There is the legal approach to understanding what a writer
says, and there is the psycho-cultural approach to understanding what he is
trying to say.
The legal approach does not necessarily mean it has something
to do with the judiciary. It is simply a way of saying that the ideas you
should assign to a piece of writing can only be derived from the meaning of the
words taken at face value ... nothing more complicated than that. As to the
psycho-cultural approach to understanding a piece of writing; it is to take
into account the psychology of the writer that put it together, and the
cultural context in which he functions.
It will help the readers of the New York Times to know all
of that when reading – perhaps for the first time – the columns of a newly
arrived writer in their midst. He is Bret Stephens who defected from the Wall
Street Journal, a right-wing publication with a preference for the Jewish
agenda that is as one-sided as that of the New York Times, but very different
in most other respects.
What the readers need to know about Stephens is that he
believes the human race was created for one reason only; to serve the Jews and Israel . Also,
because he grew up – and now lives – in an era when the Jewish psycho-culture
in America is reducing every concept to a single word or a short phrase that
can fit a bumper sticker, the word “democracy” has come to identify the one
principle that alone, can legitimize a system of governance. In other words,
Bret Stephens believes that no system that's free of Jewish style democracy –
endless haggle, deceptive ambiguity, double-talk and all – can claim to be
legitimate.
When you combine that belief with the view he holds about
Israel's place in the scheme of things, you begin to understand why he thinks
and feels the way he does despite the reality that Israeli troops occupy
another country and its people; a crime against humanity that is reviled by all
of humanity.
That characterization of Bret Stephens' creative profile
should help the readers better understand his latest column. It came under the
title: “The Year of Voting Recklessly,” and was published on June 11, 2017 in
the New York Times. When you get past his views regarding the politics of the
Left and the Right in both America
and Europe , you'll find that those views are
encapsulated in three short passages:
First, Bret Stephens quotes approvingly from a report that
mentions someone as having slandered a Labor leader in Britain ,
accusing him of creating “a safe space for those with vile attitudes toward
Jewish people”.
In other words, Stephens believes that no one who criticizes
Israel or anything Jewish should have a space in which to go and be safe from
the wrath of a World Jewry that will work to mobilize the forces of hell and
heaven to destroy his career and ruin his life. Apparently, this too is part of
“legitimate” Jewish democracy.
Second, Stephens quotes, also approvingly, from a book
titled “The End of Europe,” a passage that reads as follows: “As the memory of
World War II and the Holocaust fades...”
In other words, he believes that only one thing counts in
all of history. It is the Holocaust that happened during World War II. Nothing
of what transpired before that event or after it can be discussed without
referring to the Second World War and what happened to the Jews.
Third, Stephens opines that “it has taken just a single
generation to forget the sin of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism;
fellow-traveling with dictators and terrorists masquerading as sympathy for the
wretched of the earth”.
In other words, Bret Stephens believes that Jews are
paragons of perfection trying to fix a vile humanity that's bending to the will
of dictators and terrorists fellow-traveling with Western leaders who are
themselves bores and authentic jerks, elected to serve by reckless voters.
And he believes that whereas a heavily armed Jew has the
right to practice predatory savagery in the name of self-defense, a disarmed
Palestinian has no right to grab a knife and scare off a Jew he catches robbing
his house.
Should something like this happen, says Bret Stephens, the
Palestinian must be called a terrorist and not a wretched of the earth
deserving sympathy. On the contrary, it is the Jew who deserves to be showered
with sympathy, says Stephens.