“Self-anointed Jewish leadership,” I wrote “has managed to cast Jews as a mere faction among a multicultural mob, a position Jews (being liberals) love.”
That describes Jon Stewart—who is a member of the liberal, Jewish glitterati—and his fight with a CNN reptilian brain by the name of Rick Sanchez.
Sanchez said that Stewart is bigoted toward “everybody else that’s not like him.” He said Stewart “can’t relate to what I grew up with,” saying his family had been poor and he had seen prejudice directed at his father.
Sanchez dismisses it when Dominick points out that Stewart, who is Jewish, is also a minority.
“I’m telling you that everyone who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?” Sanchez said, adding a sarcastic “yeah.”
“I can’t see someone not getting a job these days because they’re Jewish,” he said.
I stopped watching Stewart long ago. However, I have never heard him refer to himself in other than a self-deprecating tone. In fact when, in 2005, the barbarians of the banlieusard were rioting in France, Stewart mocked his status as an “alienated” minority thus: “Do you know what it’s like to be sent to a Christian school every Passover with a hardboiled egg?” (Italians would have similar stories of “survival.”)
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe: whose side am I on here? I’ll go with the the Jew, just because he’s brainier than the other oaf. I’m glad Rick is gone, but look who the dog dragged in instead: “Put evil and supercilious together and what do you get? ‘Parker Spitzer.'”
UPDATE (Oct. 2): THE STEWART INSTITUTION. I’ve changed my mind about this weighty matter (NOT) currently occupying the debtor nation’s news headlines: I’m now on the side of Sanchez. I believe that the ratings for his “Ricks’ List” show were good (for CNN, at least). Why fire him if this is the case? Besides, a slight against Jon Stewart: Is that enough to get you fired? Perhaps I’ll change my mind again, as is my wont when such a hugely important issue is at hand.
Ridiculous, isn’t it?!
UPDATE II (Oct. 3): ALEX AND THE POSTMODERNISTS. Young Alex is a long-time friend of BAB and contributor to my blog. His trials and tribulations are familiar to this writer. I have known Alex to be brash, on occasion. But he is nothing like the typical millennial I’ve described in “Your Kids: Dumb, Difficult And Dispensable,” and who I encounter in my professional dealings. These are horrible, hubristic youths, egged on to heights of narcissistic grandiosity by their infatuated, errant and idiotic (naturally) elders. In another age, in another time, Alex would be a leader. I find his plucky attitude towards his cretinous tutors to be inspiring. Older men participating on this blog should support this young man, and any like him.
For heaven’s sake Alex, when do you complete your interminable degree? The sooner you qualify and go out and do what the dead wood can’t do; the better you’ll be. You’re mired in an intellectual cesspool.
Alex asked about critical race theory, an artificial, political construct with which the postmodernists in the academy rape reality, art, literature and music and roger western culture, in general. We’ve discussed these matters before, so I am reproducing an earlier blog post titled “Avoid The American English Department”:
It is old news that the academy has been contaminated by postmodernism.
For example, academic historians and their acolytes have worked overtime to replace the impartial, non-ideological study of American history and its heroic figures with “history from below.” This postmodern tradition regularly produces works the topics of which include, “Quilting Midwives during the Revolution.” Or, “Hermaphrodites and the Clitoris in Early America.”
As you well imagine, the libidinized annals of the “Hermaphrodites and the Clitoris in Early America” is not flying off the printing presses.
The deconstruction of fields of study has engulfed universities, not sparing the hard sciences. Women’s Studies courses and English departments are most likely to be littered with the ideology’s lumpen jargon. There, text is routinely deconstructed and shred. Subjected to this “academic” acid, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and T. S. Eliot are whittled down to no more than ruling class oppressors, their artistry reduced to the bare bones of alleged power relationships in society.
Easily the worst offender is the American English Department. Phyllis Schlafly wrote the following in “Advice To College Students: Don’t Major in English”:
“In the decades before ‘progressive’ education became the vogue, English majors were required to study Shakespeare, the pre-eminent author of English literature. The premise was that students should be introduced to the best that has been thought and said.”
“What happened? To borrow words from Hamlet: ‘Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.’ Universities deliberately replaced courses in the great authors of English literature with what professors openly call ‘fresh concerns,’ ‘under-represented cultures,’ and ‘ethnic or non-Western literature.’ When the classics are assigned, they are victims of the academic fad called deconstructionism. That means: pay no mind to what the author wrote or meant; deconstruct him and construct your own interpretation, as in a Vanderbilt University course called ‘Shakespearean Sexuality,’ or ‘Chaucer: Gender and Genre’ at Hamilton College. …”
“Twenty years ago, University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom achieved best-seller lists and fame with his book The Closing of the American Mind. He dated the change in academic curricula from the 1960s when universities began to abandon the classic works of literature and instead adopt multicultural readings written by untalented, unimportant women and minorities.”
“Bloom’s book showed how the Western canon of what educated Americans should know – from Socrates to Shakespeare – was replaced with relativism and the goals of opposing racism, sexism and elitism. Current works promoting multiculturalism written by women and minorities replaced the classics of Western civilization written by the DWEMs, Dead White European Males.”
“Left-wing academics, often called tenured radicals, eagerly spread the message, and students at Stanford in 1988 chanted ‘Hey hey, ho ho, Western civ has got to go.’ The classicists were cowed into silence, and it’s now clear that the multiculturalists won the canon wars.”
“Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton have been replaced by living authors who toe the line of multicultural political correctness, i.e., view everything through the lens of race, gender and class based on the assumption that America is a discriminatory and unjust racist and patriarchal society. The only good news is that students seldom read books any more and use Cliffs Notes for books they might be assigned.”
In its December 12, 2008 issue, the Times Literary Supplement has some fun at the expense of a pompous graduate of this pathetic tradition. The incomprehensibility factor, as they call it:
“Once the habit of writing comprehensible English has been unlearned, it can be difficult to reacquire the knack. Here is an example of a sentence which purports to be written in English, but which, we propose, is incomprehensible to all but a few. It is taken from Coincidence and Counterfactuality: Plotting time and space in narrative fiction by Hilary P. Dannenberg”:
Historical counterfactuals in narrative fiction frequently take an ontologically different form in which the counterfactual premise engenders a whole narrative world instead of being limited to hypothetical inserts embedded in the main actual world of the narrative text.
About Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park Dannenberg the dolt writes that it “undertakes a more concerted form of counterfactualizing, in which both the character and the narrator separately map out counterfactual versions of the concluding phase of the novel’s love plot.”
In studied contempt, the TLS marvels that Coincidence and Counterfactuality “is published by the University of Nebraska Press. Just think: someone read the book and endorsed its publication, someone edited it, someone else set it in type, designed a cover, compiled an index, read the proofs—yet hardly anyone can understands what’s in it.”
Now that’s good, clear English everyone gets.
A good friend of mine, also a fine and successful novelist, relates this amusing incident:
“I once got hired by the U of Chicago to edit their academic press. The manuscripts were atrocious. I could not understand what was written, and used a red pen heavily in the margins of the manuscripts. After my corrections arrived, I was fired immediately. They told me I was not ‘intellectually sophisticated’ enough for the job. To which I replied: ‘You’re right: Fuck you.'”
Would I have, like my friend, responded so confidently and cleverly, as our reader suggests? I don’t think so. I’d probably become defensive, and return an analytical evisceration, which would have been wasted on the these literary offenders. My friend’s repartee is much more effective: it’s economical and intellectually apt, given its targets.