search instagram arrow-down

Copyright Notice

© rauldukeblog and The Violent Ink 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to The Violent Ink and rauldukeblog The Violent Ink with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Archive

The Anti-Semitism of Anti-Zionism. Notes on Michael Brooks, Majority Report and the New Left.

Anti-Semite and Majority Report talking head, Michael Brooks, coughed up a video today in the wake of the recent Ilhan Omar dog and pony show.

In it Brooks, utilizing his tone of assumed moral and intellectual superiority common to non-tenure track adjunct professors at community colleges everywhere, (based on the assumption that there is no legitimacy to any contrary points of view) pronounced a standard agit-prop theme among the left wing of the anti-Semitic “left.”

“Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism” he declared right after announcing that it was a matter of fact that Israel is an apartheid state, that it is essentially without freedom and smells bad.

Okay we made up that last bit not that it matters because even if you focused only on what he did say would you really be able to distinguish it from a stream of rhetorical vomit?

Of course not because his comments, and the faux left bigotry it repeats is a-historical shit on a stick.

For example consider that Brooks likes to announce that: “The occupation of the West Bank is the only issue in regards to Israel.” A statement that is essentially as useful as saying Ireland is the only issue in regards to England and Wounded Knee is the only issue in regards to the United States.

We begin with the claim, popular among the “Progressives” and “new new new” left who are at pains to convince both themselves and everyone else that they don’t hate Jews, that Zionism is apartheid, that it was nothing more or less than a colonial con job, that it was all about the Benjamins and ethnic cleansing and that being against it doesn’t make you a bigot.

Except that Brooks repeats a simplistic, bigoted, twisted version of events, in which Zionism happened, there was some trouble with the Germans and then the Palestinians got screwed and Gaza, Gaza, Gaza. as a result, Zionism is a real estate swindle or in the faux sophisticated patois of bigots, a colonial settler project which is a euphemism for, a real estate swindle.

After all, isn’t that just like the Jews.

Except of course, Zionism was hardly a secret, and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs states participated in the UN sponsored negotiations about the fate of the British Mandate.

And the Arabs lost the vote.

And started an illegal war which they did not win and then the Palestinians got screwed.

Leaving that out or twisting the sequence of events to make it seem as if none of those other events occurred is like talking about the Titanic and forgetting to mention the iceberg.

But the hell with context. Trump doesn’t care about context or facts and neither do Brooks.

Brooks just keeps repeating the same alternate universe version of events and none of it is true as we’ve detailed elsewhere – there’s more than enough contextualizing blame to go around as after all, from Jabo fascists like Shamir, to when Palestinians (in the form of Grand Mufti Faizal Husseini)* go to Berlin to offer to blow the SS, it’s the sort of thing that will make any reasonable person heave and run for the nearest exit, as will a litany of other contextualizing facts like – America’s support for not so ex Nazis like Klaus Barbie, and a who’s who of other not so ex Nazis brass, and helping the French transfer not so ex SS troopers to the Foreign Legion all night casino in Vietnam, to teach the delicate art of efficiency and discipline to the otherwise lax Vietnamese, the use of not so ex Nazi scientists, not so ex Nazis like Adolph Galand, and Kurt Waldheim, the use of not so ex Nazis for Operation Gladio, the importation of not so ex Nazis to develop gas filled missiles to turn Tel Aviv into a cemetery, the use of Koran humping theocratic thugs, in order to exterminate the authentic Arab left, the embracing of Soviet imperialism, and the general stupefying, soul crushing acceptance of the Orwellian dialectic and jazz improv of the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq – and because being against Zionism in this context, and in the context of Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries is precisely and decidedly anti-Semitic, precisely and decidedly because in order to justify one’s antagonism, one has to either be a fascist in favor of well run train systems, or one has to amputate all context from Zionism which means you’re making a distinction without a difference.

As a result, to deny the urgency and essentialism of Zionism in the context of the period that begins with the Dreyfus Affair and ends amid the burned out husk of Europe in 1945, is to engage in a bespoke form of de facto Holocaust Denial.**

If you’re an anti-Zionist based on a retrograde elision of context, you’re in favor of the Jews giving up on being Jews as they are assimilated into the Marxist-Borg collective and/or you’re in favor of the Jews saying, well sure Auschwitz was bad but such small portions we forgive you! And we’re perfectly happy to return to Poland and Russia or move to America and so on.

As an aside to the anti-Semitic argument – they should have just gone back to their Europeans homes -narrative favored by left crooners all over, we turn to noted anti-Zionist Tony Judt who in his useful if turgid tome, Post War, points out that one of the reasons Jews were in Displaced Person Camps in 1945 is because, with a few notable exceptions, the European states all said that if Jews wanted to return to Warsaw or some other garden spot, they would have to show documentation proving citizenship, residency, and all the rest of the bureaucratic detritus required.

Needless to say most if not all of the Jews still alive in Europe after Germany’s epic fit of Wagnerian overkill took a look around and said, yeah the SS guards at Birkenau didn’t return my luggage or my passport so, no thanks.

In order for Brooks and the other Jew obsessed pinheads (by which we mean, pinheads who are obsessed with Jews) who are “anti-Zionists” to be correct, the truth is that claiming a distinction between Zionism and anti-Semitism is like claiming that MLK’s core message was distinctly and precisely divorced from the cauldron of the Black reality in apartheid Jim Crow America in the middle of the 20th century, and was instead, only a universal call for universal emancipation.

In other words, Brooks and his friends transform Dr. King into a high end sophisticated minstrel wearing blackface, and thus into a fetish for faux woke white hipsters.

And they do the same for Jews.

Zionism is the vaccine for anti-Semitism.

The side effects may include anxiety, heart palpitations, loss of appetite and a pressing need to watch Seinfeld reruns, but it remains the best treatment available to what is otherwise a nearly always fatal disease.

Claiming otherwise is just another in a long line of shabby attempt by bigots to convince everyone that they mean no harm.

If you believe Zionism can be marked off from anti-Semitism and that the essentialism of Israel’s existence can be amputated from the Holocaust, you are holding up a sign that says: Work Shall Set You Free.

 

See Brook’s Bund Rally here:

Watch

*Ironically this casts former Israeli PM, Yitzhak Shamir, as the mirror of Husseini.

For a cursory excavation of Shamir as a fascist, see the following:

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-07/news/mn-330_1_stern-gang

Take notice that where Husseini was eager to exterminate the Jews, Shamir’s sin was not wanting to expel the British but in wanting to establish a dictatorship and additionally being stupid enough to believe that even if the Germans agreed to allow a mass exodus of European Jews, they would not eventually get around to invading Israel.

Beyond that of course one has the same contextualizing dilemma faced by Shamir’s ideological enemies among the Zionists.

Ben Gurion and his crew also negotiated with the Nazis.

Lastly of course the difference between Shamir, his political soulmate, Menachem Begin and their Arab opponents, was that when defeated in an election, they did not have the opposition executed but instead, retired.

Like the Ur gangster, Jabotinsky, Shamir drifted from nationalist-fascist-terrorist to, conservative and reactionary politician.

The deeper (or wider) excavation also takes into account that negotiating with the Nazis in 1941, hardly makes Shamir unique.

After Munich, the British were hardly in a position where they could be thought of as anti-fascists.

Of course one could go back further to British assistance in helping stage Franco’s coup or for historical shits and giggles excavate having Mussolini on the payroll of MI6, Churchill extolling Il Douche’s virtues as a seawall against the dismal tide of godless Bolshevism, or one could reread Winston’s spin on the charmer in Berlin about whom he said – he may be more Capone than a statesmen but history may yet prove him the man of the hour.

That of course is a partial excavation of the context in which Shamir was a fascist, a gangster and a fool.

Or to put it another way: the left anti-Semites (and their ideological allies on the right) love to point out that Zionists negotiated with Nazis and as a result (the anti-Semites claim) this invalidates Zionism and, Gaza, Gaza, Gaza.

Except of course if one grants the premise than one would also have to invalidate The Soviet union, France, the United Kingdom and The United States.

Then again logical let alone moral consistency is hardly Brooks strong suit.

**Ironically this places Michael Brooks and his allies in the same position as noted Beatnik and authority on Postmodernism, Jordan Peterson who, as we’ve detailed elsewhere, doesn’t deny the Holocaust occurred, but robs it of context as one of the central engines of Western culture, in his efforts to act as a cheerleader for Capitalism and against the Yeti of his imagination “Postmodern-NeoMarxism.”

When one listens to Brooks, and Ash Sarkar, Chapo Trap House, and other hobgoblins of the left, one of the dance hall and Bund rally favorites they always perform is that Zionism just happened, and that while bad the Holocaust has neither moral or political context and connection to the (re)creation of Israel, or if it does it only does in the same way that a set of lock picking tools has a connection to a sketchy pawn shop. In other words Zionism is just another Jewish scam.

This is followed by insisting they are not anti-Semites and Gaza, Gaza, Gaza.

The rhetorical goal is to appear reasonable, elide all context, amputate facts from the record and then repeat the mantra that the Palestinians have zero responsibility for anything and as a result are both inside History qua History as perpetual victims but exist out of History as a unique case locked in perpetual Historical aspic.

But of course what it really means is that they are perfectly willing to fight to the last dead Jew.

There is also a two-headed psychological component at work in this and to which we will return later with a deeper excavation.

However for our purposes here we can break it down as follows:

Philosophically the left holds that nationalism is antithetical to the dialectic and the Marxist paradigm therefore, Zionism is reactionary and must be defeated.

Even if one grants the premise the dreary facts remain – the NKVD, the KGB, and the gentleman with the leather fetish from Berlin, not to mention everyone from Henry Ford to Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Faizal Husseini, the Pope and a cast of millions, were determined to kill Jews, or look the other way while someone else did it and claiming you had converted from being a Jew to a Marxist was as much use as a prayer is for treating a burst appendix.

The second issue is that since the left was crushed and betrayed and cannibalized itself and Zionism emerged victorious, if even just provisionally, the anti-Zionist anti-Semites are consumed with jealousy.

This can’t be overstated.

The left is consumed with and by an outsized obsession with Jews, Zionism and Israel decidedly out of any authentic proportion to reality.

In other words, they protest too much me thinks and the reason(s) are the Jews got organized, fought, and won and the left got it’s ass handed to it on a rusty platter.

And the left is still disorganized, self destructive and essentially useless.

The second psychological factor that applies mostly to anti-Zionist Jews but has echoes among non Jews is anxiety in the face of Post Zionist Isralies.

We can call this the Gal Gadot factor.

The truth is, she’s not an anomaly as Israel is full of people who look like that and compared to the aesthetic malignant trolls and assorted mutants, who poured out of the ghettos in the late 19th and early 20th century, it’s as if she came from another planet.

Turn to the end of Portnoy’s Complaint when Portnoy recounts his attempted seduction/rape of the kibbutznik and gets tossed (pun intended) like a sack of dirt.

She is described as more less looking like a tractor engine.

The efficacy of that description is its use by mostly American Jews (of both sexes) who when confronted by “Gal Gadot” types feel their dicks go limp and they counter it by screaming about moral failures and political sleaze and Gaza, Gaza, Gaza.

Roth’s The Conversion of the Jews here becomes authentic except in a Wiley e Coyote ACME blow up in your face sort of manner, that reveals the anxiety and jealousies of non Isralie Jews who have turned Israel into a fetish – both desired and repulsive.

Needless to say all other criticism is legitimate – Netanyahu is a gangster, Avigdor Lieberman is a second rate reheated first phase Jabotinsky wannabe goon, and history in Tel Aviv just like in Tokyo, Paris, London, Madrid, and San Francisco, is more like a George Grosz painting than not. Except when it sounds like A Shabtai novel, or Faulkner or a Springsteen song.

Of course as authentic leftist and non-Zionist Jew Walter Benjamin said in one of his more interesting kaons:

There is no record of civilization that is not also a record of barbarism.

To which we add that he’s correct regardless of the story going right to left or left to right.

Postscript:

In the gutter with The Guardian.

Today’s Guardian has an article headlined:

“Pro-Israel donors spent over $22m on lobbying and contributions in 2018 ”

This is bolstered by a sub-heading that declares The Guardian has investigated this issue and “discovered” that pro-Israel lobbyists have spent money, are very active and aim to advance their agenda.

One assumes this breathless homage to Woodward and Bernstein will be followed by an equally impressive piece of investigative (faux) journalism that discovers bears shit in the woods, and the Pope is Catholic.

The article goes on to point out that pro-Israel expenditures by all lobby groups is a fraction of the amount spent by everyone else from the small business lobby to the real estate lobby and the likes of the gun industry and behemoths like Boeing.

So, in other words, The Guardian has a headline that reads:

KIKES USE MONEY TO WIELD SINISTER CONTROL OF GOYIM!!!!

Except, they spend far less than everyone else who in turn get far more bang for their buck as witnessed by stubborn and dreary facts like how the US spends twenty times what it spends on Israel to keep US forces in Europe – where they act as one diplomatic wit put it – to keep Russia out, America in, and Germany down.

To which we would add they are also there to subsidize the Germany healthcare system and six week paid vacations.*

Since the entire Ilhan Omar the Jews and money equals sinister power routine rests on the bigoted assertion that the amount of coin equals more influence, it’s worth pointing out that the US has fought more wars in Europe and on behalf of the Arabs than for or on behalf of Israel, spends more in Europe, the Gulf and in Japan and Asia than in or for or with Israel, and that a host of lobbying Gargantuas all out spend AIPAC and J-Street the way Steph Curry and Klay Thompson outshoot everyone else.

It’s rarely if ever close.

And The Guardian knows it but blasts an anti-Semitic headline anyhow and then below the fold has another article entitled:

“Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe, latest figures show

France reports 74% rise in offences against Jews and Germany records 60% surge in violent attacks”

Gee, we wonder if there are any correlations between gutter journalism trafficking in stereotypes about Jews and money and a rise in anti-Semitic attacks?

See The Guardian’s efforts here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/15/pro-israel-donors-spent-over-22m-on-lobbying-and-contributions-in-2018

And here:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/antisemitism-rising-sharply-across-europe-latest-figures-show

 

*For a look at the cost breakdown of US/NATO see the following:

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2018/07/us-and-nato-allies-costs-and-value

In other news: Labour, you have a problem:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/labour-mp-ruth-george-israel-funding-independent-group-luciana-berger

Update: 2/19/19

We are shocked that The Guardian has posted a nuanced article addressing the growing anti-Semitic rot at the heart of the Labour Party, and that the issue includes what should be obvious – the current Likud regime is as distinct from the issue and context of Zionism as Trump is to Walt Whitman and 1776.

For reasons we can’t quite make out the Labour Party has been hijacked by a gang of faux Trotskyists who get a political hard on for blaming Jews for all of their problems. That they are antagonistic towards oligarchs and assorted Tories is one thing but as the article says, trading an orgasm for gonorrhea is hardly anyone’s idea of a fair deal – unless you’re Jeremy Corbyn who seems to have decided that his love letter to political suicide and the empty legacy of anti-Semitism should have as it’s mission statement: With you no matter what.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/19/the-return-of-king-rat-derek-hatton-marks-a-new-low-for-labour

Update: 2/24/19

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/24/alain-finkielkraut-winds-of-antisemitism-in-europe-gilets-jaune

Update: 2/24/19

In another stunning display of anti-Semitism, The Guardian recognizing that the “left” is being called out for its moral stench as Labour and Corbyn and others are recognized as bigots, with a specific animus towards Jews, has moved the goal post.

In an astounding attempt at appearing reasonable they printed a piece of the same anti-Semitic garbage or, to put it another way, they have polished the same turd twice.

We refer to Kenan Malik of The Observer who has gone on point ahead of the braying pack to admit that the “Left” has suffered a series of rhetorical hijackings in which traditional anti-Zionist arguments have been colonized by traditional anti-Semites.

For example:

“This kind of anti-Zionism is very different from that which calls for the “destruction of the state of Israel”, usually (a not very veiled) code for the destruction of Jews. The latter is a form of anti-Zionism that refuses to acknowledge the presence of more than 6 million Jews in Israel/Palestine, whose rights, needs and aspirations are as central as those of Palestinians to any discussion of the region’s future.

There are, in other words, many forms of anti-Zionism, some progressive, some antisemitic. What has shifted is that leftwing ideas of anti-Zionism have become increasingly colonised by antisemitic forms. The reasons are complex, ranging from evolving notions of “anti-imperialism” to the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories.”

All well and good if one ignores the historical moral train wreck that proceeds it.

“Critics of anti-Zionism observe that Zionism simply expresses the right of Jewish people to self-determination. Just as other peoples, from Armenians to Zimbabweans, have the right to self-determination, so do Jews. To deny that is antisemitic because it is to deny Jews the rights accorded to others. However, the issue is more complex. When Scots voted in their independence referendum in 2016, all residents of Scotland who were over 16, and were British, EU or Commonwealth citizens, had the right to vote. The right to self-determination did not extend to all those of Scottish ancestry living outside Scotland.”

While the Scots have over the centuries suffered many catastrophes we are unaware of a European wide systemic, psychotically violent anti-Scot bigotry culminating in an industrial scale genocide – or at least none since England’s idea of high tech was a cross bow and a lance.

While England has much to answer for in regards to its colonization of the Scots and the centuries’ long attempted erasure of Scottish identity, and independence, we are unaware of England setting up precise train schedules in order to empty Edenborough and Glasgow of their indigenous population, transfer them to slave labor camps and to exterminate them by the millions.

While it is certainly true that a descendent of a Scottish immigrant living in America for the past sixty or seventy years who has more in common with the New York Yankees than not, shouldn’t be able to just move back to Scotland and claim assorted rights (not withstanding the not unimportant fact that if their grandparents – or even one grandparent- had been born in Scotland they could claim citizenship) the suggestion that there is any similarity between the situation of the Scots in the last hundred years and the Jews is not just absurd, it is an obscene attempt to enter through the front door of reasonable liberal left sensitivity, while exiting through the back door of stating that Israel is illegitimate, that the “solution” (what the fuck is it with these people and their fucking solutions for Jews?) is the elimination of Israel as a haven for Jews, established precisely because different ad hoc gangs keep attempting to kill all of them, and that once again everyone should pretend that Hamas is really just misunderstood, the check is in the mail, and they will only put it in a little.

As long as you define a little as reaching from the Jordan River to the sea.

What Malik has done is to repackage the same a-historical toxin in a new suit.

Zionism was the response to the European wide systemic attempt at the extermination of the Jews. The creation of Israel was the culmination of that project and to declare it illegitimate is to amputate it from the Holocaust and is therefore a form of Holocaust denial.

To suggest a moral and historical corollary between the situation in Scotland and the vote for independence in 2016, with the edge of the abyss situation for Jews in 1945, would be funny were it not so obscene.

What it represents is not just the fact that Malik is a malignant troll, but that The Observer and The Guardian, as the voice of the English “left” are pimps running a whore house where they resell the merchandise and claim it’s a virgin, when anyone with a lick of sense knows better.

Read the shit on a stick here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/24/antisemites-use-language-of-anti-zionism-the-two-are-distinct

Update: 4/16/19

Below is a link to a fascinating example of the blinding ideological and nearly religious fanaticism rhetoric and “thinking” used whenever anyone tries to engage in a nuanced discussion about Israel.

Pete Buttigieg, whose problem is being too smart (which in contemporary America runs a close second to being smart and gay), offers a rare shades of gray assessment though it also has critical flaws.

On the positive side he deviates from orthodoxy by highlighting that there’s more to reality than a sound-bite on the evening news or amid the echo chamber Poltergeist bedroom of cable infotainment.

When he says people in Israel are adjusted to security concerns and continue to function he’s not wrong but anyone as literate, or seemingly literate as Buttigieg would want to spend some time with Yaakov Shabtai or Oz or Amichai or Koret before offering what appears to be a nuanced analysis but is in truth bordering on the glib.

But what is even more telling is the ideological purity of the criticism. It may have a valid point to raise but that is drowned out by the absolute certainty that there is nothing, absolutely nothing to be said for systemic corruption, tyrannical savagery and whole sale stupidity with a dash of mendacity, on the part of the Arabs – the Palestinians are nothing but innocent victims. History only exists in a binary construction with sinister Jews and noble Nakba hostages to fate.

Or, to put it another way, the left and the Palestinians are once again demanding to know what Pearl Harbor was doing in the middle of the Pacific Ocean when the War started.

Read the madness here:

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/slaughter-buttigieg-responses/

 

Advertisements

2 comments on “The Anti-Semitism of Anti-Zionism. Notes on Michael Brooks, Majority Report and the New Left.

  1. Which one of your articles on antisemitism should I start with?

    Like

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: