What's new

Anti-semitism is becoming fashionable

dabong1

<b>PDF VETERAN</b>
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
1
How anti-semitism entered the zeitgeist - Telegraph

It was a great week, this week, for Pope Benedict XI to exonerate the Jews. It’s one of those twist of circumstances that can make even a fundamentalist atheist like myself believe in God – or, at least, the possibility of a great, overhanging Comic Logic to the Universe. Because in the week that anti-Semitism became really, properly zeitgeisty again – you can’t get more culturally now than John Galliano, Charlie Sheen and Julian Assange – thank Great Overhanging Comic Logic that the Pontiff/ex-member of the Hitler Youth decided to shut down that pesky old hatred once and for all in his new work, “Jesus of Nazareth – Part II” (I always said someone should write a sequel to that movie).

But the fact that the Vatican is still, in 2011, chasing its tail over the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion (an event which, of course, was absolutely essential to Jesus’ divine mission, and thus the Jews should have been applauded for helping Him along the way to it, instead of reviled and persecuted for a couple of millennia) is just the Route One explanation for the persistence of anti-Semitism in our culture. In commissioning this piece, the brief was could I come up with the reason why many people still harbour negative ideas about this fairly tiny racial group, but of course there isn’t one single reason. The old blood libel – “His blood be on us and on our children”, shouted so loudly by the Jews to Pontius Pilate in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ – provides the historical context, but I’m really not sure if John Galliano even speaks Arameaic: and besides, he doesn’t seem to know much simpler historical things, such as the fact that Hitler really didn’t love gays.

The truth is complex. One way into it is to ask: how is anti-Semitism different from other types of racial hatred? The answer, I think, can be found in the language. To return to the high priest of drunken Jew-hatred, Mel G (I know this makes him sound like a Spice Girl: it’s intentional). Mel said, in his rant of 2008: “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” This is key: Jews are the only race whose negative image as projected by racists is high-status. It’s the same with Julian Assange’s (alleged) notion that a cabal of powerful Jewish journalists are behind the smearing of WikiLeaks; it’s even somewhere in Charlie Sheen’s renaming of the producer of his former sitcom Chuck Lorre as "Chaim Levine", carrying with it as it does two suggestions: one, that Jews are the controlling forces behind the US media, and two, that they have disguised this fact about themselves and need to be outed.

Although they can also be called dirty, or cheating, or all the other unlovely adjectives that racists also apply to black people or Asians, it is only Jews who get this extra, subtle spin, that they are secretly in charge, secretly pulling the strings (of course it is only Jews who are not immediately recognisable as different, either – which is how we manage, I presume, to crawl under the wire and get weaving with all this secret stuff).

This is also what gives anti-Semitism a somewhat ambiguous status with the Left. Despite so many key Lefties being Jewish – Marx, Trotsky, y’know: that level of Leftie – many of them, some less consciously than others, harbour a sense that Jews don’t quite fit into that key Venn Diagram marked Oppressed/Worth Fighting For. Yes, there was the Holocaust, yes there was 2,000 years of persecution and pogroms and massacres, but a) quite a lot of them have got a fair wodge of cash, and b) Israel.

Because Israel has become, in recent years, an icon for the Left of everything that is bad - American imperialism, oil wars, suppression of human rights - and since Jews, even Jews who do not support the state or its policies, are (at least in the minds of, say, Hamas) associated with it, knocking Jews may just be a blow for the oppressed, rather than to them.

As a result, people talking the anti-Jew talk can do it not as racists, but, paradoxically, as if they are somehow sticking up for other races. Underneath one of the various web films of John Galliano looking weirdly cold and lonely at that café that I watched the other day, there were a slew of comments, an awful lot of them supportive of the designer. One of them, johntron67, began: “What is it with the Jews! They’re the only group you just can’t say anything negative about…” What’s amazing about that – the same poster went on, later, to say, sinisterly, that “the cauldron will boil over though, one day soon, and guess who’s gonna get scalded…” – is not so much that johntron67 thinks that saying generally-OK and not-to-be-remarked-upon things about the Jews would include the comment “I love Hitler - your forefathers would’ve been gassed”; but that he really thinks that other ethnic minorities are, in comparison, fair game. Two words: Michael Richards. Charlie, Mel, probably even Galliano – they’ll work again: Mel Gibson is, even as we speak, in a big Hollywood movie, The Beaver. Since his n-word-fuelled outburst onstage in 2006, Kramer is toast.

Similarly, I’ve made a short film recently, for Kick Racism Out of Football, called The Y-Word, which is about the chanting of the word Yid or Yiddo at games. For those of you who don’t know, Yiddo is an appellation that Spurs fans – Spurs has a slightly larger percentage of Jewish fans than most other clubs – call themselves. Because of this, opposing fans chant it back at them with menaces. I’ve sat through hundreds of games at Chelsea where fans – perfectly respectable, politically correct-looking fans – will suddenly, on the arrival of, say, of an ex-Tottenham player on the pitch now playing for another team, start chanting this word aggressively at the top of their lungs. The last time it happened, a man behind me ended up shouting: “F*** the Jews! F*** the f***ing Jews!” Despite not insisting on the banning of the chant – it is intended simply to raise debate over the issue – any public showing of the film, at the moment, is being blocked, by various bodies within football. The argument is that, in context, the Spurs chant is “affectionate”. OK. Just imagine for a second if the word we were talking about was the N-word. If a club with mainly white fans decided to chant, en-masse - y’know, affectionately, in context - the word n*****r: and then had the word thrown back at them, with menaces, by opposing, mainly white, fans. All the clubs involved would be shut down tomorrow.

There are various reasons for this, but the basic one is: anti-Semitism isn’t quite considered proper racism. Most of the reports accused Galliano of anti-Semitism and racism, as if the two were different. The point was made continually that the women in the café were not Jewish: as if somehow his comments might have some qualifying validity if they were. A man who tweeted “you Jewish prick” at me once was called a racist by some of my followers, and he tweeted back at them: “Course I’m not a racist – I’m Pakistani!”

For him – and he’s not the only one – racism is black and white, and black and white only. But sadly, racism has many shades of grey: what should not have those shades – what should simply always be an unqualified shutting of the door – is the reaction to it.

• David Baddiel’s latest novel The Death of Eli Gold
 
.
THE BEST ANSWER TO DAVID BADDIEL

&#8220;In commissioning this piece, the brief was could I come up with the reason why many people still harbour negative ideas about this fairly tiny racial group, but of course there isn&#8217;t one single reason. &#8220;

And you couldn&#8217;t come up with any? Really? Read on, David.

&#8220;Mel said, in his rant of 2008: 'Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world&#8217;.&#8221;

I&#8217;m not sure about them being 'responsible for all the wars in the world' but the Russian Revolution and its bloody aftermath would not have happened without the massive input of this 'tiny racial group'. And the aggressive meddling of The Focus in this country (Chairman - Baron Waley Cohen - &#8216;the veritable dynamic force of Focus&#8217;) did not do anything to lessen the likelihood that a war that claimed between fifty and seventy million lives would kick off. Also, since French Revolutionary times, the Rothschilds&#8217; wealth was used to fund both sides of many of the major conflagrations. (Jacob Schiff, a German-American Jewish banker was the principal monetary sponsor of the Russian Revolution)

&#8220;It is only Jews who get this extra, subtle spin, that they are secretly in charge, secretly pulling the strings.&#8221;

So, David, you would maintain, therefore, that your 'tiny racial group' do not secretly pull any strings? As the Focus group were not pulling strings and Jacob Schiff, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Sverdlov were not pulling strings at the behest of Karl Marx in Russia, I suppose?

How about, in this age, the greed, self-service and machination of the Jewish banker? Would folk such as Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Dick Fuld, (boss of Lehman Bros when it collapsed) Bernard Madoff, ($50bn fraudster) Roland Arnall, (&#8216;the father of sub-prime&#8217;) Ben Bernanke, James H. Simons, Lloyd Blankfein and, in this country, Victor Blank and Fred *the shred' Goodwin, (boss of RBS) have nothing to do with sub-prime, the credit crunch and the world-wide recession? A recession that everyone but the banker is now paying for?

How about Tony Blair principal fund-raiser and Middle-East advisor, Lord Levy? Wasn&#8217;t he a string-puller? How about Gordon Brown&#8217;s principal fund-raiser, Jon Mendelsohn? How about the Egyptian Jew who happened to be Brown&#8217;s leading financial advisor, Sir Ronald Cohen, 'the father of British venture capital'? Wouldn&#8217;t these be string-pullers?

Ed and David Miliband, the sons of a Jewish immigrant who got to be one of the most influential Marxist-Communist lecturers in the second half of the twentieth century (influencing the Blair/Brown generation), how on earth would two such unrepresentative twerps get to contest the Labour leadership election without strings being pulled?

How would another unrepresentative Englishman, Jack Straw, ('I&#8217;m a third-generation immigrant Jew&#8216;) get to be the Home Secretary that upped the ante regarding the penalty for race crime (a crime that didn&#8217;t exist until Wilson&#8217;s time) from two to seven years, without strings being pulled? (He also got to be the top lawman in this country - Lord Chancellor - during the Blair/Brown era)

How would the brute warmonger, Paul Wolfowitz, (Deputy Secretary of Defence under Bush) get to be President of the World Bank after he and the mostly Jewish Neocons got the war in Iraq started without strings being pulled? And how would such a "tiny" group ever have accrued the power to force a foully illegitimate war upon the world without iron chains having been pulled by the iron chain-pullers?

If the Wolfowitzes get to run the World Bank, world government proponents like Dominic Strauss-Kahn get to be boss of the IMF.
How come, David? I can't imagine how such a "tiny" buch would ever manage it without strings being pulled. Unless your lot are so much more talented than the rest of us, of course. Is that what you think?

How come the most financially powerful parliamentary lobby group in Westminster just happens to be the Conservative Friends of Israel? How come Blair, Brown and the majority of those they chose to be Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers under them were/are members of the Labour Friends of Israel grouping? I mean, how did a 'fairly tiny racial group' get to have so much influence over those we vote for?

How come the New York Jewish conductor, Leonard Slattkin, felt he had the right to exclude the sung version of 'Rule Britannia' from the last night of the proms in 2002? Just because he thought it 'a little militaristic... a little outdated'. 'We were close to knocking all this stuff out', said Slatkin. 'All this stuff' - that would be 'Land of Hope and Glory' as well.

How come the Jewish board of British Deputies and Lord Anthony Lester, representatives of just 1-in-200 people in this country, were behind the introduction of every race law ever introduced here? Whoever said that such a 'tiny racial group' could determine the lives of the other 199-in-200 to such an enormous extent? Whoever it was must have been one hell of a string-puller.

&#8220;Yes, there was the Holocaust, yes there was 2,000 years of persecution and pogroms and massacres.&#8221;

This 'Holocaust' thing. I guess you would say six million died? That is the mantra has been rammed down the throats of the Western World ever since Stalin&#8217;s lot insisted upon it at Nuremburg. THEY used to aggressively insist that 4 million died at Auschwitz. Nowadays THEY aggressively insist that 1.1 million died there. Here&#8217;s the interesting thing: at the same time THEY were aggressively insisting 4 million died THEY were aggressively insisting that 6 million died overall. However, when the Auschwitz total was reduced to 1.1 million, THEY kept on aggressively insisting that 6 million died overall! They took 2.9 million away from Auschwitz but not from the overall figure. What happened to the mathematics here, David? Perhaps you could enlighten us?

As for the '2,000 years of persecution and pogroms and massacres', why did these things happen, David? Why did the world pick on you? Could it, perhaps, have been something that you, along with all the other Jewish apologists back to the year dot, never seem to get? Could it be that you were doing something to the rest of us that wasn&#8217;t very nice? I mean, would you describe the descendants and relations of the 7 to 10 million Ukrainian who died in the Ukrainian Holocaust as 'anti-Semitic' (A world coined by the Jew, Moritz Steinschneider in the 1860s) if they happened to point out Lazar Kaganovich&#8217;s pivotal role in their extermination? How about the Russian millions who died as a result of Checka (the original incarnation of the KGB) depredations? Would their relations be anti-Semitic for pointing out that the majority of the Checka were Jewish? What about those who died in the Gulag system? Many of the original camp commandants were Jewish. Am I anti-Semitic for pointing this out?

I mean, so many different peoples, so many different cultures and traditions, in so many different historical periods, detested the Jews. As I have shown here, many such people had a very good reason for despising your tribe. And yet here you are, A.N.Other Jewish bloke trying to make out it&#8217;s all down to some psychological kink in the mind of the non-Jew.

You know, I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if this truth-telling rebuttal gets censored. The Telegraph is a great place for such as me to tell it how it really is but those would edit out anything critical of this 'fairly tiny racial group' are a powerful presence on the internet, as they is everywhere else in the world of broadcast media. Hollywood has been, for the most part, run by this 'tiny racial group' since 1910. Those who own and staff the recording companies of the world hail, predominantly, from this 'tiny racial group'. The Western World&#8217;s newspapers, television and radio stations are owned by their 'tiny racial group' out of all proportion to their incidence on the planet.

You mention the term &#8216;racist&#8217;, David. I wonder, would you describe me as a racist for pointing out the origins of this pejorative term? The word &#8216;racialist&#8217; has been used in a scientific sense, since 1907 but The term &#8216;racist&#8217; was first coined in English by a Mr. Max Eastman. He was translating a word used by the Jewish mass murderer, Leon Trotsky, in his 1930 essay, &#8216;The History of the Russian Revolution.&#8216;

The notorious homosexual &#8216;sexologist&#8217; and self-styled &#8216;Einstein of Sex&#8217;, Magnus Hirschfeld popularised the concept in a book first published in 1934. It was first published in English 3 years later by Victor Gollancz and titled &#8216;Racism&#8217; at that time. Hirschfeld was a German Jew. Gollancz was an English Jew.

On the 8th of April, 1998, Gerald Kaufman, New Labour MP for Manchester, Gorton, spoke thus, in in the House of Commons.

'It is a fact that, 12 years ago, when I was shadow Home Secretary, I introduced in Standing Committee G on 10 April 1986 a new clause that would have created the offence of racial harassment&#8230; On 12 April 1994... I spoke in favour of the creation of an offence of racial harassment&#8230; The Bill is ambitious. It needs commitment by all the forces of law and order and by all the support services... Great hope reposes in the Bill. It must not fail, and I believe that it will succeed'.

It did succeed. The indigenous population of this country may now be imprisoned for seven years if they are deemed to have encouraged &#8216;incitement&#8217; to racial or religious hatred. Before this bill was passed the sentence had been two years, and the previous law did not cover religious matters.

The courts have already made it quite clear that telling the truth is no defence. Thus, if I tell you that between 1944 and 1948, whilst the Brits were fighting and dying on behalf of the Jew in Europe, the Jew in Palestine was murdering more than 300 British soldiers and policemen who were trying to keep the peace, I could be jailed for 7 years.

Thus, if I told you that, in 1946, Israel&#8217;s Stern Gang would have dropped a bomb on the House of Commons if the French Police hadn&#8217;t stopped the plane containing it a from crossing the channel, I could be jailed for seven years. I suppose they might also imprison me for telling you that the Stern Gang assassinated Lord Moyne; the UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte and were responsible for massacring more than 100 Arabs at the village of Deir Yassin. Oh, and the Baddiels might not like it much if I told that the Israeli PM, Yitzhak Shamir, was once a top Stern Gang terrorist.

And, if I told you that the man who headed the firing squad that executed the Russian royal family, Yakov Yurovsky, was Jewish, as was Yakov Sverdlov, who, along with Stalin. Signed the order enabling Yurovsky to carry out the killings, I could be jailed for 7 years. And, if I told you that the most powerful three men in Russia at the time of Lenin's death in 1924, were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sokolnikov, real names Bronstein, Apfelbaum, Rosenfeld and Brilliant, and these four were also Jewish, well, it wouldn't lessen my sentence.

And, if I told you that Sam Miliband, the great-grandfather of Milibands E and D, fought in Trotsky&#8217;s Red Army, I might also go to jail for 7 years.

Just for telling the truth.

And then there&#8217;s all that stuff you Jews do to the Palestinians in Israel.

There is lots and lots and lots more than this, much of which you will, I&#8217;m sure, know about, David. How come, in an essay supposed to point out what a load of b***ocks anti-Semitism is, you never mentioned any of the above, David? Perhaps, the fact that you didn&#8217;t ought to give you some idea as to why &#8216;anti-Semitism&#8217; still exists.

P.S. I wonder, David, would those who introduced the verb 'to jew', meaning to cheat, to swindle, into the English language, be anti-Semitic also?
Report Recommend
 
.
Islamaphobia Is already fashionable and accepted. Especially here in western countries.

These days, It's seen as normal, and even as "bravery" to Insult and make fun of Islam & Muslims.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom