Skip to main content

Meet the New Prophets, Same as the Old Hypocrites



(A response to Bret Stephens’ sermon on antisemitism, Nov. 11, 2025)

Ah, Bret Stephens has spoken again — that weary high priest of moral panic and selective outrage.
Once more, he descends from the pages of The New York Times, clutching the sacred scroll of victimhood in one hand and a mirror he refuses to look into with the other.

This time, his sermon bears a familiar title — “Meet the New Antisemites, Same as the Old Antisemites.”
Catchy. Biblical, even.
Only problem? The real “old antisemites” are now wearing army uniforms with Hebrew lettering and dropping U.S.-financed bombs on Gaza — and Bret calls that “self-defense.”

The Gospel According to Bret

Bret laments Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes — the “Hitler fanboy,” as he calls him — as proof that antisemitism is seeping back through the cracks of American conservatism.
And he’s right — it is.
Only, one wonders why Bret’s moral radar detects every droplet of hate in American discourse but goes blind to the tsunami of racism, dehumanization, and state-sponsored extermination carried out by a government that claims to represent the Jewish people.

Apparently, antisemitism is a problem when someone tweets it — not when someone commits it from an F-16.

Selective Outrage Syndrome

Stephens praises Ted Cruz, The Wall Street Journal, and the Heritage staffers who “rose to the occasion.”
Beautiful — conservatives scolding other conservatives for being too antisemitic while voting for weapons shipments to an army that’s been burying Palestinians under rubble for a year straight.

This is the Broadway version of morality: loud, dramatic, perfectly timed — and entirely performative.

Stephens writes that antisemitism “isn’t merely a prejudice, it’s a conspiracy theory.”
True.
But so is Zionism — the belief that the world’s Jews, scattered and diverse, are eternally bound to a single nationalist project that can never be questioned without invoking the specter of Hitler.
If antisemitism is a sewer pipe, then Zionism, as Stephens sells it, is the plumbing system that recycles its stench into political virtue.

Meet the Mirror, Bret

In Stephens’ universe, every critique of Israel is “antisemitic,” but every bomb on Rafah is “self-defense.”
Every campus protester is a “Jew-hater,” but every Israeli pilot is a “defender of civilization.”
This is not moral clarity — it’s moral theater.

He quotes Leo Strauss calling antisemitism “the socialism of fools.”
But Bret, with that smug certainty of the New York Times moralist, practices “the journalism of cowards.”
He dares to condemn Tucker Carlson’s platforming of hate while his own pen launders war crimes into “existential necessity.”

The only difference between Carlson’s cynicism and Stephens’ sanctimony is the brand of cologne each uses to mask the rot.

A Familiar Pattern

Bret says antisemitism keeps returning — and he’s right again.
It does return, but often in Zionist drag:

  • The “chosen people” rhetoric that divides humanity into God’s favorites and everyone else.
  • The moral immunity that turns ethnic cleansing into “security.”
  • The silencing of dissent with the nuclear code word: antisemitism.

Stephens loves to talk about “the good Jews” — the ones who wave Israeli flags and never question the body count — and the “bad Jews” — the ones who stand with Palestinians and remind the world that justice cannot be partitioned by faith.
To Bret, those Jews are the “new antisemites.”

Yes, in 2025, the ultimate sin is not killing children — it’s criticizing the people who do.

The Intellectual Gymnastics of Moral Superiority

Stephens calls out the “antisemitic-adjacent” logic of MAGA populism — its fear of globalism, of elites, of international conspiracies.
Fair enough.
But what does he think Zionism is if not an “identity politics” project that turns religion into nationalism and victimhood into a foreign policy strategy?

He condemns conspiracy theories about “globalist Jews,” but writes weekly to defend the actual global network of pro-Israel lobbies pressuring governments, intimidating journalists, and rewriting laws to criminalize dissent.
The irony could fund a Broadway revival of Fiddler on the Roof.

And Now for the Grand Finale

Stephens ends his sermon warning that “Jews don’t have the luxury of being indifferent.”
Indeed — but Palestinians don’t have the luxury of being alive.

While Bret moralizes about antisemitic tweets, Gaza’s morgues are overflowing.
While he warns about Nick Fuentes’ words, children are being amputated without anesthesia.
While he frets about “waves” of antisemitism, Israel has turned the Mediterranean itself into a graveyard.

And yet, Bret — like so many of his peers — will never connect the dots.
Because the one form of antisemitism he cannot see is the one committed in its name.


Meet the New Antisemites, Bret.

They wear blue-and-white flags on their sleeves and carry press badges instead of swastikas.
They cheer for bombs, cry for hostages, and quote Leo Strauss while Gaza burns.
They publish in The New York Times and call it moral courage.

So yes, Bret — the antisemites have changed.
But not as much as the journalists who pretend to fight them.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ceasefires, Fireworks, and the Fine Art of Calling Ashes “Peace”

  There is something almost poetic about declaring victory while the smoke is still rising. Not poetic in the romantic sense—more in the way a press release can be mistaken for reality if repeated often enough. So here we are. Another “ceasefire.” Another “agreement.” Another feather in the ever-expanding, never-examined peacemaking cap of Donald Trump . Israel–Iran. Israel–Hezbollah. Israel–Hamas. One could be forgiven for thinking peace has broken out everywhere—if peace meant pauses between airstrikes . The Theater of Victory On cue, Benjamin Netanyahu steps forward, flanked by ministers who speak the language of triumph as if it were immune to contradiction. “Iran weakened.” “Hezbollah contained.” “Total victory.” It all sounds remarkably similar to past declarations—just before the next round of fighting. Because here’s the inconvenient detail buried beneath the applause: none of the stated objectives were actually achieved. Iran still has its missiles. Hezboll...

The Endurance War: When Pain Becomes Strategy

  There are wars fought with missiles. There are wars fought with money. And then there are wars like this one— where the real battlefield is human endurance , and the real weapon is pain tolerance . The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is being presented as a masterstroke by —a clean, calculated move to choke Iran’s economic lifeline. But beneath the polished language of “strategic pressure” lies a far simpler, far more uncomfortable truth: This is not a test of power. It is a test of who can suffer longer. And in that contest, Washington may have chosen the wrong opponent. The Fantasy of Economic Collapse The theory is elegant: Strangle oil exports Collapse revenue Trigger unrest Force surrender It is also, historically speaking, remarkably ineffective . A major study by RAND Corporation on coercive economic strategies concluded that: “ Economic sanctions alone rarely achieve major political objectives, particularly against regimes with strong internal sec...

๐ŸŽญ The Theater of War: Where Jets Fall… and Logic Disappears

  There is something almost magical about modern warfare. Not technological. Not strategic. Magical. Because apparently, in this new era of “precision conflict,” reality itself bends—radars go blind, enemies vanish, and entire rescue operations unfold like a perfectly choreographed Netflix special. Welcome to the latest production by The New York Times: “ A Harrowing Race Against Time to Find a Downed U.S. Airman in Iran.” Harrowing? Yes. Race against time? Sure. But also— a story where physics, military doctrine, and basic logic quietly exit the stage. ๐Ÿšจ Act I: The Jet That Was “Too Advanced” to Be Shot Down Let’s begin with the uncomfortable opening scene. An American F-15E Strike Eagle—a symbol of air superiority—gets shot down. Not by accident. Not by friendly fire. By Iran. Yes, the same Iran that we are constantly told is: technologically behind militarily constrained barely holding together And yet: ๐Ÿ‘‰ It tracks ๐Ÿ‘‰ Targets ๐Ÿ‘‰ And successfully downs ...

Israel's War Without Strategy: The Biography of a Failure Repeating Itself

  There are wars fought for survival. There are wars fought for power. And then there are wars fought to avoid answering a question. Israel today appears to be fighting the third kind. October 7: The Disaster That Required Questions — And Got None On October 07, atteck , the unthinkable happened. Not just a breach. A collapse. The kind that doesn’t happen because of one missed signal—but because an entire system stops asking the right questions. So naturally, the next step should have been: ๐Ÿ‘‰ A ruthless, transparent, national inquiry ๐Ÿ‘‰ Political accountability at the highest level ๐Ÿ‘‰ Institutional introspection Instead, the system chose a far more innovative response: Move on. Quickly. Loudly. Violently. Because nothing says “we’re learning” like launching a war before finishing the autopsy. And Then… The Same Movie Played Again Fast forward. Hezbollah was declared “finished,” “on its knees,” “neutralized.” Victory speeches were practically warming up in the...

Losing the Public: Israel’s Iran War Faces a Crisis at Home

๐Ÿงญ Core Argument Scheindlin’s central point is simple but powerful: ๐Ÿ‘‰ Public support for the Iran war in Israel is already declining—much faster than expected. And more importantly: ๐Ÿ‘‰ This war is not giving the political boost that wars usually give leaders. ๐Ÿ“‰ 1. Rapid Decline in Public Support In most wars, there’s an initial “ rally around the flag” effect . But in this case, support started dropping within weeks , not months. Why? Israelis are seeing: No clear victory path High risks of escalation Uncertain objectives ๐Ÿ‘‰ This creates early fatigue , not long-term unity. ⚠️ 2. Lack of Clear Strategic Goal Scheindlin highlights a key issue: ๐Ÿ‘‰ People don’t understand what “ winning ” looks like. Is the goal: Destroy Iran’s nuclear program? Deter Iran regionally? Regime change? Without clarity: Public confidence erodes Skepticism replaces patriotism ๐Ÿ”ฅ 3. Fear of Regional Escalation The war is not seen as contained. Israelis fear: Hezbo...