Media Influence

Alan Dershowitz on Jewish Media Influence

/102 Comments/in , , , /by

A sure sign that Jews control the media is that someone like Alan Dershowitz can get away with trotting out totally lame arguments in the mainstream media against the idea that Jews control the media. (Do Jews Control the Media?)  It’s an example of Orwell’s idea of blackwhite: “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

Dershowitz’s basic point is that yes, there are “individual Jews” with influence in the media, as well as the law, finance, and academia. His phrase “individual Jews” is meant to indicate that they are people “who happen to be Jewish.” They do not “act together in a conspiratorial manner.”

If he means that Jews in the media do a Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion thing where they get their marching orders from Abe Foxman, I would have to agree with him. But the fact is that in general Jews do not act simply as individuals. There is a shared vision that influences the attitudes and behavior of individual Jews. As I note in summarizing J. J. Goldberg, “There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties” (see Jewish Power, p. 5). Indeed, the consensus on these issues among Jewish activist organizations and the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed here despite a great deal of disagreement on other issues is striking.These attitudes typify the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the mainstream Jewish left to the neoconservative Jewish right, and in general, the Jewish profile on these issues is quite different from other Americans. Massive changes in public policy on these issues coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States.

Philip Weiss points out that Dershowitz himself has emphasized general Jewish goals, particularly the defense of Israel. And he presents examples of Jews in the media who see themselves as promoting Israel or who actively exclude points of view critical of Israel. To which I would add the comment by Eric Alterman about Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic: “It is not enough to say that TNR’s owner is merely obsessed with Israel; he says so himself. But more importantly, Peretz is obsessed with Israel’s critics, Israel’s would-be critics, and people who never heard of Israel, but might one day know someone who might someday become a critic.”

Dershowitz gives the New York Times as an example of a Jewish-owned media, noting that is critical of Israel. But in general, the Times’ coverage has been highly skewed toward Israel, as documented by Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew. Weiss gives the well-known quote from former editor Max Frankel: The NYT’s former executive editor Max Frankel wrote, “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”

A recent Forward article recounts the firings of Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, and Helen Thomas for their comments on Jewish issues. It points out that “Jews have done more than other groups to make it clear that they will not suffer lightly the public slights like those made by Sanchez — let alone by those with even bigger mouths, like Mel Gibson. As Foxman put it, ‘We are a community that is sensitive, and — have no doubt — we’ll respond.’ ‘

Right. But at least we know what the game is. The truth will be suppressed with all the power that the Jewish community can bring to bear. The message is out that anyone who wishes to have a career in the media must play by these rules or look for another line of work.

More Reactions to the Sanchez Indiscretion: Jon Stewart and Christopher Hitchens

/64 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I have the feeling that Rick Sanchez will manage to return to a career in the national media. Jon Stewart concluded his bit on the affair by questioning whether Sanchez should have been fired for some “banal Jew baiting”; he also showed a clip where Sanchez condemned a guy with a swastika in the background who says he avoids the “Jew media.” So Sanchez’s heart is in the right place, at least when he “has time to think about it” and “isn’t worried about being fired anyway.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Hurty Sanchez
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Christopher Hitchens wrote some odd things.

In the manner in which Sanchez spoke … there was something like a buried resentment. He didn’t descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media

But that’s exactly what he did say. Which is why he got in so much trouble. The amazing thing about all the mainstream discussion is a failure to discuss the extent which that is true. Hitchens continues:

But he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity.

Sorry, I didn’t get that. Sanchez certainly accused Stewart of being a bigot and of having “an establishment White liberal point of view.” Hitchens comes much  closer to acknowledging Jewish power when he comments:

I ask myself if the world in which I have worked for so many decades—the intersecting and overlapping world of the news media, publishing, the academy, and the think-tank industry—is even imaginable without the presence of liberal American Jews. The answer is plainly no. Moreover, I can’t think of any other “minority” of which this is remotely true, unless it were to be the other minority from which I can claim descent: people of British or Anglophile provenance.

Hitchens’ claim that “British and Anglophile provenance” are even remotely on a par with Jewish involvement in these overlapping elites is far less than remotely true. And in any case, this high level of Jewish involvement means that Jews effectively hold veto power over things that can and cannot be said. That’s why Sanchez got fired in the first place.

Still, his statement is one of the remarkable comments on Jewish involvement in the information elites to appear from a mainstream media figure—a nice addition to Edmund Connelly’s collection.  Coupled with his statements on the power of the Israel Lobby and his defense of Karel de Gucht, Hitchens is definitely being a bit edgy.

That reminds me of Philip Weiss‘s recent comments in his series “Note on my racism” (which bear a more extended discussion):

When you look at hives of Jewish writers, say the New Yorker Magazine, or the professors at Columbia University schools, I believe there is a strong kinship network at work. I’ve mentioned Lawrence Summers and Elena Kagan and Michael Walzer and Judith Shklar, their faculty networks at Harvard, as indicative of the same tendency.

Right. Elena Kaganas the poster child of Jewish ethnic networking. Jewish ethnic networking is the key to understanding contemporary information (and other) elites.

Hitchens wants Sanchez reinstated:

The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez’s reinstatement. If it then didn’t happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.

The idea seems to be that if Jews in the media like Hitchens (half-Jewish on his mother’s side) and Stewart call for Sanchez’s reinstatement but fail, then it would show that Jews really do pull the strings.

But the issue of how much influence Jews have on the  media is not at all dependent on what happens in this case. There is already overwhelming evidence for Jewish power in the media and elsewhere based on a great many sources. Sanchez’s reinstatement, perhaps after a bit of groveling, certainly wouldn’t change that.

The good news is that statements of Jewish power are becoming more common all the time, both on the power of the Israel Lobby and the power of Jews the media. In the long run, frank discussion of Jewish power would also mean a frank discussion of how Jewish power compromises the interests of White Americans. That would really be the stuff of which revolutions are made.  And even without an above-ground discussion, Whites with any degree of political sophistication are starting to “get it” and that in itself is a major step in the right direction.

When Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas get together…

/24 Comments/in , , , , /by

What do you think they talk about? I’m guessing it’s about how Jews are a poor, oppressed, powerless minority group who have absolutely no say as to what goes in the news industry. (See also Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Rick Sanchez on Jewish Media Power.”)

As you probably know, Rick Sanchez got fired from his anchorman job at CNN a day after he gave a radio interview and mocked the idea that that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority group in America, especially considering they pretty much run the news industry. He and the host got off on that subject because Sanchez called Jon Stewart a “bigot” for always making fun of him. See, Sanchez, who’s as white as you and me, was trying to claim victimhood status, apparently being too darned dumb to understand that having a Spanish name doesn’t make you a victim; having brown skin is what makes Hispanics “victims”. Sanchez is about as “Latino” as Christina Aguilera. That was his first mistake. As Steve Sailer so eloquently points out, Victimism is a high stakes, dangerous game, and you’d better know exactly what you’re doing when you sit down to play. Sanchez was clearly in way over his head. He’s like the tourist in Vegas who sees all the excitement at the World Series of Poker, so he plunks down his $10,000 entry fee, and asks “Does the dealer stand on soft 17?”

Sanchez somehow made it to his position on the basis of his perceived “ethnicity” without anyone ever sitting him down and explaining the official rules of Victimism to him. He’s white, and it doesn’t matter that he grew up speaking Spanish in Cuba, and then in Miami after fleeing Cuba, because a white man can never be a victim (unless he’s a homosexual). His second mistake was accusing Jon Stewart of being a bigot. Jon Stewart’s real name is Jon Liebowitz, and people named Liebowitz can never be a victimizer. And they generally don’t take very kindly to being accused of being bigoted or prejudiced. They’ll be the ones calling people racists and bigots, thank you very much.

And his third mistake was not taking the hint from his interviewer on the radio show. Obviously thinking that Sanchez is as dumb as a box of rocks and has no idea he’s wading into dangerous territory, he helpfully points out that Liebowitz/Stewart doesn’t fit the profile of a “bigot”, being an oppressed minority himself. In other words he was saying “Uh, Rick…you’d better cool it man. Jon Stewart can’t be a bigot; he’s not white. He may look white, but he’s actually Jewish, and you are on very dangerous ground here.” I guess he thought Sanchez didn’t realize Stewart is Jewish.

But not only did Sanchez know Stewart’s Jewish, he knew a few other things, too. He said that most of the people who run CNN and the other news networks are just like Stewart, and the idea that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority in this country is absurd.

Of course, it’s lunacy to think Jews run the news industry. Which is why Sanchez was fired almost immediately after saying Jews run the news industry.

Makes sense to me!

It’s funny if you do a Google news search about his firing. Most of the headlines say he was fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot. Yeah, that’s a good one. And people wonder why no one trusts the news media?

And if you read the reactions from commentators, both left and right, it’s clear they’re terrified of the Jewish control of the news media. Not a one of them, liberal or “conservative”, suggests that what Sanchez said is wrong. They all talk about how “stupid” or “dumb” he is for saying it, not that he’s crazy for believing it. The mainstream “conservatives” are actually mocking him for having the guts to tell the truth. He speaks more truth in 30 seconds than Glenn Beck has in his entire career, and he’s a pariah, and he deserved to get fired because there are some things you just don’t talk about.

That’s modern “conservatism” for you, folks.

Hell, most of these “conservatives” are so terrified of Jewish power that they would freak out if you suggested that Jews run our nation’s synagogues.

Of course, what’s really telling is a story I wrote about some time ago. Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a column a while back boasting that Jews control Hollywood, Wall Street, DC, and the news media. Not just boasting about it, but saying that anyone who doesn’t know this fundamental fact of life in America is pretty much an idiot.

Joel Stein can brag that Jews control the news media, Hollywood, Washington and Wall Street, and nobody bats an eye.

Rick Sanchez can simply state that Jews run the news industry, and he’s instantly fired.

That’s because Rick Sanchez is a white man, and Joel Stein is a Jew.

And “conservatives” cheer Sanchez getting fired for saying what everyone knows is true, and which Jews like Joel Stein rub in our faces.

Which is really disgusting. The craven cowardice is simply breathtaking.

Don’t EVER believe a word a mainstream “conservative” says.

Reposted from The Political Cesspool.

Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power

/53 Comments/in , , /by

In my post on Joe Sobran’s passing, I included this quote from Joe:

Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

A current example that illustrates exactly this is the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN for saying the following about Jews as victims:

Very powerless people… [snickers] He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]… Please, what are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]

This is the offending section of the  interview:

So the scenario is exactly as Joe Sobran described it. Deep down you must be fully aware of Jewish power, but public utterances must pledge allegiance to the idea that Jews are powerless victims. Don’t mention the fact that “a lot of people who run [CNN and] all the other networks are a lot like [Jon] Stewart” — that they are Jews with immense power, able to shape public discourse on everything of importance. Never mention the obvious fact that Jews are a very large component of the elite in the US and throughout the West. And if you don’t go along with the “Jews as powerless victims” idea, then Jews will destroy you.

Powerless victims with the power to destroy their enemies.  And that’s exactly what happened.

Joe Sobran (1946-2010)

/19 Comments/in , , /by

Joe Sobran will be much missed. I met him only once, but I am a great admirer of his writing. The American Conservative wrote this:

The 20th century produced many great conservative writers, but none brought together wit, erudition, and humanity on a single page so well as Joseph Sobran.

At VDARE.com, Steve Fulford included this very appropriate quote from Joe:

Most prejudices aren’t created by official doctrines; they result from popular experience and the slow spreading of a group’s reputation. The first gypsy I ever met — on a street in Rome — grabbed a wad of money out of my hand. I’d been too naive to be wary of her, though my companions had warned me against her.

(Editor’s note: Readers of this post have posted many other wonderful quotes from Sobran in the comments section. Well worth reading. Joe clearly understood exactly what was going on and who our enemies are.) My own favorite quotes, culled from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, include the following:

In comments reminiscent of those of Heinrich von Treitschke, columnist Joseph Sobran has also raised the issue of Jewish media control and how it shapes discussion of Jewish interests versus those of the Christian Right:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

This quote ended with the following footnote:

In another column, Sobran (1996b) quoted an essay, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote, “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” Sobran comments that “in a single phrase—‘in our hands’—Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk.” Sobran lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel.

As indicated in the last line, Sobran paid for his honesty about the Israel Lobby. His departure marked the rise of neocon domination at the Buckley’s execrable National Review and the equally execrable Republican Party. It was a huge loss for conservative thought in America.

The following may be called  Joe Sobran’s Dictionary. These are quotes attributed to Joe. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these, except for the definition of an anti-Semite (which has become a classic). But they certainly fit his character. A particularly insightful comment, not included in the dictionary, is the  following — very appropriate in an age where the courts routinely overturn popular referenda, such as the recent Arizona immigration law: “Our constitution has never been an impediment to those who rule us.” The same thing happened to California’s Proposition 187. As Sam Dickson notes, the American legal system is a fraud.

Joe Sobran’s Dictionary

anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews

association, freedom of: discrimination

bigot: one who practices sociology without a license

bribe: an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government

civil rights: government power used in behalf of large groups

guilt: the deepest vested interest

isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries

opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors

political correctness: the felt pressure of enlightened public opinion, under which we sense that certain thoughts, though technically legal now, are already destined to become taboo.

psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people

public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks

rich: politicians’ nickname for “other people” (as in “tax the rich”)

rights: authorizations for new areas of government control

rogue nation: a country that behaves like America

voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth

Rest in Peace.

Oliver Stone

/40 Comments/in , , , /by

The only movie by Oliver Stone  I remember is Natural Born Killers which I thought was horrifyingly ugly–a crude attempt to shock people, much like his recent comments. Stone always struck me as mainly a controversialist, and his comments on Hitler and Jewish media domination are no exception. I suppose he thought it would be a great way to promote his soon-to-be-released documentary. “Any publicity is good publicity.” But it’s hard to believe he doesn’t now think that this was an unwise move. Even if you are half Jewish, you just can’t say such things. And of course now he has apologized–under a great deal of pressure.

But the apology isn’t enough. Jewish superpatriot Haim Saban called it “soooo transparently fake” and is trying to get Showtime to cancel an upcoming TV series of Stone’s by talking to Leslie Moonves, the President and CEO of CBS which is scheduled to air the series on its cable channel Showtime. Moonves is Jewish, as is Sumner Redstone who is the largest shareholder of CBS and Chairman of the Board. Ari Emanual, the Jewish superpatriot and premier Hollywood agent who has taken the lead in going after Mel Gibson, also made a call trying to get the series cancelled.

What Jewish media power? Obviously, Stone is way out of line. Even Jewish publications acknowledge the  Jews run Hollywood.

The ADL’s statement is pure Orwell:

Oliver Stone’s apology stops short and is therefore insufficient. While he now admits that Jews do not control Hollywood, the media and other industries, he ignores his assertion that Jews are ‘…the most powerful lobby in Washington’ and that ‘Israel has (expletive) up United States foreign policy.’ This is another conspiratorial anti-Semitic canard that Mr. Stone needs to repudiate.

And while he’s at it, he should declare that Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe that would be enough to get Stone back in the graces of Hollywood media elite.

Nah.

As if it couldn’t get any more Orwellian, Andy Nowicki’s curent TOO article describes an encounter between the ADL’s Abe Foxman and a delegation from the Ukraine eager to suck up to the ADL on Holocaust-related issues. (Foxman insists that the genocide of 7 to 10 million Ukrainians supervised and advocated by Lazar Kaganovich does not rise to the level of a Holocaust, a term that should be exclusively reserved for what the Germans did to the Jews.) The Ukranians act as if Foxman has some power which means, of course, that they are anti-Semites:

Following the meeting, Shamir asks Foxman why, if anti-Semitism is so potent a force in the world today, people care so much about pleasing the ADL and its sister organizations. Dishonest Abe then shows his flair at sophistry: it’s anti-Semitic in itself, he maintains, to even think that the Jews are so powerful as to be feared, so the fact that people like this pitiful delegation of yes-men are so eager to do his bidding just shows how anti-Semitic the world has become! Once more, Shamir dryly acknowledges this “logic,” letting its absurdity speak for itself.

The whole thing reminds me of Joe Sobran’s comment on Jewish media power:

Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (The Buchanan frenzy. Sobran’s (March):3–4.)

Sobran’s punch line is applicable here: “A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you.” Powerless people can’t destroy anyone. But Oliver Stone will soon enough find out that Jews are very powerful indeed.

Bookmark and Share

Charles Krauthammer’s "Those Troublesome Jews"

/87 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Charles Krauthammer has always been extreme even by neocon standards. He was among the first to recommend that America seize the opportunity created by the fall of the Soviet Union to remake the entire Arab world in the interests of “democratic globalism.”

Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism. Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition—to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries.

America as a country with no biological identity should go to war so that Israel can achieve its ethnic interests. Americans are wonderfully principled people who have no ethnic identity. So he pitches eternal war as a moral crusade for righteousness that America must be committed to because that’s just how Americans are: Principled people who must be reminded once in a while that they need to wage holy war to uphold their lofty principles.

America is committed not to blood but to supporting democracy and freedom. America must defeat “the new global threat to freedom, the new existential enemy, the Arab-Islamic totalitarianism that has threatened us in both its secular and religious forms for the quarter-century since the Khomeini revolution of 1979.”

He’s probably had to rethink the rationale for war against the Arab and Islamic world since Hamas won the largest number of votes and parliamentary seats in democratic elections held in 2006.

Moral posturing is absolutely central to Krauthammer’s modus operandi.  While the rest of the world remains horrified at the behavior of the Israeli military, his column on the 2009 Gaza invasion was titled “Moral clarity in Gaza“:  “Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.”

Krauthammer always knows who the good guys are and he knows Americans are suckers for arguments framed as moral imperatives.

So it’s not surprising that he sees Israel as the hapless victim in the flotilla incident, condemned for simply “defending” itself. Andrew Sullivan is correct that to read Krauthammer is to enter into an alternate universe where aggressors are victims and where “forward defense” means invasion and murder of civilians. Krauthammer is the foremost exponent of the Israeli Derangement Syndrome: “This is a form of derangement, or of such a passionate commitment to a foreign country that any and all normal moral rules or even basic fairness are jettisoned.”

What’s different about Krauthammer is his willingness to play the anti-Semitism card — combined with the usual trademarked dose of moral posturing. His column on the flotilla is titled “Those Troublesome Jews” — troublesome in his view because Jews insist on defending themselves:

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.

Israel’s problems don’t stem from push back resulting from its aggressive ethnonationalism. They stem from the fact that the world–the entire world–wants another Holocaust, including “the supine Europeans who’ve had quite enough of the Jewish problem.” While the rest of the world hates Jews because of Third Worldism, the Europeans hate Jews just as they have for the last millennium. They’re all basically Nazis at heart.

This is not an exaggeration. His 2002 article “Please excuse the Jews for living” had the same logic. He recited the many sins of France, including the fact that Jean Marie LePen — “the modern incarnation of European fascism” — had enough votes to be a run-off candidate for president.

I don’t recall Krauthammer condemning the many signs of fascism in Israel — particularly the present Israeli government and, most famously, its foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. It’s clear that Krauthammer thinks that European countries are proposition countries too. For Europeans, nationalism is a morally reprehensible reminder of National Socialism; for Israelis, it’s simply Jews being assertive.

And what accounts for the fact that European governments join in the chorus of condemnation of Israel? Plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Europeans just don’t like assertive Jews.

The explanation is not that difficult to find. What we are seeing is pent-up anti-Semitism, the release – with Israel as the trigger – of a millennium-old urge that powerfully infected and shaped European history.

What is odd is not the anti-Semitism of today, but its relative absence during the last half-century. That was the historical anomaly. Holocaust shame kept the demon corked for that half-century. But now the atonement is passed. The genie is out again.

This time, however, it is more sophisticated. It is not a blanket hatred of Jews. Jews can be tolerated, even accepted, but they must know their place. Jews are fine so long as they are powerless, passive and picturesque.

What is intolerable is Jewish assertiveness, the Jewish refusal to accept victimhood. And nothing so embodies that as the Jewish state. What so offends Europeans is the armed Jew, the Jew who refuses to sustain seven suicide bombings in the seven days of Passover and strikes back. That Jew has been demonized in the European press as never before since, well … since the ’30s. …

Just when Europe had reconciled itself to tolerance for the passive Jew – the Holocaust survivor who could be pitied, lionized, perhaps awarded the occasional literary prize – along comes the Jewish state, crude and vital and above all unwilling to apologize for its own existence.

It’s a clever argument of the sort that appeals to those morally principled Westerners. Israeli nationalism and aggressiveness are good, and if you don’t think so, you’re an anti-Semite. Europeans have always hated Jews. In another column, Krauthammer writes of “a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands.”

One wonders if there are any examples of Israeli aggression that he would see as morally reprehensible. Probably not. He has rationalized every example of Israeli aggression to date and has denounced the Oslo Accords as  “the most catastrophic and self- inflicted wound by any state in modern history.”

The existence of fanatical Jews like Krauthammer isn’t a surprise given what we know about the massive ethnocentrism at the heart of Jewish identity. What is truly depressing is that he is published in the Washington Post and syndicated in over 200 other newspapers and websites, such as Townhall. He is a regular commentator on Fox News and Inside Washington.

The result is that Americans are continually subjected to pro-Israel chauvinism, towering Jewish ethnocentrism, and anti-European hatred in the most prestigious and popular media outlets. We internalize the double standard in which Krauthammer rationalizes Israeli racialism and apartheid but promotes and exploits the idea that America and European countries exist for the purpose of defending abstractions like “freedom” and “democracy”; any signs of White identity and sense of White interests are morally repugnant.

We come to take these ideas for granted–to the point that Krauthammer is eminently respectable, especially among conservatives. Other commentators, like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, seem to have internalized this mindset as well. Accepting people like Krauthammer is what it means to be a mainstream conservative.

It’s a major part of the sickness we face.

Bookmark and Share