The Lowest of the Low

I've been accused of having a monomaniacal obsession with New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz which is comparable to Peretz's own monomanias. Readers can make of that what they will. For my part, it just seems important that the words of the owner and editor of a major American political magazine achieve the wide distribution they deserve. In this offering, for example, Peretz explains that Palestinians, like Iraqis, are subhuman:

This is cold comfort to the Israelis. Their enemies can still maim and kill. It is entirely preferable for the Palestinians to have their rump and run it as they will or can. But, please, enough about how civilized they are. They are on their way to being Iraqis.

Taking the "neo" out of "neo-imperialist" mindset. How sweet it is.

Comments

"Peretz explains that Palestinians, like Iraqis, are subhuman"

Uncivilized ≠ subhuman.

Peretz's words are damning enough without needing embellishment.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2007 9:31 AM

One wonders how Matthew gets from the Palestinians not being "civilized", which is, you know, the actual word Peretz used, to the Palestinians being "subhuman", which is Matthew's bullshit paraphrase. I mean, Matthew is just embarassing himself here.

Posted by Al | February 6, 2007 9:32 AM

"I've been accused of having a monomaniacal obsession with New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz which is comparable to Peretz's own monomanias."

But, of course, monomania is part of the explanation as to why Peretz is blind as a bat.

He is not to be emulated, even in mirror image form. Instead, he is a cautionary tale of the perils of monomania...

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2007 9:41 AM

I don't mind your "monomania" about Peretz. Knowing your friendship with Ackerman, I assume the point of all this is not so much to discredit Peretz, as much as it is to embarass all the "liberals" still working at TNR. They are all compromising their journalistic and ethical integrity every day by working for this neocon racist, and I, for one, appreciate you keeping the heat on them.

Posted by vanya_6724 | February 6, 2007 9:45 AM

Off-topic, unless the topic is redefined as new depths for conservative pundits: an all-time classic at the Corner right now from Cliff May:

"Jonathan, perhaps the reason you have seen only innuendo regarding the various law firms at Gitmo derives from the fact that the MSM is highly selective about which issues are worth investigating."

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 6, 2007 9:55 AM

"Knowing your friendship with Ackerman..."

I remain utterly convinced that within 20 to 30 years, the word "monospackermania" will enter the dictionary as a general usage word, meaning "a somewhat ill-conceived attempt to achieve revenge for a wrong done to a friend."

For example, when Mardy Collins fouled J.R. Smith, and Carmelo Anthony responded by sucker punching Collins, Carmelo was guilty of monospackermania.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2007 9:56 AM

Uncivilized ≠ subhuman.

In this case, I'm pretty sure it =. Even Peretz can't say "subhuman," because there's no room for deniability with that word, but "uncivilized" leaves wiggle room for people like you, Peretz and Al to say "nuh uh!" Given everything else that Peretz has written, I think it's safe to say that for him uncivilized and subhuman amount to the same.

Posted by ogged | February 6, 2007 9:57 AM

Civilization is the measure of humanity, and it's a completely reasonable paraphrase. Regardless, it's disturbing that some folks are more enraged by improper thesaurus use than flagrant bigotry.

Posted by bitpicnic | February 6, 2007 9:59 AM

"but "uncivilized" leaves wiggle room"

What wiggle room is that? I think calling the Iraqis and Palestinians "uncivilized" is pretty fucked up.

As stated above, Peretz's words are damning enough without needing embellishment.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2007 10:01 AM

His words seem to say that the Palistinians are uncivilized and that the Iraqis are worse than that in some way. Shouldn't the Southern Poverty Law Center get involved at some point?

Posted by daveNYC | February 6, 2007 10:04 AM

"it's disturbing that some folks are more enraged by improper thesaurus use..."

In a text-only medium, if you ain't got precision in word choice, you got nothing.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2007 10:04 AM

The bantustans in South Africa were also crowded, poor, corrupt, violent, internally disordered, used to barrack the indigenous population and support the argument that the blacks would fuck it all up if there was ever a negotiated solution to share power. For Gaza, think Transkei. For Peretz, think the apartheid sympathiser in Kent, chortling over his cornflakes at the natives' chaotic ways.

Posted by otto | February 6, 2007 10:13 AM

"For Peretz, think the apartheid sympathiser in Kent, chortling over his cornflakes at the natives' chaotic ways."

It's funny how occupation armies and lack of self-rule always seem to bring out the worst in those uncivilized natives...

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2007 10:17 AM

Clearly, Peretz is saying they are uncivilized, not subhuman. I think the key issue is, if the behavior of the Palestinians and Iraqis appears uncivilized, then why is that?

The necons and their ilk will say it is due to their inferior culture.

Others will say it is due to the condition of powerlessness and insecurity that they have been subjected to, due to the occupations.

I think that, in the case of the Palestinians and Iraqis, there are clear data points for comparison. How were the Palestinians living prior to 1948? Was their behavior any more or less civilized than other societies living in similar conditions? Ditto for the Iraqis, before they came under the wise tutelage of George W. Bush?

In both cases, the data are convincing: the "uncivilized" behavior we are witnessing are a direct result of the criminally negligent occupations that they have been subjected to.

Posted by Jim W | February 6, 2007 10:20 AM

I just read the whole article. The point of the article is that the Palestinians are no exception to the rule that all Arabs are uncivilized thugs, and this basic truth will become harder to deny as evidence mounts.

Sounds fairly racist to me.

Also his argument that the rest of the Arab world doesn't have a sense of kinship with the Palestinians is wrong. And not just honestly wrong, but wrong in exactly the way that a person who's reason has been blinded by hatred is wrong.

Posted by Chris | February 6, 2007 10:28 AM

Please don't stop exposing this racist. Obsess away. What bothers me is that people like James Wolcott and James Woods cash this guy's checks. It should be considered unacceptable, a source of shame--at least in liberal circles--to make money from, and for, his magazine.

Posted by david mizner | February 6, 2007 10:36 AM

Peretz is out there. If I understand him correctly, he's arguing that Palestinians get upset with each other, therefore it's OK to torture, kill, and do whatever else to Palestinians. But I think Israelis probably get upset with each other too. Like one time one Israeli got REALLY upset and killed the prime minister. Now that's rough stuff, if you ask me! But, call me crazy, somehow that doesn't seem like a good reason to treat all Israelis like half-breed potato brains.

Posted by alex | February 6, 2007 10:47 AM

Either that or just let that bland collection of vanilla inside-the-beltway half-assed political takes sink into further obscurity.

Posted by norbizness | February 6, 2007 11:14 AM

There is ample evidence that Peretz thinks Arabs are subhuman, regardless of this offering. I have chapter and verse on my home computer, which I will attend to this evening.

Matt, your anti-Peretz stance is quite appropriate (as though you needed my validation). Whether its occurrence now is motivated by Spencer or whatever, your motives are irrelevant to the content of your argument. And judged by its content, the argument is watertight.

Posted by Marshall | February 6, 2007 11:15 AM

Should I just cancel my tnr subscription?

Posted by Berger | February 6, 2007 11:24 AM

In response to an earlier request for a dossier collecting some of the more pungent examples of Peretz's bigotry, here:

http://peretzdossier.blogspot.com/

Posted by M. Duss | February 6, 2007 11:38 AM

More monomania, please. You've homed in on your target. Now take him and his rag down.

Posted by brendan | February 6, 2007 12:22 PM

MY:

Judith Miller would still be writing for the NYT if they hadn't got exactly this kind of insistent, focused scorn.

This is how you make your name, son. Put the fucker's head on your wall.

Posted by brendan | February 6, 2007 12:24 PM

Matt - has Peretz ever responded to you? Does he ever respond to his critics? I'm sure he knows your blog well.

I admit to being one of those who leveled the "monomania" charge, but it seems better to be monomaniacally focused on a bad and bigoted writer than to actually be that writer...

Posted by Mr. Noah | February 6, 2007 12:49 PM

Peretz doesn't need to respond to his high-profile blogging critics when he has people like Jonathan Chait willing to cut their balls off to defend him.

Posted by ndm | February 6, 2007 1:03 PM

I will add that the apartheid sympathiser in Kent, perhaps a retired British army officer, would also have called his blog "The Spine".

Posted by otto | February 6, 2007 1:05 PM

I for one don't care if Peretz responds, he should be free to spout any crackpot idea he cares to. I agree with David Mizner that the goal should be to make self-professed liberal writers realize for whom they're writing, and make them understand that the once good name of TNR is now mud. Any writer concerned with his reputation among intelligent critical thinkers should seek other more reputable outlets for publication. Let TNR sink down to the American Spectator level where it belongs.

Posted by vanya_6724 | February 6, 2007 1:10 PM

I agree with many of the comments about monomania. Each day, I look forward to another round of Peretz bashing. Its great, as long as you can keep keep it interesting and fresh. I suppose all you have to do is keep reading The Spine. There will always be new outrages worth responding to.

Posted by Jim W | February 6, 2007 1:20 PM

mizner:

What magazine are you talking about?

Posted by brendan | February 6, 2007 1:41 PM

Brendan: The New Republic, of course. Some people I like write for them, and it bugs the shit out of me.

Posted by david mizner | February 6, 2007 1:52 PM

Matt, I apologize for calling your interest in Martin Peretz a waste of time. I have trouble believing that his writing (as opposed to his money) influences anyone; and even if it does, I still have trouble believing that criticizing his crap requires you, Alterman, or Greenwald - don't we have some eighth-tier liberal bloggers to handle this? But whatever. Write whatever interests you.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 6, 2007 2:16 PM

Those who doubt that Peretz means subhuman should click on the link (always a good idea). In the same post, he says the Palestinians lack "the bare minimum of peoplehood," and links to an earlier post of his where he finds Palestinians to approvingly quote that "we don't deserve a state" and are "worthless gangsters without values."

Really, this is ridiculous. Somwetimes I think that someone like Petey will never, ever admit that Peretz is a racist who hates Arabs unless he admits it in exactly those words. And maybe not even then.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 6, 2007 2:44 PM

Petey's various comments on this thread pretty reasonable.

Posted by otto | February 6, 2007 2:49 PM

Gary Sugar:

Peretz influences a lot of people by virtue of owning and directing a magazine that is considered reputable. The magazine's influence still ripples across a lot of prominent print institutions: witness the New Yorker's transformation into a shill for the Iraq war, complete with TNR castoffs, or the proliferation of NR people writing in places like the Washington Post op-ed page, or the phenomenon of Andrew Sullivan.

Exposing Peretz as a murderous bigot will diminish the quality of scrivener TNR and like publications can attract. It may even inspire resignations, and who knows where that might lead.

The neoconservative press are a tight-knit group. You have to start with one weak thread if you want any hope of it all unraveling.

Posted by brendan | February 6, 2007 3:53 PM

By the way, it's not the prejudices themselves that are the problem; none of us is without sin. It's that he wants the U.S. to build a foreign policy around them.

Posted by brendan | February 6, 2007 4:16 PM

What Peretz said is that the Palestinians ARE NOT MORE CIVILIZED THAN OTHER ARABS. Apparently he found some quotes from Said and others that they were delicate children of stones and other flowery speech.

Peretz feels that the latest Palestinian dust up contradicts those claims. He doesn't even use the word "Uncivilized". Peretz isn't directly criticizing the Palestinians, just those who put them on a pedestal. You want them on a pedestal?

Posted by Warren | February 6, 2007 4:32 PM

brendan,

A "murderous" bigot? You're certainly right on the bigot part, but is there some evidence against Marty Peretz that we're not aware of? I'd also dispute your characterization of The New Yorker as a shill for the Iraq war. I don't read it that often, though, so maybe I'm missing something.

Posted by too many steves | February 6, 2007 6:22 PM

Peretz is a bigot who you are helping ot expose - that's a healthy thing. Keep it up!

Posted by matthew | February 6, 2007 6:23 PM

Even Peretz can't say "subhuman," because there's no room for deniability with that word

'Subhuman' is the Godwin Waiver word. Once Marty stumbles into using it -- and he will, save an auto-correct in the Plank's submission system, just as Little Green Fuckwits auto-filters 'ragheads' -- the game is up for Mr Sewing Machine, because he's indistinguishable from filthy propagandists who said the same about Jews.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 6, 2007 6:44 PM

If Peretz really said what he meant- he'd say "The Palestinians are filthy shvatze goyim." Is there any doubt that he thinks the same of blacks and latinos? Can you imagine going around with him- la vernisage, le jeunesse dore, le merde grande of it all?

Posted by Trevor | February 6, 2007 11:42 PM

please! monomania? there ain't ENOUGH martin peretz-bashing going on here. serious. put this guy's picture on your sidebar with a couple of select humanitarian pearls from his oeuvre. on the other margin maintain an active chart of respectable liberals and progressives who maintain professional ties to peretz. blazen a banner up top with a huge BOYCOTT RACIST TNR!

ok perhaps these are a little too socialist workers of the world style for the yglesias blog. but dude, don't back off this creep. like brendan said above, we all may be a little racist in ways but that isn't the point--this guy's position of influence means his racism is much more likely to come to fruition, and with the help of americans' tax dollars. down with this truly anti-semitic creep!

Posted by Murph | February 7, 2007 7:53 AM

By all means, Matt Yglesias,

Please keep an eye on Peretz and his ilk for me, because Buddha knows I am not going to be reading his rag anytime soon -- except, of course, the links that I, with morbid fascination, follow from here and similarly-minded blogs. This might mean I am missing the full, nuanced glory of Peretz's weltanschauung, but I tend to suspect not.

Meanwhile, anyone aligning themselves with the Bush/Cheney autocracy needs to watch where they fling their accusations about a country lacking civilized values -- you know, glass houses, stones, &c. Throwing shoes strikes me as rather more to the point than a president going out of his way to insult a newly elected U.S. senator about his son, and infinitely less medieval than secret cabals scribbling ciphers about which henchman might be expendable for sacrifice by asking the guy "to stick his neck in the meat grinder"

Posted by teknozen | February 7, 2007 8:26 AM

Matthew Yglesias, based on what you write, you are a cretin and a liar.

I am a left-wing voter, but you and most of your readers are left totalitarians.
Yesterday you guys were fucking Communists (how many of this rabble DON'T
own Che Guevara T-shirts?), now you are the bootlickers of Islamic fascists.

An apppetite for murder, whether Communist or Islamic, best qualifies as
conscience for this crowd; of all murders, murdering Jews best qualifies one
as your crowd's idol (from Stalin to Arafat to the Arab beheader-on-video,
there's no shortage of demented criminals).

The difference between me (or some other random TNR reader) and you and your rabble readers is the same as between a jacket and a straitjacket.

You are young and hip. Why don't you form a boy band with your rabble? You could call yourself 'The Chamberlains' and start your show with 'Throw the Jew down the well' or, as your crowd would have it, 'Throw the neocon down the well'.

Posted by Victor | February 8, 2007 1:58 AM

bshwvlmce comu ihlstxo zhgpnvtof gsvmtfw htibsd ynol

Posted by hrplsx yxpfeo | June 11, 2007 4:10 PM

bpfguy qlcv exkswpg hrlcktndp qxfi lhnpcrd ekdvqnl dchz nazw

Posted by wsujcdfv hpmsbnrf | June 11, 2007 4:12 PM

bpfguy qlcv exkswpg hrlcktndp qxfi lhnpcrd ekdvqnl dchz nazw

Posted by wsujcdfv hpmsbnrf | June 11, 2007 4:13 PM