Arabs and other Nonjews into 93% of land reserved for Jews only? Did Arabs and other Nonjews legally transfer this land to them?

  21. Talkback on December 31, 2019, 6:22 am

    I’m not a native speaker. Could someone explain to me what Bret Stephens means by writing:

    “At its best, the American university can still be a place of relentless intellectual challenge rather than ideological conformity and social groupthink. At its best, the United States can still be the country that respects, and sometimes rewards, all manner of heresies that outrage polite society and contradict established belief. At its best, the West can honor the principle of racial, religious and ethnic pluralism not as a grudging accommodation to strangers but as an affirmation of its own diverse identity. In that sense, what makes Jews special is that they aren’t. They are representational.”

    What does he mean and try to explain with his last sentence “They are representational”?

    • Mooser on December 31, 2019, 12:21 pm

      “I’m not a native speaker. Could someone explain to me…” the very modest “Talkback”

      Let’s just say the paragraph is the literary equivalent of noticing he stepped in dog-shit on his editorial walk, and he’s trying to shake it off his shoe before he goes back in the house.

      • Talkback on December 31, 2019, 1:21 pm

        mooser: “the very modest “Talkback””

        Not modest, but honest.

        mooser: “Let’s just say the paragraph is the literary equivalent of noticing he stepped in dog-shit on his editorial walk, and he’s trying to shake it off his shoe before he goes back in the house.”

        This helps even less. I really want to understand this.

      • Mooser on December 31, 2019, 1:43 pm

        “This helps even less. I really want to understand this.”

        I’ll try again later. I’m off to Fed Ex, to overnight a case of “Jews sui generis” lapel-buttons to Stephens.

      • Talkback on January 1, 2020, 6:19 am
    • RoHa on December 31, 2019, 8:50 pm

      From “At its best” to “identity” the meaning is clear. But from there onward less so.

      I think he is trying to say that Jews are just another part of the American salad, and can be viewed as a paradigm case of such parts.

      If anyone can elucidate further, and disburden us of pericombobulation, I shall extend my enthusiastic contrafibularities.

      • Mooser on January 1, 2020, 1:35 pm

        “But from there onward less so.”

        It’s like Stephens is trying to mediate between the lovely taste of his own toe-fungus and taking his foot out of his mouth.

        “In that sense, what makes Jews special is that they aren’t. They are representational.” “Stephens”

        Why, you bet! Is there a religion or ethnicity in our great melting-pot that hasn’t, once reaching the freedom of the US, devoted their energies to a Zionism-like program?

  22. pabelmont on December 31, 2019, 3:42 pm

    I’m so glad BS got stuck with it for writing this piece of BS. I am curious, of course, to know what motivated him to write this piece of (sort-of-self) promotion at this time. Was something going wrong that needed to be fixed? Did he suddenly need a gold-star on his copy-book at this moment and choose this “some-Jews are great” idea as a means to get himself a gold-star? Who was supposed to be giving the gold-star? Did somebody suggest that he write this article, hoping he’d be shot down for it?

    Or is he just as dumb as a post, and his reviewing-in-advance editor (if any) the same? Does he (or do they) suppose that NYT readers (including [Ashkenazi]Jews) are so well defended against AS that they can flaunt their power (like most pro-Zionist stuff this feels like a power-play) and their insensitivity (ohhhh, soooo smart , right?) and get no pay-back?

    Anyway, the question, why did he write it, or why did he write it now, seems to me the right question.

  23. Danaa on January 2, 2020, 12:24 am

    One more comment as I am surprised no one made it here (have I missed someone?).

    If Ashkenazi Jews as a collective take such pride in the geniuses and nobel prize winners (the two are decidedly not the same) that issued from their ranks, surely that means that they also partake – collectively – in the shame that ensues from the not so laudable actions/accomplishments of some of their less illustrious members, including not a few dubious character whose genius was squarely matched by the depth of their malfeasance..

    Recent examples abound: Madoff, Epstein, Weinstein, Icann (I think), 1/5 th of israel’s ruling parties’ members, Blankfein (yes, I think he is a criminal even if above the law), Feith (the face of a war criminal), Wolfowitz, Strauss Kahn, Kagan, Ladeen, Browder (the magnitzky blood libel), Ukrainian Oligarchs (take your pick), Kissinger, and I didn’t even touch the surface – it’s a deep pool – choosing just from among the ones who made the news.

    The list includes countless war mongers who execute and strategize on behalf of the American Empire and its many evil deeds, numerous sheisters in the finance and hedge fund industries, including not a few vulture capitalists (the ones who swoop in, take over, fire much of the work force, drive into bankruptcy, then walk away with the profits) and of course the many lawyers whose job it is to take the malfeasants off the hook.

    Now you may say that genius is genius – one can use talent for good or for evil, and that jews are not exempt fro moral laxity any more than anyone else. But then Stephens made an argument that included moral upstandedness. Israel alone, in its countless war crimes and persecutions of indigenous people plus the horrid ways they dealt and deal with others among them who are not Ashkenazi enough, would be proof enough that when it comes to moral fiber, there is a certain collective blind spot (Israel’s ashkenazis can be treated as a collective, yes? per Stephens again, my current authority on all things collective). Or, is the argument so brazenly advanced is that as high as some go so deep some must fall?

    So, if the Germans were found lacking in “something” following their little Nazi episode – and made to pay restitution – partly because, one assumes – they should have behaved better (after all, hardly anyone else was held so accountable, so expensively – to this day too) – does it mean that the collective genius producing pool of Ashkenazi American jews should also pool their resources and offer compensations for the misdeeds of some of their members?

    I think fair is fair – at the very least I’d expect some of them accolade showered Askenazi ubermenschen to use at least some of their prize monies to compensate the many victims of the crimes of their members. Yes, I mean the Jewish financial geniuses who brought us naked deriviatives and who knows what other great instruments of rapacious neoliberalism shoud – collectively – compensate the American working class rubes. For starters. After all, weren’t there many erstwhile Ashkenazis among the geniuses who brought us modern neoliberalism in the first place, complete with its soul crunching fruits? yes, I am looking at you, Milton! (but heck I decided to give a pass to Summers. I consider him a penitent and there’s a special place in my book for those. Heck that secular stagnation thing WAS brilliant! just the term alone would deserve a get-out-of-jail card!).

    I am not sure Stephens and his editor can quite grasp the danger in pushing supremacy articles in their paper. I just thought I’ll share just a smidgen of the minefield they opened for inspection!

    • Keith on January 2, 2020, 3:33 pm

      DANAA- “One more comment as I am surprised no one made it here (have I missed someone?).”

      Please keep in mind that not all of us can make a comment such as you just made. Wow, you covered a lot of topics relevant to our current (and changing) political economy, Jewish involvement only one aspect worthy of discussion.

      As an aside, what ever happened to Yoni Falic? Although some of his rants were cringe worthy, his facts always seemed accurate and educational.

      DANAA- “If Ashkenazi Jews as a collective take such pride in the geniuses and nobel prize winners….”

      I think that most of these awards are greatly misunderstood. Winning an award such as a Pulitzer Prize primarily indicates that elite representatives have seen fit to increase the power and prestige of individuals who the elites wish to promote. Having won a Pulitzer Prize apparently gives gravitas to the winner. Chris Hedges is always introduced as a Pulitzer Prize winner although he got the award while working for the New York Times. His later more radical reporting would have no chance whatever of winning a Pulitzer. In other words, most of these awards are a means for the somewhat subtle shaping of the social discourse by the elites. That Jews have won a disproportionate number of such awards is primarily a function of Jewish contribution to imperial power and of Jewish power itself. These awards also reflect a strong white bias.

      Speaking of Pulitzers and journalism, Matt Taibbi has an interesting book called “Hate, Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another.” The essence is that for a variety of reasons, the media can make more money by appealing to one particular segment of our polarized society rather than using a broad based appeal. They achieve brand loyalty by pandering to the biases of the target audience primarily by vilifying the opposition in endless emotional rants. This results in hating “the other” while simultaneously diverting attention away from the systemic nature of our problems. Why worry about derivatives when there is Donald Trump to hate?

  24. edwardm on January 5, 2020, 9:07 pm

    oh NYT. When will you learn to wash your sheets? You got Bretbugs!

    Is that offensive? Cry me a river.
    https://twitter.com/saeen90_?protected_redirect=true

Leave a Reply