Bret Stephens wrote an article of the kind that Jews used to
write in previous decades but stopped the practice because the articles
produced no tangible results. They were nothing more than lists that piled small
incidents, each of which having no bite to speak of, but capable of making an
impression when used cumulatively.
Stephens's latest column––the one in which he revived the
lost art––came under the title: “I believe Some of Your Best Friends Are Jewish,”
published on September 28, 2017 in the New York Times. The topic that started
him off is the Valerie Plame Wilson re-tweet that every Jewish pundit is
writing or talking about these days. But Stephens did not dwell for too long on
that subject because he only wanted to use it as a springboard. He went from
there to produce an old style list about the things that bother him as a Jew.
Stephens did so, starting each listing with the solemn
sounding but facetious declaration, “I believe,” and then mentioned the
statement that was made by someone prominent, or mentioned the incredulous
apology for making the statement in the first place. A representative example
would be this: “I believe Valerie Plame when she says … she missed the
article's more prejudicial elements.” Another example would be this: “I believe
Hagel had nothing to apologize for … I believe Hagel's apology was sincere”.
Something happened inside the circuitry of my brain upon
reading this article. It was something that did not happen in previous decades.
Like two video clips running simultaneously on a split screen, I could see
myself 45 years ago, working as a technician for a mining company in the
Canadian North where I also wrote for the local newspaper. And I could see
myself sitting in front of the computer, reading a dozen or so articles,
selecting one or more to review, and post my analysis on this blog.
But what's the connection between the lost Jewish art that
was revived by Bret Stephens, and the business of mining precious metals in the
Canadian North, and writing this internet blog?
What they have in common can better be explained by using
yet another metaphor. Imagine a fisherman who wakes up in the morning and goes
to the sea. He looks at the vast body of water in front of him, knowing there
are fishes in it he must pull out. In a similar fashion, the mining executive
seeks to “fish out” the gram or two of gold dust embedded in every ton of ore.
It is also what Jews, such as Bret Stephens, do when they look for something to
moan about and make demands. And it is what I do when I search for and write
about that which speaks of the way that Jews make themselves hated by humanity.
But why did Stephens re-adopt a style of writing that did
not work for the Jews previously? To answer this question, we must first
understand why the method did not work in the past. It did not because the old
approach used to list the activities or sayings of one and the same person. He
would be, for example, the President of the United States or someone of that
stature. The writer would attack him, at time viciously, for harming the Jews
or neglecting to help them. But no writer ever offered the explanation that
would justify such attacks, and this was enough to turn off the readers.
In contrast, what Stephens has done this time, is that he
spread the guilt among many personalities, impugning no malicious intent to
them except that of benign hypocrisy. He made no demand to compensate for
something, and asked for no proof that these people intend to change their
attitude toward the Jews. He only listed the things that bother him as a Jew,
and then did the equivalent of throwing his hands up in the air in apparent
despair while hissing a tired c'est la vie!
We can only conclude from all this that Bret Stephens is
suffering from a condition that needs to be cured if a cure exists. There is
also the possibility that more Jews––having no way to play out their illness in
public––are suffering as well, and need help. What can be done for them?