Anti-Semitic as a Matter of Law
John Sharpe is a writer and publisher who formerly ran the Legion of St. Louis and now runs IHS Press. He is also an editor of the two Neo-Conned books condemning the neoconservative war in Iraq.
With a résumé like this, it’s not surprising that Sharpe would run afoul of the thought police. The $PLC describes the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press as “two of the most nakedly anti-Semitic organizations in the entire radical traditionalist Catholic pantheon.”
Sharpe’s troubles began when he was a Lieutenant Commander and public information officer in the Navy. Anti-White journalist David Mastio wrote an editorial in the Virginian-Pilot about Sharpe’s alleged activities as a naval officer. Sharpe sued for defamation, claiming that the editorial “falsely accuses [him] of, among other things, undermining his nation, being an open racist and anti-Semite, fundraising for anti-Semitic ‘crackpots,’ and participating in supremacist activities in violation of Navy Regulations.”
The case is ongoing, and Sharpe was recently deemed a “public official” for the purposes of the case. (This will make it easier for Mastio to win the lawsuit).
By way of background, Mastio is a self-styled “conservative” commentator who for years has made it his object to attack white advocates and race realists like Sam Francis with gusto, perhaps hoping to advance his opinion-making career. He’s also apparently very pro-Israel.
(If Mastio isn’t Jewish, he certainly seems to understand that supporting Jewish interests is a great career move.)
What struck me in reading the judge’s opinion is that after perusing Wikipedia and other sources, he deems Sharpe to be an “anti-Semite”: “The Court, having thoroughly reviewed the corpus of Sharpe’s writings, and especially those selections personally authored by him, concludes as a matter of law that the writings do espouse anti-Semitic and racist views.”
So what constitutes the law on anti-Semitism according to this Virginia court? The court cites a document from Israel’s Yad Vashem, which defines anti-Semitism as including the following actions:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other social institutions.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
The problem with this is that, as with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Global Anti-Semitism Report, truth is no defense. It would be useless for Mr. Sharpe to bring in evidence that indeed strongly identified Jews have a very large influence on the media, the economy, or the government and they use this influence to advance Jewish interests. As noted quite often in TOO, there is very good evidence for all of those propositions.
And it would be useless for Sharpe to bring in evidence that some Diaspora Jews are more loyal to Israel and Jewish interests than they are to the interests of the countries the live in. What about the fact that, as noted by Mearsheimer and Walt, that Israel has used its influence to get American Jews to influence US policy on behalf of the interests of Israel?
What about Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish? What about the numerous neoconservatives who have been credibly charged with espionage on behalf of Israel?
And what about the current AIPAC espionage trial in which we are now finding out that a Jewish Congresswoman may have agreed to try to get the charges against AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman reduced in a conversation with an Israeli agent who may well turn out to be Haim Saban, the billionaire pro-Israel activist with dual US-Israeli citizenship?
Is the US government anti-Semitic for pursuing such charges? Was it anti-Semitic to place a wiretap on Cong. Jane Harman?
As far as the legal proceedings are concerned, this means that the judge, not a jury, will decide the issue of whether Sharpe is an anti-Semite. A jury won’t get to make this decision or, in all likelihood, listen to Sharpe’s testimony denying it. The lawyers for Mastio can tell the jury that “Lt. Cmdr. Sharpe is an anti-Semite, folks.”
[adrotate group=”1″]
But on another level, it’s frustrating that these all-powerful terms, “anti-Semitic” and “racist”, are deemed matters of law. According to the judge in this case, anyone who criticizes Jewish activity in too vigorous a fashion might be deemed an “anti-Semite”. It forms a neatly vicious circle: Anyone who criticizes Jews is an anti-Semite. Therefore, all criticism of Jews is illegitimate, because it comes from… an anti-Semite.
Would this judge ever deem a litigant “anti-white” or “anti-Western” as a matter of law? Not likely: it’s just not “out there” as a current of the culture for him to latch onto.
Our task: create that current of the culture!
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.
