The list, big and bold, says it all. There are fifty names in a vertical bar, half of which are highlighted by a black dot. The similarity in the family names – Abrams, Wolfowitz, Peretz, Podhoretz, Zakheim, to name a few – is so obvious that the reader hardly needs the accompanying headline to get the point: "Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?"
The list in question appears in the current issue of AdBusters, available for $8 wherever high-minded glossies are sold. The magazine – sorry, Journal of the Mental Environment – has been a thorn in the side of consumer culture since it launched in the early 1990s.
During this time, it has mounted verbal and visual attacks on the likes of corporate America – Nike and McDonald’s in particular – often with great success. They’ve made a living out of pissing people off.
And so it continues this month. This time, though, the object isn’t to derail corporate America, but to highlight how half of America’s neo-conservatives are, unh, Semitically endowed. For this, the magazine came up with "a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the U.S.," and figured out half of them are Jewish. As a result, people like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer have been singled out, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch, two dyed-in-the-wool WASPs, are not.
"What they all share is the view that the U.S. is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image," AdBusters founder, co-publisher and editor-in-chief Kalle Lasn writes, before delivering the kicker. "And half of them are Jewish."
Lasn, who spoke to me from his home in Vancouver, openly admits he’s being provocative. He has to be, he says, for two reasons: It’s his magazine’s mantra, and because what he sees as a barrage of political correctness has prevented a real debate on the effect of "Jewishness" on American foreign policy.
"To have 50 per cent of the most powerful intellectual group in the world, for half of them to be Jewish, is something we need to look in the face and debate and ask, ‘What does it mean?’ It means that American foreign policy is distorted in some way that I don’t think is necessarily democratic."
He swears, though, that he isn’t being prejudiced when he draws attention to people’s ethnicity with a black dot. He’s just pointing out a simple fact, and inviting debate, he says. "I’m basically leaving it hanging there and inviting a debate on it."
It’s difficult to see how, exactly, pointing out someone’s race, religion or nationality – be they Jewish or Wiccan, Canadian or Estonian, as Lasn himself is – can further any debate at all. The names on the Adbusters list aren’t part of some card-carrying club: They happen to have similar ideas. He’s provocative, maybe, but he is being so by equating ethnicity with ideals. He assumes that these people are neocons because they are Jewish, which is a leap that defies logic.
You could run yourself silly making lists about the overrepresentation of Jewish people in society. They are, on average, disproportionately represented in medicine, arts and legal fields. Does this mean we have to pick and choose the next time we go to the doctor, check out a movie, or hire a lawyer? Is my Jewish doctor going to sneak his radically neo-conservative worldview on me, just before he asks for two good coughs?
Lasn dismisses criticism of his article as political correctness run amok. He complains that journalists’ glad-handing of the Jewish question, "from The New York Times on down," has prevented the world from seeing how much "Jewishness" has affected American foreign policy. "The fact is people like you, and all these other thousands of journalists who are writing in American and Canadian newspapers, don’t have the guts to tackle an issue like this."
Right, then.
Well, here are a few words from a coward. There are names on that list that fill me with dread. Rumsfeld is certainly high on my list, as is "journalist" Daniel Pipes. The scary thing about every single name, from Jew to WASP to Francis Fukuyama, isn’t what they look like, or whether they had a bar mitzvah at age 13. What is scary is their black/white, good/bad hyper-Zionism, their belief that Israel is a country beyond reproach. To highlight the Jews is to suggest Jewish thought is somehow uniform. This kind of nonsense doesn’t advance any debate.
Ideas, even bad ones, know no ethnicity or religion. Lasn has proven that all too well with his list.
9 comments
You can look at this list and say that there are many Jewish names. You could also say that most of them are also men. Does this mean that all men share the same ideas as those found on this list ? The problem with this list of names is that it only focuses on the fact that they happen to be Jewish names. What about all the other WASPs who share the exact ideas but are not listed. They probably went to the same schools and studied under the same teachers, “perfecting” the same neoconservative ideology. The fact is that the higher you go in a hierarchy, the more people tend to share the same background. I believe this would better explain why so many “neocons” occupy prominent jobs in Washington these days.
To focus on somebody’s ethnic background thus becomes simplistic and doesn’t cover the topic. Printing such a list tends to say that somebody’s “jewishness” is suspect when in fact one should stick to the ideas put forward by individuals. As far as I know, not all people of Jewish ascent agree with the politics put in place by the State of Israel. On the other hand, you see, in the USA, Christian fundamentalists who strongly believe in Zionism as a way to fulfil God’s will. As far as I know, these Christian fundamentalists share views with neoconservatives in place in Washington but their names won’t be found in Mr. Lasn’s list.
I think Mr. Lasn should have spent more time finding the background of all those “neocons” and see what are their relations one to another.
I can not see anything good about creating a list with specific individuals names boldly outlining there relationship to being Jewish or for that matter any culture. Many crimes that were committed started off with a list of names. I can’t even imagine how I would feel if I was informed that I was on a list that some person created because of my religion, or the color of my skin, or the language I speak. Would I be one of the lucky people who are extremely intelligent and may provide some worth that I would end up on another so called Schindler’s list? Most probably I would be one of the unlucky souls that were not intelligent enough and not worthy enough to end up on Schindler’s list! Yes, I have an aversion to dividing people in to groups and listing them as dangerous because of intelligence and culture. People listing people are very dangerous to humane society!
Incoming! The crap’s about to hit the fan–everyone with an opinion run for cover!!
Ok, first and foremost, before I weigh in on this issue I’d like to send this tiny salvo off to Martin Patriquin: AdBusters *HAVE NOT* made a living out of pissing people off but pissing off *corporations*. Not necessarily the same thing in my book. Anyways, on to the topic at hand…
Is AdBusters anti-semitic or is this a case of gross slandering? Well, as someone who was slandered on this site a few weeks ago by a hyper-sensitive reactionary knee-jerk who clearly couldn’t bother reading past my provocative opening wordplay I know a little something about being labeled. Is this the case with AdBusters? It’s all a matter of perspective, really…
Point A) Before we all jump on the “AdBusters are Anti-Semites” bandwagon let me begin by asking you all a simple question: ‘Did you yourself even READ the AdBuster issue in question?’ If not, then I take it you bothered looking it up once Patriquin’s article got your moral dander up? No? A journalist points the racist finger at another publication and you don’t even bother to verify how accurate his argument is or what his agenda might be? How very thorough of you, my fine moral friend. If this in any way applies to you and you still feel compelled to rant, please do me the favor of shutting the hell up until you’ve gotten an informed opinion on the matter.
Point B) This AdBuster issue is dubious at best as is their alleged crime. Sure, I could equally point out that the majority of people involved at the VOIR.CA site are ‘français inclined’ but is that a conspiracy or just the statistical odds at play? Y’see, a very slippery slope.
Point C) I agree with Patriquin that this kind of nonsense doesn’t advance any debate But when I say this I include Patriquin’s retort also. I’m less convinced that this is a case of anti-semitism than it is about boosting sales and journalistic stupidity.
To understand the US’ stand on Israel, yes, this list can partly explain it. We should also look are their religious background, at the state they origin from as well. Are there more people from the south for example?
It’s interesting how it is touchy to look at wether or not people are Jewish but it would not create a single wave if that list was of whether or not people are gay for example.
I heard it before (or is it well known) that american policies specially international is very much pro jewish. these could all be rumors though but they also say when there is smoke there is fire. what i think about this is not that important. what is important is what you think. yes i mean you….
There is a rising wave of anti-semitism in the world today. It is especially prevalent in Europe, but is certainly noticable in North America. In Canada, the amount of anti-semitic incidents has risen by almost 400% in the last 10 years. And so, it is not surprising to hear alarm bells go off whenever this kind of article pops up.
The queston here is: Is this Adbusters feature anti-semitic? Of course the editors and publishers will say no, they’re not prejudiced, they’re just reporting, etc. Just as a caught criminal nearly always pleads innocence, this makes it difficult to glean the guilty from the misunerstood.
However, there is NO excuse for comments like “To have 50 per cent of the most powerful intellectual group in the world, for half of them to be Jewish, is something we need to look in the face and debate and ask, ‘What does it mean?’ It means that American foreign policy is distorted in some way that I don’t think is necessarily democratic.”
If 98% of the named people were Baptist, would we see this article? As another comment stated, why do they not point out the lack of WOMEN on the list? They are saying loud and clear that policy is DISTORTED because of a Jewish influence.
These are dangerous, inflammatory and anti-semitic comments. Period. To ignore this sort of commentary, or to pass them off as harmless or innocent, is also dangerous. It is welcoming prejudice in our society, and should NOT be tolerated.
Mr. Eggers feels that this is merely an attempt to boost sales, or a case of ‘journalistic stupidity’. These may indeed be true statements, but that does not excuse the underlying racial highlighting and prejudicial rhetoric. It’s high time the citizens of this country, and of the U.S.A, stopped shrugging off the many incidents and forms of racial intolerance in North America.
As usual, Adbusters has provoked a lot of thought and discussion with no violence – which in my mind is good. Let me start of by saying that I am not anti-semetic, (although I disagree with the situation in Israel), and that I don’t necessarily think a list of names pointing out religion, sex (although this is often obvious), race etc. is a good idea, or to be applauded.
However, when a number of people holding distinct views that could be very discriminating to others are in positions of great power, don’t we have a right to know? I am in no way saying that we should probe everyone’s private lives, but I do think that religion can be a strong determining factor behind many people’s decisions and motives.
Sorry but am I the only one here who thinks that this is a publicity stunt by an elitist magazine to boost sales? Anti-semitic? What AdBusters hoped to accomplish is beyond me because marking yourself as an anti-semitic rag is only going to appeal to neo-nazi rednecks and they’re hardly known as the core readership of this mag.
Not that many years ago McGill University in Montreal had a quota system in place for Jewish students. At that time there were two very bright Shapiro twin brothers who both wanted to enter McGill Medical School but only one could be accepted because of the infamous Jewish quota. Years later the brother who was refused entry to its medical school became chancellor of that same university. Society loses when we place artificial restrictions on entry into the professions.
There was a time when all doctors were male and now over 70% of the medical students in certain faculties are now women. If they try harder than men they deserve to be medical practioners in greater numbers. We would all want to be treated by the most qualified.
The concept of affirmative action which was once a popular way to right past wrongs created so much controversy because the minority candidates did not earn the respect of their peers. If they did not have to work as hard at school to succeed, their doctor skills would not be top notch!
Let the best man or woman earn the title of M.D. Our lives depend on it!