Anti-Semitism

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

20122015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance

Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on constitutional law, backed by Kantor’s ECTR developed a draft 12-page pan-European “tolerance law” for adoption by the European Union. The law was intended to “criminalize ‘group libel,’ such as negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europe.” On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and throwing his “support behind the proposal, which would grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continent.” Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according to Times of Israel, was “undeterred by the criticism, insisting that he would continue to promote the legislation to European governments, in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said was initially perceived as a “pipe dream,” the tolerance law will ultimately take root.”

Dinstein’s document, innocuously titled “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” [full text here] but also known by the name “Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” was designed to legally implement Kantor’s ideological proposals as outlined in the 2011 Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, and made provision for the explicit criminalization of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.” It proposes to make “education in tolerance” mandatory from elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged to ensure their schools “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity. … It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school.” The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the military and the police, and for the entire professional class within society.

The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to ensure that public broadcasting “devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.” It asserts a legally binding commitment that: “The production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.” Mass media will be completely given over to the development and dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:

  • The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.
  • The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.
  • The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission.

In short, the proposals aim to make “commitment to tolerance” a total and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture. In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the establishment of “special administrative units” dedicated to the direct surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess “intolerant” views.” The statute develops a framework of “concrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.” The proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin Schulz, that “Whilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should be a crime.”

Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts, for example, that “It must be understood that the “group libel” may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State).” Based on one of his most recent speeches, Kantor’s own interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired: “Historically, Jews were always among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.”

Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made “anti-Semitic” criticisms of Israel today, or “denied the Holocaust.” And these penalties are harsh. The document argues there is “no need to be tolerant to the intolerant.” Group libel, “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology,” xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the Holocaust, are all to be treated as “aggravated crimes.” Juveniles “guilty of intolerance” will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed via “a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.”

Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantor’s ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and seminars with international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its implementation. Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has launched a $1 million “Kantor Prize for Secure Tolerance,” an ECTR annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering grants of “20–50 thousand Euro each” for experts who can advance the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.


Incentivizing treason: Kantor, awarding the European Medal of Tolerance to Prince Albert II of Monaco: “Your Highness’ gesture of supporting historical truth and unveiling a monument commemorating deported Jews in World War II has been such a liberating act of contrition, all the more impressive because it concerned not only your own people, but also because of your own family’s political responsibilities for the course of events.”

20162018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on “Cyber Hate”

Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global approach to “Secure Tolerance” by building a more intensive relationships with the ADL and focusing more heavily on internet “intolerance.” In January 2016, Kantor’s European Jewish Congress and the ADL announced “a partnership to cooperate on advocacy work within European Union institutions,” that would involve lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for heightened levels of internet censorship. At a meeting of the EJC’s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would “enable the ADL to have a greater impact on E.U. policies and programs,” while providing Kantor’s policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt boasted that “Working together, we will leverage our respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.” An enthused Kantor replied, “I am delighted that we are partnering with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.” Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews now free to engage in “advocacy work within European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Commission.”

By 2018, Kantor’s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring about “secure tolerance” had settled on the internet as a matter of major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on repressive international legislation. There had been earlier grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also Yoram Dinstein, had called for measures to end internet anonymity and therefore expose the “intolerant” to “the censure of society. … If you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for it.” But by 2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal solutions to online dissent.

Moshe Kantor and the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt

In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a priority of “fighting cyber hate.” A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central “think tank” for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The ‘recommendations’ of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all governments adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism” the latter being achieved quite quickly since the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.

The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites,” and its plan to “eliminate anti-Semitism” is comprehensive. Among its more recent recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are
absent.

 

Latter-Day Elders of Zion

In much the same way that Kantor’s “secure tolerance” policy proposes that “restrictions are necessary for freedom,” many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty. A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side (2015) and a key figure in the Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992–1995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995–2007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of “The Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance” Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a “defender of democracy,” acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. As with other aspects of the “think tank” strategy, this is “democracy,” but not as you know it.

Cohen-Almagor’s most recent significant production, titled “Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,” appeared in 2018 in the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy.[1] Along with an earlier piece from 2016,[2] the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor’s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy. The article’s basic argument is that American so-called “White supremacist” websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech “can and does inspire crime,” it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.

We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this: “On 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).” Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident “illustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.”

Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:

[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listeners’ response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. … Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.

The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that “the audience” can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech — not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures. Why everyone else “exposed” to “White supremacist hate speech” didn’t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that “hate speech should not be dismissed as ‘mere speech.’ … The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.”

Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of “hate speech” and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that “internet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,” so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality — particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that “White supremacist” websites are “like terrorist groups.” The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples.

In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede “quite a few sites discussed here are now defunct.” Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the “vast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative.” It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.

In fact, Cohen-Almagor can’t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of “hate speech” or “hate sites.” This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control. Early in his essay he asserts that “Hate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.” But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of “hate groups,” as merely “critical” of “multiculturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities.” Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate. It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not “injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize” anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.

Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how “White supremacist” websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have “forums, discussion groups, photos and videos.” They offer “eye-catching teasers such as symbols and pictures.” Readers of such websites “talk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.” A key strategy involves “encouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline world.” Members “use cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective action.” Website proprietors can also “make appeals for funding.” Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.

Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health — spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999. Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the “racist” and “hate” buzzwords, it’s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out: “Although White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.”[3] The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total fabrication.

It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a “morality” that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians. Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: ‘The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes.’ Cohen-Almagor writes:

Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.

Go to Part 3.


[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57.

[2] . Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.

[3] J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189)

Jewish Reactions to Black anti-Semitism

“Jews often become convenient stand-ins as the purveyors of the structures of systemic racism that continue to plague Black America.”
Tema Smith, The Forward, 2019

As remarked in “Aspects of Black anti-Semitism,” it’s clear that visible and occasionally violent Black hostility towards Jews presents the latter with an objective problem in terms of their (publicly expressed) self-concept as a people and the received wisdom regarding the nature of anti-Semitism (now given quasi-legal standing in many countries via the IHRA definition). In general terms, Jews have tended to avoid any sense of responsibility for anti-Semitism by creating and promoting narratives in which they are passive victims of a phenomenon that is the result of fundamentally irrational bigotry. This is often accompanied by the insistence that anti-Semitism has its origins in what are seen as pathological elements in European Christianity and that anti-Semitism is little more than a set of ideas that act as a viral psychosis among Whites.

Since the early twentieth century, this understanding has been augmented with a variety of modifications, many derived from Marxism and psychoanalysis, but the essential argument that anti-Semitism is a White pathology has survived, and has been very widely disseminated in Western cultural, political, and educational spheres. In fact, it has been challenged in significant terms only by the rise of anti-Jewish hostility in the Middle East, but even in that instance it has been characterized by Jewish historians like Bernard Lewis as being influenced by Europeans. Within the West, and omitting anti-Semitism among Muslim immigrants, the periodic spike in anti-Jewish hostility among American Blacks represents perhaps the only persistent Western challenge to the received wisdom that anti-Semitism is a White problem, rather than a problem that originates with Jewish behavior. Black anti-Semitism also problematizes notions that Jews have been selfless and valuable allies to Blacks and other minorities, something that has been a key aspect of Jewish propaganda campaigns for pluralism in Western nations. As such, Jewish rhetorical and legal responses to Black anti-Semitism are of interest to White advocates, and to all peoples concerned with Jewish/Zionist group influence and behavior.

Victims of White Systems

One of the most prominent Jewish strategies when discussing Black anti-Semitism is the attempt to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood, and thus preserve the idea of an alliance against an allegedly oppressive White society. On the most basic level, this strategy involves denying any specificity to Black complaints against Jews and essentially involves an entrenchment of the idea that anti-Semitism is a White pathology. Black socio-economic grievances are radically downplayed or even ignored entirely in this framework, and the locus of all discussion tends to be on vague, putative historical contexts of Jewish victimhood (e.g. “This is another sorry chapter in the history of the Longest Hatred”), rather than on serious thinking about perpetrator motivation.

An excellent example in this regard is Tema Smith’s Forward article “How to talk about Black anti-Semitism.” Smith attempts to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of victimhood by arguing that “Jews often become convenient stand-ins as the purveyors of the structures of systemic racism that continue to plague Black America.” This is really a fascinating statement given that it comes in the aftermath of Black attacks on Jews involving everything from “fists and stones to machetes, automatic weapons, and explosive devices.” Despite very clear dynamics of targeted hostility, the victimhood of both peoples is preserved and asserted since the putatively passive Jews are merely “convenient stand-ins,” and Blacks are themselves “plagued” by “the structures of systemic racism.” In other words, antagonistic Jewish behaviors are either non-existent or ultimately irrelevant, while Blacks can’t be fully condemned for their attitudes and behavior because they’ve essentially been fooled by an exploitative racist system. Thus, in a context in which a disproportionately vast numbers of Hasidic Jews exploit their tenants and accumulate hundreds of building violations through sheer greed and disdain for those living in their properties, and in the process making life hell for many Blacks, the real villain of the story is somehow the White man — a figure, curiously enough, that is almost totally absent from all “Worst Landlord” lists.

In this reaction, therefore, Jews and their behaviors dissolve into the abstraction of imagined social systems—specifically “racist” systems that are part of a putative White power structure. Smith continues:

What is remarkable, though, is that a single factor underlies every attempt to diagnose a unique form of Black anti-Semitism: systemic racism. In analysis after analysis, antisemitism in the Black community is shown to be the symptom of the structures of racism in the United States—housing insecurity, lack of access to quality education, food deserts, access to political capital, discriminatory policing, and on and on. Ultimately, the conversation about Black anti-Semitism is not actually about Blacks and Jews. [emphasis added]

This is a capable use of persuasive language, but what is truly remarkable is that Smith fails to identify the true “single factor” underlying attempts to diagnose Black anti-Semitism — the stunning avoidance of any significant confrontation with the worst aspects of Jewish behavior in Black districts. Whether or not housing insecurity, lack of access to quality education, food deserts, access to political capital, or discriminatory policing have anything to do with the specific issue of Black anti-Semitism is up for debate, but what is clearly contributing to Black anti-Semitism is the decades-old prevalence of Jews as the very worst of ghetto slumlords, pawn brokers, loan merchants, and political hypocrites. Smith doesn’t provide a single reference or footnote to any of the examples of “analysis after analysis” allegedly proving a thesis that conveniently absolves Jews of provoking Black aggression because these analyses are almost non-existent outside the ridiculous offerings of the Jewish power structure’s own self-defense bodies. In fact, when serious unbiased scholarly studies are made of Black anti-Semitism they tend to overwhelmingly conclude, in the words of Ronald Tsukashima and Darrel Montero, that “economic mistreatment [by Jews] is strongly related to heightened antipathy toward Jews.”[1]

One study that concedes economic mistreatment of Blacks by Jews, but insists that Whites and their “racist system” are still responsible for the situation, is the ADL-sponsored Anti-Semitism in America (1979) by Harold Quinley and Charles Glock. In the fourth chapter of this text, “Anti-Semitism Among Black Americans,” the authors concede their findings “are consistent with a theory that black anti-Semitism is economically based,” and that having business contacts with Jews “was associated with a sharp rise in anti-Semitic responses.”[2] In particular, it was found that Jewish credit practices were one of the “principle areas in which blacks are exploited. They often end up paying exorbitant prices for inferior goods.”[3] Remarkably, however, in summarising their conclusions the authors move away radically from the specificities of Black-Jewish interactions, instead abstracting into discussion of systems of racism. In essence, they replicate the process of Jews dissolving into Whiteness. For example, they assert that “it is largely as members of the oppressive white majority that blacks seem to react to Jews.”[4] This is followed by what amounts to absolution of both Blacks and Jews, and a condemnation of Whites:

Prejudice should be deplored wherever it exists and for whatever reason. At the same time, prejudice toward the oppressor is not to be equated with prejudice toward the oppressed. The prejudice of blacks is in part a response to circumstances which white-dominated culture has imposed on them. The opposite does not apply with respect to the prejudice of whites.

The rhetorical pattern is thus replicated that negative Jewish behavior is either non-existent or irrelevant, that, in a sense, Black violence is excusable, and that the real enemy of both is White people and their culture.

The Judeo-Bolshevik Inflection

Part of the “system’s” apologetic, but worthy of analysis in its own right, is the Jewish-Marxist treatment of Black anti-Semitism. A good example of this approach was published last month at Jacobin, in the form of Aaron Freedman’s article “To Defeat Antisemitism, We Must Defeat Capitalism.” It’s long been my opinion that a significant element of historical Jewish support for Marxism is that Marxism is itself a kind of “escape into systems.” Jews have for centuries been noted as particularly negative forces within capitalism, and it would appear that Jews have much to gain by advancing the idea that it is the system of capitalism, rather than Judaism and Jewish approaches to capitalism, that is inherently bad. It is indeed a curio of history and contemporary economics that Jews have heavily accumulated, and often dominated, in those economic areas widely seen as exemplifying the worst of capitalism: usury/high interest loans, including the modern payday loan; sub-prime mortgages; tax farming; vulture funds; monopoly; fraud; Ponzi schemes; slumlordism; tax avoidance; internet gambling; and malicious bankruptcy. I’ve tackled the Marxist critique of anti-Semitism in great detail in relation to the ideas of Slavoj Zizek (who later referenced the “true anti-Semitism” of my essay at RT but—rather tellingly—offered no rebuttal, refusing even to answer the question he quotes). But here I want to discuss it specifically with reference to the issue of Black anti-Semitism.

Aaron Freedman, who lives in Brooklyn and should therefore know better, is quite unabashed in asserting that “Antisemitism endures because capitalist oppression needs a scapegoat,” which is really no more than a rephrasing of Tema Smith’s claim that Jews are merely “convenient stand-ins” for the real problem — the racist structure of White society. Freedman admits that there has been a sudden increase in Black attacks on Jews, but his first attempt at explanation can only be described as nothing less than remarkable: “A surge in white-nationalist activity since Donald Trump’s election is surely the main part of the story.”

Inserting “surely” into a sentence is a nice effort at persuasive writing, but the logical gap is so great in this instance that it resembles the rhetorical equivalent of putting a band-aid on the hull of a sinking ship. Freedman qualifies his astonishing claim only by adding “But Trump’s victory alone does not explain the spate of incidents in New York, committed in many cases by black individuals in both planned assaults and apparently random street encounters.” The confusion unfortunately escalates from there, with Freedman commenting “The Right obviously does not have an answer.” The problem here is that we obviously do have an answer for the causes of Black anti-Semitism, and like all great theses it can be summed up in a single, short sentence: “Jews have been behaving badly again.” Freedman dodges any hint at such an explanation, moving into his own breakdown of why Blacks have been attacking Jews: Capitalism.

Like all Marxist interpretations of anti-Semitism, Freedman asserts that “Its roots in the United States, by way of Europe, come from Christian discrimination against “Christ killers,” dating as far back as the 2nd century CE.”  This is, quite frankly, a nonsensical oversimplification, and the dating of the origins of anti-Semitism from medieval Christendom, rather than the ancient world, is an depressingly common feature of Jewish apologetics, a tactic that typically owes much of its development to the convenience of placing the blame for anti-Semitism on early Christianity. Most significantly, it is based on the theories of Gavin Langmuir, a philosemitic scholar who by his own admission dated his discussion of the origins of anti-Semitism to the medieval period because, “I am respectably knowledgeable only about the history of the West since the fall of the Roman Empire and am most at home in the Middle Ages.” Compounding Freedman’s gross errors, the Jacobin journalist states with brazen duplicity that Jewish financial activities in the Middle Ages were “far less oppressive” than that of other peoples (again, see my commentary on the ideas of Slavoj Zizek for historical sources contradicting such assertions), and that they were only quaintly engaged in “petty bourgeois profit-seeking.” No mention of Jewish elite status. No discussion of Jewish tax-farming. No inclusion of peasant revolts against the unusually oppressive nature of Jewish finance. Jews appear in Freedman’s narrative only as “a religious other,” picked on because they were “also very vulnerable.” So vulnerable they typically had royal protection? So vulnerable that most of the oldest residential houses in England were built for Jews, their thick stone standing the test of centuries and countless reactions from the goyim?

If by now, like me, you’re wondering what Freedman has to say specifically on the matter of Black anti-Semitism, then also, like me, you’ll be frustrated with the fact he finishes the piece without mentioning anything at all about Black anti-Jewish hostility in Brooklyn. In a grand piece of diversionary nonsense, he merely recounts the standard Judeo-Bolshevik narrative of anti-Semitism, declaring Black anti-Semitism to be inconsequential to the greater story: “the specific threat of white-nationalist organizations remains the paramount one,” and “in any society in which the few rule over the many, racist and antisemitic victim-blaming will thrive.” The message is therefore more or less identical to that offered by Tema Smith — when Blacks attack Jews it has nothing to do with either Blacks or Jews, and everything to do with Whites. The situation thus presents itself that Jewish slumlords abuse and exploit their Black tenants, Blacks react by assaulting Jews, and Whites are encouraged to chastise themselves for causing it all through their evil desire for private property.

Pleading Ignorance

In “Aspects of Black anti-Semitism,” I noted that,

A fascinating feature of coverage of the Winter 2019/2020 attacks on Jews by Blacks in New York has been the total absence of media enquiry into why the assaults took place. Like so much historiography on European anti-Semitism, there is simply no room for the question Why? As in Kiev, or Odessa, or the Rhine Valley, or Lincoln, or Aragon, or Galicia, the assaults on Jews in Brooklyn apparently emerged from the ether, motivated by some miasmic combination of insanity and demonic aggression. NBC New York reported bluntly on a “spree of hate,” but had nothing in the way of analysis of context other than a condemnation of “possible hate-based attacks” — one of the most remarkably opaque pieces of analytical nomenclature I’ve ever come across.

Mirroring media neglect of context, some Jewish reactions have consisted of feigned ignorance and bafflement at what might have caused Black anti-Semitism. In a December 2019 article for the Daily Beast, Brooklyn-based Jay Michaelson attempts to explain “What’s Behind the New Wave of Anti-Semitic Hate?” What his article in facts consists of is a series of mystifications of what is really a fairly straightforward story. For Michaelson, “speaking as a Jewish parent who lives in Brooklyn, I can tell you that it’s terrifying. It is also confusing. [emphasis added]” The only thing Michaelson seems sure of is that “hate” is involved, but he courageously probes deeper by asking: “Hate, yes, but what kind of hate?” His conclusion? “The answer is not simple.” Michaelson does concede that some of the anti-Jewish actions of recent decades contain “glimmers of ideology” — “the Crown Heights riot of 1991 was in part about city resources, housing, gentrification, policing and political power”—but he follows this by insisting that “These attacks say nothing about African-Americans or anti-Semitism in black communities. … To eradicate anti-Semitism, we must understand it—and right now, when it comes to this devastating new wave of attacks, we don’t.”

Other than blank confusion, then, does Michaelson suggest that anyone at all is blameworthy for the recent outbreaks of Black anti-Semitism? After much confusion, the fog settles and the real perpetrator comes into Michaelson’s view: Donald Trump. Michaelson unveils the villain of the story as follows:

While conspiracy-mongering exists on the left and the right, there is no left-wing or African-American equivalent of President Trump, who has freely traded in anti-Semitic stereotypes, sometimes in a joking way. … Indeed, Trump’s contribution to our conspiracy-fevered culture is broader than specifically anti-Semitic conspiracies. For example, regarding the 2016 election alone, Trump has claimed, baselessly, that it was rigged (even though he won anyway), that millions of people voted illegally in it, that Ukraine (not Russia) interfered with it, and that there are still important email servers floating around out there that we have to get our hands on. When you play with fire like this, vulnerable populations get burned. Especially Jews.

The real reason for Black attacks on Jews is thus unveiled with crystal clarity. According to Michaelson, it all began when Donald Trump made some jokes that some Jews perceived to refer to “canards” about Jews and money. The situation was compounded further when Trump complained about Hillary Clinton keeping state business on a private email server. Unable to control themselves in light of Trump’s jokes, and rendered paranoid by talk of Ukrainian meddling and the security protocols of email servers, the Blacks of Brooklyn rose up in violence against the “vulnerable population” in their midst—the entirely innocent, passive and wealthy Hasidic landlords who owned their slums and debts. Right.

Some things never change: Covers of Commentary from 1963 and 2018.

The Material Reaction

It often pays to observe what Jews do rather than what they say. Steven Gold, writing on the Jewish response to growing Black anti-Semitism in 1940s Harlem, comments:

Being well organized, Jewish communal associations took note when Jewish merchants were accused of inappropriate behavior. When African-American journalists or activists complained about the exploitative behavior of ghetto merchants, Jewish spokesmen often resisted accepting responsibility and instead labeled accusers as anti-Semites for referring to the merchants’ religion. Contending that Jewish merchants treated Blacks no worse than other Whites did, they objected to being singled out.[5]

Resisting accepting responsibility for exploitative and inappropriate behavior has long been the favored option of Jews, even when confronted with quite extreme and violent manifestations of anti-Semitism. In fact, one of the obvious themes of Jewish history is the persistence of negative behaviors amidst ever-intensifying efforts to entrench within the host society, often via radically increased security and associated privileges (e.g. restricted freedoms for non-Jews, harsh penalties for anti-Semitism). A constant of Jewish history is that in general Jews do not change behavior that is seen negatively by non-Jews; rather, they find ways to continue to engage in the behavior but avoid the consequences—a facet of aggression as a background trait of Jewish behavior (p. 26ff). As such, one would expect that Black anti-Semitism will not significantly change patterns of Jewish behavior in Black areas, and that we will instead witness Jewish communities enjoying very high levels of police protection and the promotion of the idea that Jews are a vulnerable, passive, and special people entirely deserving of special treatment. Additionally, despite Jewish rhetoric blaming Black anti-Semitism on Whites, one would expect a high level of suspicion of Blacks among Jews, and subtle attempts by Jews to punish Blacks for their aggressions.

Security for Jews has already vastly increased since December 2019, with the Guardian reporting that police have stepped up patrols in “Borough Park, Midwood, Crown Heights, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Williamsburg, as well as establishing community-based neighborhood safety coalitions overseen by the Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes. In addition, the city announced an increased NYPD presence at houses of worship and during local events. Six new surveillance towers and additional security cameras will be installed throughout the neighborhoods.” As well as increasing security on the ground, Jewish leaders last week successfully lobbied Attorney General William Barr to announce a “zero tolerance” policy for anti-Semitism at federal level. The new, harsher approach to crimes against Jews will get its first trial in the case of Tiffany Harris, a Brooklyn-based Black woman of dubious mental health who slapped three Jewish women and now, on the orders of Barr, will face federal hate crime charges which carry a maximum of 30 years in prison.

The issue of Jewish security has also called into question the putatively selfless Jewish interest in “social justice.” Having previously backed New York’s “no bail” criminal justice reforms, ostensibly intended to stop the injustice of those in poverty (mainly Blacks) spending more time in jail than those with the funds to bail their way out (mainly Whites), Jews are now rapidly turning on the policy change and demanding that “hate crime” exemptions be considered. In other words, Jews want subtle protections and subtle punishments. The Forward reports:

People are panicking, people feel frightened,” said Chaim Deutsch, a New York City councilman who represents a Brooklyn district with a large Hasidic population. “When they see someone like Tiffany Harris is released on bail, and got released only to go assault someone again, it sends the wrong message.” Deutsch is circulating an open letter to Cuomo criticizing the new criminal justice reforms. Simcha Eichenstein, a state assemblyman who also represents a Brooklyn district, plans to introduce legislation that would remove all hate crime charges from the list of crimes that judges cannot set bail for. Deutsch told the Forward he supports Eichenstein’s legislation. Concern for the repercussions of the bail reforms is growing among politicians. Cuomo has said he wants to reconsider the rules. Even progressives like Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the New York State Senate majority leader, has signaled her willingness to look at the rules again.

A policy change that has been the cause célèbre of liberal multiculturalists for years is thus forced into sharp revision solely because it has been deemed to negatively impact Jewish security.

This is the true Jewish reaction to Black anti-Semitism, devoid of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, and steeped in centuries of tradition: Deny Responsibility; Entrench in the Society; Continue and Intensify Existing Behaviors; Increase Privileges and Protections; Punish Opponents.

What a vicious and endless circle.


[1] Ronald Tadao Tsukashima, Darrel Montero, “The Contact Hypothesis: Social and Economic Contact and Generational Changes in the Study of Black Anti-Semitism,” Social Forces, Volume 55, Issue 1, September 1976, 149–165. Although more ambiguous in their representation of findings, see also, Gary T. Marx, Protest  and Prejudice: A Study of Belief in the Black Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1967) and Harold Quinley and Charles Glock, Antisemitism in America (New York: Free Press, 1979).

[2] Harold Quinley and Charles Glock, Antisemitism in America (New York: Free Press, 1979), 57.

[3] Ibid., 66.

[4] Ibid., 72.

[5] S. Gold, The Store in the Hood: A Century of Ethnic Business and Conflict (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), 75.

Slavoj Žižek’s “Pervert’s Guide” to anti-Semitism

“ [Kevin] MacDonald’s theory is a new chapter in the long process of the destruction of Reason.”
Slavoj Zizek

“Žižek is, at his best, a posturing charlatan.”
Thomas Moller-Nielsen, Current Affairs, Oct. 18 2019.

 

This is an essay on anti-Semitism, but because it’s also about Slavoj Žižek we’re going to have to start with the subject of extra-marital affairs. Very early in my academic career, I was asked to take part in a cross-faculty seminar, where PhD students could present small talks on the development of their research. It was hoped that, as a newly-minted PhD, I’d ask presenting students some tough but helpful questions, and thus somehow contribute to a team atmosphere in my department. I was provided with a list of proposed talks and immediately felt an overwhelming sense of apathy at the litany of feminist tripe and quasi-Marxist navel-gazing, none of which was in any way related to my own fields of research. I was eager to please in my new role, however, and so I fell dutifully into line. I’ll never forget the first presentation because it was so remarkably surreal, being an effeminate young African-American who quite literally gave a performance poem titled “Black Skin” about, well, you get the idea. But the more memorable event of the day came later, when a young woman gave a presentation on gender in the media, or something to that effect. Something about her manner irritated me considerably, so I gave her a hard time during the Q & A. This was picked up on by a senior figure in the department, a soft meek-looking and much-gossiped-about English historian, who, after the seminar had finished, invited me to his office for a discussion on gender and sex politics.

I’ve been politically aware since I was a teenager. I’d read deeply about Marxism since the age of seventeen, and was familiar with its cultish elements. None of this prepared me for my adventure in this otherwise unremarkable Englishman’s office, the walls of which were festooned with small red flags and quasi-religious images of Lenin and Trotsky. So, I thought, here was a Red in the flesh. I was in the presence of a dedicated Marxist, and that right there in front of me stood a solitary tangible example of the long march through the institutions. He made tea, and we sat down. He began to talk, I listened. During his initial monologue, my host started speaking from a personal perspective, explaining that even in his private life he aimed to live in accordance with his “socialist beliefs.” Before he got married, he explained, he and his fiancée agreed that they wouldn’t take traditional vows, agreeing they wouldn’t be so possessive as to make an oath of exclusivity to one another. They might “expect” exclusivity, but they wouldn’t demand it. They believed in “freedom,” he said, and ultimately this was what social progressivism and modern gender and sex politics was all about. It wasn’t anything to get upset over, he implied, or laugh about.

Except that it was. The faculty gossip I’d heard was that the wife of this “free love” advocate had been on a short-term teaching stint in Norway and had just recently decided to permanently settle there with a Norwegian lover she’d been having an affair with for some time. She had the marital couple’s two children with her in Norway, and was making it extremely difficult for the meek, permissive, Lenin-loving Englishman to see them. The family home had also been declared off-limits, and my Marxist colleague was apparently reduced to staying in a local bed and breakfast. Tragic? Quite possibly. Hilarious? Most definitely. All of this flooded my mind as the cuckolded Leninite sat opposite me recounting his lukewarm marriage vows, tea in hand, eyes glistening with — tears? Steam from the tea he said, wiping them casually and glancing at the window. My face was stone. The time passed, and my host gradually fell silent. I thanked him most disingenuously, and made a hasty retreat, taking a deep breath as I emerged from the building. I never set foot in that office again.

What does any of this have to do with anti-Semitism? If you’re the superstar Marxist intellectual Slavoj Žižek, it has everything to do with anti-Semitism, since as we will find out, infidelity and anti-Semitism are irrefutably linked. I say “irrefutably” quite deliberately, because his arguments are irrefutable — and they are irrefutable because they are nonsensical. Read more

“The Necessity of Anti-Semitism”

“There has always been an abyss between Europeans and Semites, since the time when Tacitus complained about the odium generis humani.”
Heinrich von Treitschke, Ein Wort über unser Judenthum, 1879.

In 1989, the Jewish screenwriter and journalist Frederic Raphael was invited to deliver the 25th Anniversary Lecture at the University of Southampton’s Parkes Institute for the study of Jewish/non-Jewish relations. Founded by Rev Dr James Parkes (1896–1981), a neurotic Church of England minister who made a career out of the promotion of philo-Semitism in Christianity and the promotion of guilt narratives among Christians (in 1935 he was both celebrated by Jews and targeted for assassination by National Socialists), the Institute quickly became a hub for the production of scholarly-appearing pro-Jewish propaganda. Rather than offering objective analyses of Jewish/non-Jewish relations, the Institute furthered the familiar narrative that Jews were the blameless and catastrophic victims of an entirely irrational European hatred. Raphael, given the honor of addressing the 25th anniversary of this project, opted on the appointed evening to be a witty gadfly, choosing “The Necessity of Anti-Semitism” as the title of his address. It could be the title of a book, said Raphael, one that could sit in the Parkes Institute library but for the fact it had never been written, and did not exist.

In the meandering speech that followed, Raphael explored the putative contents of this imaginary book, suggesting its potential arguments, and what they might say about the author and about European culture. Confirming the opinions of everyone present, Raphael offered the assurance that although this ghostly and ghastly book did not exist, such a haunting product would not be out of place on a continent where anti-Semitism is “a constant and essential working part of Europe’s somber and unreformed logic.”[1] For Raphael and his smug audience, “The Necessity of Anti-Semitism” lay only in its utility in salving the pathological European mind. Anti-Semitism was in fact extremely illogical and, in a moral sense, completely unnecessary.

Since reading Raphael’s speech several years ago, The Necessity of Anti-Semitism has, in a sense, haunted me too. As a single book, of course, it does not exist. But it perhaps has existed, after a fashion, in the thousands of tracts, pamphlets and books on the Jewish Question that have been written by Europeans over many centuries. In this collected body of anti-Semitic apologetics, one finds The Necessity of Anti-Semitism inflected in varying religious, political, and social hues. But what would the book look like if it was in fact written today? How could any author distill the various aspects of the Jewish Question into a single volume? In the essay that follows, part literary experiment, part historiography, I want us to join Raphael in imagining that this spectral book exists, even if our approach is rather different.

I imagine our author to introduce his volume with the broad case for The Necessity of Anti-Semitism, namely the presence of Jews and their influence in the four primary cultures of White decline: the Culture of Critique, the Culture of Tolerance, the Culture of Sterility, and the Culture of Usury. Read more

Crypto-Jews, German Guilt, and the Wittenberg Jew-Pig

“Here on our church in Wittenberg a sow is sculpted in stone. Young pigs and Jews lie suckling under her. Behind the sow a rabbi is bent over the sow, lifting up her right leg, holding her tail high and looking intensely under her tail and into her Talmud, as though he were reading something acute or extraordinary, which is certainly where they get their Shemhamphoras [hidden name of God in Kabbalah].
Martin Luther, 1543 

During my early years researching the Jewish Question I was particularly struck by the strident and flamboyant nature of medieval and early modern anti-Jewish folklore and related art. I recall being fascinated at the strangeness and creativity of tales like the 16th-century Jewish woman said to have given birth to twin piglets,[1] the common 15th-century belief that Jewish males menstruate,[2] and speculation that Jews buried their dead with small rocks to throw at Christ in the afterlife. As with much of Jewish history and the historiography of anti-Semitism, the subject of anti-Jewish folklore has been dominated by Jewish scholars. My first introduction to the topic was thus The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore (1991) by the Jewish UC-Berkeley folklorist Alan Dundes (1934–2005), widely regarded as the field’s pre-eminent, and perhaps only, expert. In the book, as one might well expect, Dundes strips anti-Jewish folklore of context and presents instead a collection of “evil” and “dangerous” fantasies lacking any logical or rational basis.

Aside from the work of Dundes, direct scholarly engagement with the subject of medieval anti-Jewish folklore has been relatively rare, with most Jewish scholars preferring to probe medieval artistic linkages between Jews and the Devil (see, for example, the work of Robert Bonfil, Marvin Perry, and Frederick Schweitzer) rather than some of the more outlandish or colorful “memes” that then circulated. Almost all of these scholarly accounts utilize medieval anti-Jewish folklore as a means of denigrating and indicting medieval Christianity as irrational and prejudiced, and ultimately as the fons et origo of an equally irrational and prejudiced modern anti-Semitism. An explanatory account of medieval and early modern anti-Jewish folklore informed by historical context remains to be written, despite admirable and broadminded texts like The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (1997) by Claudine Fabre-Vassas. This is a project I am giving serious consideration to undertaking. As luck would have it, it’s also becoming somewhat relevant again.

Of all the artistic manifestations of anti-Jewish folklore, few are more acute, vehement, and scatological than the imagery of the Judensau, or ‘Jew-Pig.’ In brief, the image, depicted in woodcuts or in stone (often on churches) between the 13th and 15th centuries, is an allegorical reference to Jews drawing sustenance from the Talmud, with Jews shown suckling from a sow and/or examining or eating its feces. The association of Jews with pigs in medieval Christian folklore was longstanding, owing something to the known aversion of the Jews to pork, and produced an array of stories and imagery that flagrantly ignored the ancient dietary commands in Leviticus. In one legend, for example, the aversion to pork dated from the time of Christ, when a sneering Jew challenged Christ to guess the contents of a barrel that the Jew knew to contain a slaughtered pig. Unknown to the Jew, the pig had been removed and his own children were hiding in the barrel. When Jesus answered that the man’s children were in the barrel, he was mocked and told there was a pig inside. “Let them be pigs then,” replied Jesus, and the children were transformed into piglets. From that day onward, so goes the tale, Jews avoided eating pork because for them that would be cannibalism. One suspects that seriousness was never a primary concern in the development of such folk tales — they served as entertaining and memorial “memes” to impart the message that Jews were different and were to be avoided. Read more

Thoughts on the Protected Race

Know that we have taken into our hand, custody, and protection Leo the Jew our goldsmith and all his affairs. And therefore we command that you keep ward and defend the said Leo and all his affairs, doing no hurt or injury to him.”
Proclamation of King John of England, 10 Nov. 1199

My office was created by law and designed to protect the Jewish people throughout the world. Think about that. The worlds greatest power is focused, by law and design, on protecting the Jews.”
Elan Carr, U.S. State Department Envoy on Anti-Semitism, February 2019

By almost every metric, Jews are the most protected ethnic group on earth. At the frontline of this protection, Jewish institutional security is heavily subsidised by taxpayers throughout the West. In Germany, the government provides an annual stipend of $15 million to the Central Council of Jews. In the UK, the government spends around $20 million annually on both security for Jewish institutions and “Holocaust education” designed to combat “anti-Semitic ideas.” This is in addition to the UK pledging almost $70 million for a new Holocaust memorial designed to achieve the same ends. Hungary has promised $3.4 million to “fight anti-Semitism in Europe,” and Sweden has handed over 2 million kronor for increasing security at Jewish institutions. France has invested $107 million in “fighting anti-Semitism” since 2015. This brings us to a grand total of over $215 million in “protecting Jews” and “fighting anti-Semitism,” and doesn’t even take into account spending in the United States (somewhere between $20 million and $50 million annually for frontline security at Jewish institutions), or the spending of Jews on their own defense (the ADL’s annual budget alone is in the region of $58 million). One gets the distinct and remarkable impression that, globally, diaspora Judaism probably requires something approaching $1 billion simply in order to feel safe.

Jews are protected in other ways. Since mid-2018, resolutions and other legal measures against anti-Semitism have been gathering in pace and increasing in spread. In May 2018, South Carolina became the first US state to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which effectively shuts down speech against Israel on college campuses by requiring  South Carolinas public institutions of higher education to take into consideration the [State Departments] definition of anti-Semitism for purposes of determining whether the alleged practice was motivated by anti-Semitic intentwhen investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of a college or university policy prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of religion. In February 2019, President Macron of France announced a “crackdown on anti-Semitism” that would involve dissolving three pro-White organizations, defining anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, and introducing new laws against “hate speech” targeting Jews on social media. Just a few weeks ago, Florida passed legislation defining anti-Semitism and making it illegal under state law. Tennessee has attempted to pass an Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill, and recently passed a resolution “fighting anti-Semitism” by declaring unequivocal support for Israel. This, of course, follows hot on the heels of the House resolution “condemning anti-Semitism” in the aftermath of Ilhan Omar’s now notorious remarks on the Israel lobby.

There simply isn’t another ethnic group elsewhere on earth that enjoys the same level of financial and legal protections enjoyed by Jews. Of course, the uninformed, when confronted with such a fact, might reply that this level of support is both needed and deserved. According to the received narrative, recent history suggests that Jews are the West’s most vulnerable and victimised group. All of these laws, and all of this funding, is therefore merely a response to an acute need. But recent history has nothing to do with Jewish protection, and nor are these measures responsive to any real immediate threat. In order to gain a full appreciation for what exactly is going on, we need to go much further back in time. Read more

Pittsburgh

In the wake of the Pittsburgh Synagogue shootings, the long-running hysteria about Donald Trump promoting anti-Semitism, racism, and “White supremacy” has been intensified. It’s at the point now that it is morphing into an obvious attempt to shut down or at least pathologize public discussion of critical issues.

Particularly important are globalism and nationalism, and the role of the establishment—particularly the media—in shaping attitudes on these issues. The election of Donald Trump and the clear rise of nationalist politics and anti-immigration sentiment in Europe are causing extreme anxiety in establishment circles. And yet, these issues are central to the interests of all the citizens of Western countries.

An honest discussion is therefore imperative, but all too often, as in much of the EU, honest discussion is vilified and even threatened with legal sanctions (e.g., here, here, and here). What we have is a corrupt establishment desperately fighting to remain in power—an establishment that is out of touch with the interests and concerns of its native populations. We in the United States are threatened with a similar situation if present trends continue.

For starters. Trump’s recent statement that “I am a nationalist” was greeted with a deluge of comments that such a statement is racist and dog whistled White Supremacism,” and Nazism (here, here, here, here). Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) stated:

“We should stop giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he doesn’t understand what he means when he refers to nationalists or any of these other terms. These are not just dog whistles, but it’s bullhorns. It’s racism, it’s basically for many people it’s anti-semitic [sic], it’s white supremacy. He knows very well what he’s talking about even though he professes otherwise.”

This is amazing given that Trump was quite clear in stating that he meant that America’s interests should come first, as in this statement contrasting nationalism with globalism that immediately followied his claim that he is a nationalist: “A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly not caring about our country so much.” This is nothing more than a garden-variety restatement of civic nationalism that has been a bedrock conservative idea for decades.

The problem is that in the present context of hyper-polarized political debate, such a statement is reflexively associated in the media with the Alt Right—the threatening menace of White racial nationalism. This is more a testament to the lurking influence of the Alt Right. The establishment sees any mention of nationalism in this context as at best a slippery slope toward racial nationalism. Read more