Maybe I’m missing something here but, calling one person ugly, how does that translate to an entire group of people? Isn’t this just an example of two people behaving in a juvenile way?
As a Jew on the right, I condemn Jewish stereotypes when they arise. As for my brethren on the left, I am saddened by their obvious -- and oblivious -- support of those who would be the first to march them off to a 1930s Germany redux.
I was actually confused by this article. I didn’t see antisemitism unless I chose to push it that direction. It had wording that could be interpreted as having an ethnic lean but I had to actually look up the definition of physiognomy to realize it was judging expressions indicative of character OR ethnic origin. Probably because of the name Rothschild I would have guessed David was of Jewish descent, but Ari I wouldn’t have known by looking at the picture or the name. Not that Mr. Murray is wrong in his interpretation, but it feels a bit presumptuous to automatically assume you know what the intent was behind someone else’s words. My wife and I finally agreed to not discuss anything either of us feel important by text as we decided neither of us are loquacious enough to avoid arguing about idiotic misinterpretations of our own words. We’ve been married for 20 and together for 25 years.
Total overreaction on the side of Murray & BWeiss. I see how Mr Gonzales made tasteless comments, which could make someone uncomfortable. Ok, I get it. BUT, being an admirer of Mr Murray’s work it’s disheartening to see him engaging in this sort of Twitter style “cancel culture”, while he’s preaching so much against it. As a jew I feel we also need to grow some skin and stop obsessing over someone’s lame comments. This doesn’t serve us well when we are facing real antisemitism.
I guess the second to last line is supposed to be sarcastic--I mean, joking about defenestration is itself "proto-violence" or "playing at violence"--but it really doesn't help this post.
Mr.Murray should calm down. Mr. Gonzalez posted photographs of two men who by any objective standard are visually repulsive. It has nothing to do.with their ethnicity or religion. I am a typical Irish-Italian-German American "mongrel" (as described by Hitler) whose father and uncles kicked Hitler's and Tojo's collective asses. I know a lot of visually repulsive Irishmen, Italians and Germans. The most prominent among Italians would be the brothers Cuomo. It has nothing to do with their ethnicity or religion. That are just ugly as sin. Get a life, Douglas. I grant you write excellent books, but take some Valium to help you calm down.
I think Gonzalez' comments about the physiognomy of others may or may not be rooted in anti-semitism. He mocked the facial features of two Jewish people, and perhaps has never made similar comments about non-Jewish people. If so, there are grounds for suspicion but not the immediate defenestration for which Murray seems keen. If anything, I would say Claremont should feel embarassment for a Lincoln Fellow who argues his position on the basis of physiognomy.
Thanks for writing that Mr. Murray. I admire you & listen very closely to you when ever I get the chance. What Mr. Gonzales has said & is doing is disgusting & dangerous. I've been to Rwanda & the genocide memorial several times. How DO people get to be that "out to lunch." Such despicable behaviour CAN take things to such hard to turn around dark places. When you read Mr. Gonzales statements you want to both COMPLETELY ignore him & at the same time shout NO!!! This is BAD behaviour & can not possibly take us anywhere good.
Anti-Semitism is rampant on college campuses, streets (think of the fall of 2019 and the many vicious physical attacks against Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn....with the NYTimes barely saying a thing about it, if anything) and elsewhere in the West, and not just the West.
Bari, this piece has some serious flaws. I wrote about them in several comments below. I like your work, but no one is perfect. You missed on this one. Please read through the comments below. Thanks.
This is a flawed piece. I hope you are objective enough to realize that. Aside from the ambiguity of the event that Murray calls out (saying, effectively, "I do not like the way you look" may be antisemitism - or may be just an attempt t be too clever), the premise of the piece is FLAWED. It starts out stating the premise is to find antisemitism on the right. WHY ? Are we now to use antisemitism as a political weapon - they way people have tried to weaponize racism ?
Antisemitism is antisemitism. We do not need to instill quotas for antisemitism. By accepting the premise of this piece - you do that. It's like saying - "we have filled out quota of calling out the left -- now lets call out the right." Where does this end ? Why don't we call out every group based on a quota ? Maybe the next article should be Hindis. Yeah, we don't want to give Hindis the impression they get a pass. "Well, we have called out Muslims for antisemitism enough already - let write a piece calling out Hindus" In fact, a Hindu guy once looked at me the wrong way once and I'm sure it was antisemitism - so I better write a piece for Bari to publish. Doing my part for Wold Jewry. Can I get a pat on the back now? Just like some of the comments here pat Murray on the back. Think.
Physiognomy definition = the supposed art of judging character from facial characteristics.
Since Rothschild was known for his wealth, privilege and smugness (and better known for these than for his religion) then I think it is reasonable to assume the author was referring to these qualities. It was an insulting comment - but it is surely a rush to judgment to believe it was meant as an antisemitic slur. Not to say it was not meant as such a slur - but unless you can show a clear history or a way to get inside the author's head -- you cannot reasonably say it was antisemitic.
It's not remotely a rush to judgement to assume the slur was antisemitic--becauase it WAS antisemitic. Nobody uses "Rothschild" as a slur for "wealth, privilege, and smugness," they use it as a substitute for "dirty money-grubbing hook-nose Jew." This "scholar's" Tweet was offensive as fuck, and so is any attempt to explain it away.
Not hardly. I find just the opposite in day to day coverage of Jews: most references are *not* slurs, slights, or antisemitic.
But some references are. This one is. For you to claim "he was only talking about the guy's smugness" when he specifically wrote "Rothschild physiognomy" is foolish. Why are you so invested in insisting his comment was innocent?
I am NOT saying the remark was not antisemitism. And I am not defending the remark. I am saying it is ambiguous. You cannot put a bullet into the person's head for this set of facts alone.
You seem to think I am defending the remark. I am not. Maybe Gonzalez meant it as an ethnic slur - maybe he was just trying to be clever (as writers often try to do to stand out or to appear superior in an argument such as the one he was engaged in). I do not know - and neither do you. If you pretend to know - you're fooling only yourself.
Do not get caught up in the emotion of this. Bari put a swastika image at the top of this story to trigger an emotional response. You took the bait. I understand why. Jews have been persecuted for centuries. But using a swastika to manipulate is a cheap stunt you'd expect from a tabloid for click bait. WE EXPECT MORE FROM BARI.
I suggest reflecting on this and take the emotion out of it. Look at it from a new perspective. I think you'll agree that it might be antisemitic - but it is impossible to know without more info.
We cannot just allow ourselves to be manipulated. To fall for every claim of antisemitism or racism. I like Bari, but she made a mistake by highlighting this case. I hope she withdraws this piece. You and I can surely agree - and I'm sure Bari would too - that there must be other cases of antisemitism that are more clear and could have been a stronger example than this ambiguous case.
People who comment on ANYONE's physical appearance as any kind of evidence of their intellect and/or character really aren't worth a response. I don't know that I see it as anti-Semitic. It could have easily been directed at anyone. I see it for what it is...a cheap shot, and unfortunately for some people, this is low-hanging fruit. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch over every one of these kind of tweets to the point that you feel compelled to respond, you'll need to clear your calendar for the rest of the month (if not the year!)
Maybe I’m missing something here but, calling one person ugly, how does that translate to an entire group of people? Isn’t this just an example of two people behaving in a juvenile way?
Btw I really enjoy your podcasts.
As a Jew on the right, I condemn Jewish stereotypes when they arise. As for my brethren on the left, I am saddened by their obvious -- and oblivious -- support of those who would be the first to march them off to a 1930s Germany redux.
I was actually confused by this article. I didn’t see antisemitism unless I chose to push it that direction. It had wording that could be interpreted as having an ethnic lean but I had to actually look up the definition of physiognomy to realize it was judging expressions indicative of character OR ethnic origin. Probably because of the name Rothschild I would have guessed David was of Jewish descent, but Ari I wouldn’t have known by looking at the picture or the name. Not that Mr. Murray is wrong in his interpretation, but it feels a bit presumptuous to automatically assume you know what the intent was behind someone else’s words. My wife and I finally agreed to not discuss anything either of us feel important by text as we decided neither of us are loquacious enough to avoid arguing about idiotic misinterpretations of our own words. We’ve been married for 20 and together for 25 years.
Apparently others agree that this is much ado about nothing:
https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/06/overreaction-du-jour/
Total overreaction on the side of Murray & BWeiss. I see how Mr Gonzales made tasteless comments, which could make someone uncomfortable. Ok, I get it. BUT, being an admirer of Mr Murray’s work it’s disheartening to see him engaging in this sort of Twitter style “cancel culture”, while he’s preaching so much against it. As a jew I feel we also need to grow some skin and stop obsessing over someone’s lame comments. This doesn’t serve us well when we are facing real antisemitism.
I guess the second to last line is supposed to be sarcastic--I mean, joking about defenestration is itself "proto-violence" or "playing at violence"--but it really doesn't help this post.
Bari, why don't you just apologize?
Mr.Murray should calm down. Mr. Gonzalez posted photographs of two men who by any objective standard are visually repulsive. It has nothing to do.with their ethnicity or religion. I am a typical Irish-Italian-German American "mongrel" (as described by Hitler) whose father and uncles kicked Hitler's and Tojo's collective asses. I know a lot of visually repulsive Irishmen, Italians and Germans. The most prominent among Italians would be the brothers Cuomo. It has nothing to do with their ethnicity or religion. That are just ugly as sin. Get a life, Douglas. I grant you write excellent books, but take some Valium to help you calm down.
There are plenty of right leaning so called thinkers or commentators that are antisemite and even spread bizarre theory; https://odysee.com/@banned.ml:5/in-the-name-of-zion-9:1
I think Gonzalez' comments about the physiognomy of others may or may not be rooted in anti-semitism. He mocked the facial features of two Jewish people, and perhaps has never made similar comments about non-Jewish people. If so, there are grounds for suspicion but not the immediate defenestration for which Murray seems keen. If anything, I would say Claremont should feel embarassment for a Lincoln Fellow who argues his position on the basis of physiognomy.
Thanks for writing that Mr. Murray. I admire you & listen very closely to you when ever I get the chance. What Mr. Gonzales has said & is doing is disgusting & dangerous. I've been to Rwanda & the genocide memorial several times. How DO people get to be that "out to lunch." Such despicable behaviour CAN take things to such hard to turn around dark places. When you read Mr. Gonzales statements you want to both COMPLETELY ignore him & at the same time shout NO!!! This is BAD behaviour & can not possibly take us anywhere good.
I think the dude is not connected to Claremont. His LinkedIn account says Charlemagne Institute (whatever that is!)
Mr. Murray, thank you for writing this.
Anti-Semitism is rampant on college campuses, streets (think of the fall of 2019 and the many vicious physical attacks against Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn....with the NYTimes barely saying a thing about it, if anything) and elsewhere in the West, and not just the West.
"The anti-Semites have the right to play."
Not without harsh and painful pushback, they don't. Six million of us were not murdered so Pedro Gonzalez could have an LOLZ at our expense. Fuck him.
Bari, this piece has some serious flaws. I wrote about them in several comments below. I like your work, but no one is perfect. You missed on this one. Please read through the comments below. Thanks.
I call out BOTH right and left.
This is a flawed piece. I hope you are objective enough to realize that. Aside from the ambiguity of the event that Murray calls out (saying, effectively, "I do not like the way you look" may be antisemitism - or may be just an attempt t be too clever), the premise of the piece is FLAWED. It starts out stating the premise is to find antisemitism on the right. WHY ? Are we now to use antisemitism as a political weapon - they way people have tried to weaponize racism ?
Antisemitism is antisemitism. We do not need to instill quotas for antisemitism. By accepting the premise of this piece - you do that. It's like saying - "we have filled out quota of calling out the left -- now lets call out the right." Where does this end ? Why don't we call out every group based on a quota ? Maybe the next article should be Hindis. Yeah, we don't want to give Hindis the impression they get a pass. "Well, we have called out Muslims for antisemitism enough already - let write a piece calling out Hindus" In fact, a Hindu guy once looked at me the wrong way once and I'm sure it was antisemitism - so I better write a piece for Bari to publish. Doing my part for Wold Jewry. Can I get a pat on the back now? Just like some of the comments here pat Murray on the back. Think.
Physiognomy definition = the supposed art of judging character from facial characteristics.
Since Rothschild was known for his wealth, privilege and smugness (and better known for these than for his religion) then I think it is reasonable to assume the author was referring to these qualities. It was an insulting comment - but it is surely a rush to judgment to believe it was meant as an antisemitic slur. Not to say it was not meant as such a slur - but unless you can show a clear history or a way to get inside the author's head -- you cannot reasonably say it was antisemitic.
It's not remotely a rush to judgement to assume the slur was antisemitic--becauase it WAS antisemitic. Nobody uses "Rothschild" as a slur for "wealth, privilege, and smugness," they use it as a substitute for "dirty money-grubbing hook-nose Jew." This "scholar's" Tweet was offensive as fuck, and so is any attempt to explain it away.
You are being ethnocentric.
Of course Rothschild is known for wealth, privilege and smugness.
In your world - every reference to a person who is, or was, Jewish is a slur or a slight.
Just like in Sharpton's world, every reference to an African American is racist.
You go down that path - and it is a slippery-slope to a dead-end.
I pray you reconsider and see how accusing people of antisemitism upon supposition or innuendo is a wrong.
"In your world, every reference . . . "
Not hardly. I find just the opposite in day to day coverage of Jews: most references are *not* slurs, slights, or antisemitic.
But some references are. This one is. For you to claim "he was only talking about the guy's smugness" when he specifically wrote "Rothschild physiognomy" is foolish. Why are you so invested in insisting his comment was innocent?
Let's be clear.
I am NOT saying the remark was not antisemitism. And I am not defending the remark. I am saying it is ambiguous. You cannot put a bullet into the person's head for this set of facts alone.
You seem to think I am defending the remark. I am not. Maybe Gonzalez meant it as an ethnic slur - maybe he was just trying to be clever (as writers often try to do to stand out or to appear superior in an argument such as the one he was engaged in). I do not know - and neither do you. If you pretend to know - you're fooling only yourself.
Do not get caught up in the emotion of this. Bari put a swastika image at the top of this story to trigger an emotional response. You took the bait. I understand why. Jews have been persecuted for centuries. But using a swastika to manipulate is a cheap stunt you'd expect from a tabloid for click bait. WE EXPECT MORE FROM BARI.
I suggest reflecting on this and take the emotion out of it. Look at it from a new perspective. I think you'll agree that it might be antisemitic - but it is impossible to know without more info.
We cannot just allow ourselves to be manipulated. To fall for every claim of antisemitism or racism. I like Bari, but she made a mistake by highlighting this case. I hope she withdraws this piece. You and I can surely agree - and I'm sure Bari would too - that there must be other cases of antisemitism that are more clear and could have been a stronger example than this ambiguous case.
People who comment on ANYONE's physical appearance as any kind of evidence of their intellect and/or character really aren't worth a response. I don't know that I see it as anti-Semitic. It could have easily been directed at anyone. I see it for what it is...a cheap shot, and unfortunately for some people, this is low-hanging fruit. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch over every one of these kind of tweets to the point that you feel compelled to respond, you'll need to clear your calendar for the rest of the month (if not the year!)