We had hoped to drop the issue of left wing anti-Semitism generally and the specific anti-Semitism of The Guardian but, every time we try to leave, they pull us back in and so here we are yet again.
On the one hand, the fact that The Guardian seems incapable of going more than a few days without posting yet another article either condemning Israel as the modern manifestation of evil, or coughing up some train wreck attempt at appearing reasonable while actually advocating for the elimination of Israel, can be viewed favorably.
The left generally and The Guardian specifically know they have a problem. The sudden development of a cadre of anti-Semites appearing in The Guardian who are quick to offer the head fake that they are not bigots, and that they can make a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and crucially that the left has a problem with authentic anti-Semites, speaks to a recognition by the left that it does in fact have a problem.
But like addicts the world over the recognition is itself subsumed back into the matrix of neuroses that define the addiction.
All of which brings us to today’s episode of The Guardian’s Tourette’s Syndrome spasm of Jew hatred.
The first is yet another attempt to explain that when Ilhan Omar said she’s concerned about people with dual loyalty to both the United States and country x – which goes unnamed – she may have been talking about Israel buuut she is only guilty of speaking poorly – again, having already established herself as a three time champion in the Rhetorical Ambien High Hurdle first popularized by Roseanne Barr who after popping a dose, washing it down with a fine Merlot in a box, went off on a rant about Black people resembling monkeys.
As D.L.Hugley said, turns out Ambien’s side effects include bigotry.
Omar’s comment is of course anti-Semitic.
Omar’s comment is of course a regurgitation of a classic Waffen SS dance hall number that was in its time a throw back to even darker moments where everyone’s idea of a good time was setting Jews on fire, while reciting hymns from the New Testament.
Omar is of course a bigot.
And even if one grants the premise of her defenders can anyone honestly tell the difference between her and a bigot?
“Jews have hypnotized the world.”
“Jewish lobbying and its effect on America is all about money.”
“Jews have a dual allegiance.”
The only things missing are accusations of a blood libel and something about the power of Jewesses to seduce otherwise innocent Goyish boys.
But it’s early and there’s still plenty of time on the clock.
That she’s a soft spoken, and otherwise well intentioned doesn’t mean she isn’t a bigot, doesn’t mean she’s isn’t inarticulate, doesn’t mean she isn’t crass, crude, ignorant and toxic.
And any honest observer, which apparently precludes everyone from Bernie Sanders to Sam Seder and his gang of Muppets at The Majority Report, should know better but of course they want it both ways. And who wouldn’t want to be able to ride two horses with one ass?
In The Guardian there was one of two articles today as part of the paper’s buy one shit on a stick get one free special in which Joshua Leifer begs his readers to actually read the transcript of Omar’s comments.
So, we clicked on the link (which brings you to a third attempt at defense which technically means you’ve hit the anti-Semitic left bingo) and found this transcription of Omar’s comments:
“I get emotional . . . Because I know that I have a huge Jewish constituency and, you know, every time I meet with them, they share stories of safety and sanctuary that they would love for the people of Israel and, most of the time when we’re having the conversation, you know, there is no actual relative that they speak of, and there is still lots of emotions (sic) that comes through because its family, right? My children still speak of Somalia with passion and compassion even though they don’t have a family member there. But we never really allow space for the stories of Palestinians seeking safety and sanctuary to be uplifted. And to me it is the dehumanization and the silencing of a particular pain and suffering of a people that should not be ok and normal. And you can’t be in the practice of humanizing and uplifting the suffering of one if you’re not willing to do that for everybody. And so for me I know that when I hear, right, my Jewish constituents, or friends or colleagues, speak about Palestinians who don’t want safety or who aren’t deserving, I stay focused on what the actual debate about what that process should look like. I never go in the dark place of saying ‘here’s a Jewish person, they’re talking about Palestinians, Palestinians are Muslim, maybe they’re Islamophobic.’ I’ll never allow myself to go there, because I don’t have to. And what I am fearful of, is that because Rashida (Tlaib) and I are Muslim, that a lot of our Jewish colleagues, a lot of our constituents, a lot of our allies, go to thinking that everything we say about Israel, to be anti-Semitic because we are Muslim. And so, to me, it’s something that becomes designed to end the debate, because you get in this space of, ‘yes, like, I know what intolerance looks like, and I’m sensitive when someone says the words you use are resemblance of intolerance.’ And I am cautious of that, and I feel pained by that. But it’s almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say, that is supposed to be about foreign policy or engagement or advocacy about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life, and wanting dignity, we get to be labeled as something, and that ends the discussion. Because we end up defending that, and nobody ever gets to the have the proper debate of what is happening with Palestine. [Pause, applause.] So I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it’s ok for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country, I want to ask, why is it ok for me to talk about the influence of the NRA or fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policy. I want to ask the question of why is it ok for you to push, for you to be, there’s so many people, I mean, most of us are new, but many members of Congress have been there forever, some of them have been there before we were born, so I know many of them were fighting for people to be free, for people to live in dignity in South Africa, I know many of them fight for people around the world, to have dignity, to have self-determination, so I know that they care about these things. But now that you have two Muslims that are saying ‘there’s a group of people that we want to make sure have the same dignity that you want everybody else to have’ we get to be called names and we get to be labeled as hateful. No, we know what that looks like. We experience it every single day. I receive death threats. . . . There are gas stations that have written on their bathrooms ‘assassinate Ilhan Omar. . . .’”
Which is followed by:
“There is nuance in these words, and qualification, and frustration at being misunderstood, and a passion for justice but also a sense of vulnerability and a desire to have better understandings with colleagues and constituents, especially Jewish colleagues and constituents. But there is no hate.”
Well author Jeffery C. Isaach is correct – there is nuance even if you have to dig for it with a bulldozer or a rhetorical version of the jaws of life, like you were trying to pry it from the twisted shell of a truck, in the middle of a fifty car pile-up on a fog shrouded freeway in a blizzard.
And he’s also correct there is no hate.
But journalists are rarely novelists and any good novelist, let alone a great one would say, where did you get the rancid idea that hate is a requirement for being toxic let alone a bigot?
The spectrum of human thought is vast and bringing out a Black woman in the middle of a congressional hearing to prove you’re not a bigot, is as hilarious and crude a display of bigotry as claiming that because someone speaks softly, they can’t be dangerous. Or as the late and often missed Hitchens said (we paraphrase) about a certain pious nun – she’s a Bulgarian midget who cons fascists into giving her money so she can watch people die. But she’s polite and soft spoken.
The fact is that accusing or softly suggesting Jews have dual loyalty is anti-Semitism and Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite of a specific type.
And the left’s refusal to address the issue head on is rancid.
And speaking of rancid, we turn to The Guardian’s other contestant in the 1500 meter Blame the Jews High Hurdle, Peter Beinart.
Beinart has a well established track record of tossing rhetorical bombs at the often odious Jewish establishment (which in being both often odious and part of the establishment is in no way unique as after all there are snobs in Tokyo and Kansas City and Paris and San Francisco who are also establishment gangsters) and missing the mark by a yard or a mile and engulfing innocent bystanders in flames.
When confronted by the fact that he’s an unguided rhetorical dumb bomb he does what most liberal left Jews do and starts coughing up an accurate if off-topic hit parade of other people’s hypocrisy and the round up the usual suspects stylings that include details of the gangsterism of Netanyahu, or for older listeners the thug behavior of Begin and Shamir and Sharon.
All well and good but of course it’s also just more of the same double standard with a-historical rage – disguised as reasonable and sanguine pique – added as a bonus.
Israel, per this line of reasoning, is different from say, England which has spent centuries eating the Irish but no one is demanding that people stop watching Helen Mirren or reading about who’s hot and who’s not at Hogwarts.
Beinart of course is just clever enough for the mental midgets and one eyed kings in the land of the blind who think The Guardian and Beinart are brilliant.
Consider the method he uses to prove that one can be as he claims, anti-Zionist but not an anti-Semite.
There are, he informs us, three arguments that the anti-Zionist is anti-Semitism criticism rest upon and he offers up excavations of each and includes, with deft handling, examples of how people more or less on his side of the political divide can and often do sound like hypocrites.
See, he says, nothing up my sleeve I’m hip to the toxic jive on both sides and if you’ll just follow me to the next pogrom I’ll show you exactly what I mean.
The problem, or rather the first of many problems, with his approach is the assumption of a uniform three headed argument. While the three he offers are often used there’s another he leaves out or, as we suspect, succeeds in not mentioning because if he did his entire gossamer thin argument would combust as it exceeded the g force tolerance for truth.
What goes missing is of course the historical context of Zionism from The Dreyfus Affair to the hordes of men in leather trench coats with the record keeping fetish.
The central problem for anti-Semites of the more sophisticated variety, is that while they are entitled to an opinion they are not entitled to their own set of facts.
Zionism was the direct response to anti-Semitism and genocidal anti-Semitism. It is directly attached to Israel the way the Protestant Reformation is attached to Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears and Jazz, and Springsteen, Mark Twain and the cure for polio.
Pull one thread from the tapestry of History qua History and the loom explodes taking your hands and a good part of your head with it.
The second thing that goes missing follows on from the first.
The anti-Semites will tell you again and again that the Holocaust was bad buuut Gaza Gaza Gaza and Israel is an apartheid state that controls America because Jews are evil and weird.
And even when they say they find the latter part of that evil and wrong they refuse to admit that it wouldn’t have cultural oxygen if they didn’t lie about the first part.
Zionism is the answer to genocide, Israel is the product of Zionism and crucially, the United States (supposedly controlled by Jews) the Europeans (with a few quasi exceptions) the former Soviet Union, and the Arab dictators supported by all of the previous three, all hired not so ex Nazis for a variety of jobs ranging from teaching the otherwise uninterested Central and South Americans how to listen to Wager and the otherwise uninterested Vietnamese how to appreciate eclairs.
And the Arabs preached genocide against the Jews, participated in the UN vote on the Partition of the Mandate, lost the vote and started an illegal war which they did not win, and as a result set in motion decades worth of more wars, terrorism, and refugee crises in which Palestinians were both victims and perpetrators and an equal number of Jews were violently expelled from their homes.
And while all of that was going on the Arabs were playing host to charming men like Faisal al Husseini who had returned from Berlin where he had offered to give the Gestapo a hand job in exchange for enough guns to exterminate the Jews.
What Beinart and his crew of remoras don’t want to admit is that Klaus Barbie only went on trial in France in the 1980s because he was no longer useful to the CIA.
Anyone who thinks Jews control American foreign policy should spend a few minutes listening to the tapes of Nixon and Kissinger do their version of the 2,000 year old man and they can get a laugh out of Nixon saying he hates kikes and there’s no fucking way any god damned kike is getting on the Supreme court while he’s in charge of the circus.
But of course the facts of how such things are both part of generational trauma, and induce new waves of generational trauma, and how such things inform the foreign and domestic policy decisions of a country founded in direct response to Auschwitz, is lost on people precisely because if they looked into it, they’d realize that telling some black kid in West Baltimore to straighten up and fly right, is patronizing racist bullshit.
But of course none of these people are James Joyce or Faulkner or Tolstoy, or Shabtai, Amichai or Oz.
They are armchair keyboard warriors, who make a nice living off the anti-Semitism industry with its pain(t) by numbers racism that keeps everyone locked in a steel cage death match, where the monotony of the argument is periodically interrupted by the formation of a circular firing squad.
You cannot detach the now from the past – or as Eugene O’Niel phrased it: There’s no such thing as the future, there’s no such thing as the present, there’s only the past happening over and over again, right now.
While catching a taxi one evening in Israel, heading from the train station (sic!) to a friend’s house, we got into a conversation with the driver. At the destination we handed him the fare. He said no. We said yes. He turned and handed the money back and we saw the numbers tattooed on his forearm.
We kept the money.
And Ilhan Omar is not right.
For a look at the Guardian’s love letters to Israel, see the following:
Postscript: It is worth noting that The Guardian averages 2 to 3 articles and opinion pieces on Israel every week. Compare and contrast this with the dearth of articles on Northern Ireland or the current efforts by the Chinese dictatorship to incarcerate over a million ethnic Muslims in “reeducation camps” in order to teach them how Mao sang scat.
Another day, another anti-Semitic smear.
As part of The Guardians on going stimulus plan to aid anti-Semites they offered today another two-fer with an opinion piece by soft-form Misandrist and anti-Semite with training wheels, Arwa Mahdawi who is correct to point out that Nancy were capitalists get used to it Pelosi is a fraud and catastrophically wrong in her attempt to prove Ilhan Omar isn’t.
In defending Omar she claims the freshly minted pol didn’t say Jews have dual loyalty.
However as Omar’s statement quoted above makes perfectly clear that’s precisely what she said.
Which came after saying Jews have magical powers they use to bamboozle the world and that the Jews and money are all about power and manipulation.
Tellingly, Mahdawi doesn’t bother to quote Omar because of course why let the dismal truth get in the way of a pathetic rant that is part of a concerted effort to make anti-Semitism normal.
Which brings us to the other piece in today’s Guardian.
Written by Tom Perkins it is a standard issue paint by numbers piece of anti-Semitic trash riding the vapor trail of the legitimate concerns surrounding the toxic effects of money in politics.
Or as rep Omar said, it’s all about the Benjamins
The problem for Perkins, and The Guardian, is of course context. Like daylight to a vampire, they must avoid all of the other things that are also true in order to stay undead.
Thus, it’s undeniably true that capitalism is the DNA of America and the idea that corporations are people is an Orwellian nightmare.
But neither Perkins nor The Guardian are focused on the big picture and instead have added yet another, in a seemingly endless series, of articles that rest on the headline: KIKES USE MONEY TO BUY POWER.
If The Guardian wants to run a series of articles detailing the extent to which money is a toxin in politics we certainly would welcome it. They might go back to the increasingly dusty logbook of Americana and use Steinbeck, Hammett, Chandler, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Anderson, O’Neill, and a host of other observational cutthroats to show how some people have been complaining about it for over a century. They might even want to revisit why Henry David Thoreau spent the night in jail.
But they wont.
Instead, the context is, that they have printed one after another in a series of blatantly racist smears designed to ride two horses with one ass.
On the one hand they are against corruption.
On the other they keep excusing racist comments by suggesting there’s a distinction to be made between criticism of the Israeli government and Zionism and that as a result Omar’s comments, their comments, and almost every comment made that criticizes Israel are not anti-Semitic.
And of course they are correct. There is a distinction to be made and one wishes they would stop being bigots and make the distinction.
But printing an article about Jews and money and political influence while running a series of articles that avoid quoting Omar and when they do quote her turn her comments upside down in a journalistic effort at gaslighting, means that The Guardian, and the European and American left are at best useful idiots for the fascists, or nothing more or less than fellow travelers with the fascists.
See the shit on a stick here:
Guardian editor Jonathan Freedland has an article today detailing some of the historical context for anti-Semitism. Of note among a few important points is his details regarding anti-Semite and head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
The article is worth a read for those reasons but more for what it leaves out and, if Freedland wants to be taken seriously generally and specifically on this issue, he might want to take his employer to task for their blatant bigotry.
Another day, and three more articles by The Guardian designed to create an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism is normal, and is conflated with anti-Zionism.
The methodology of the Jew-obsessed bigots running The Guardian is both simple and effective – for anyone who is predisposed to hate Jews, or isn’t very bright. That of course covers a great deal of the readership of The Guardian so there’s logic to the method.
In this case The Guardian ran a series of articles that use the sophisticated anti-Semite’s favorite tactic – say things that are true (i.e.& e.g., Netanyahu is a thug, and being a – average – Palestinian means being caught between PLO/PA gangsterism and Israeli nationalism) and then in a more refined version of Trumpism, jump to a set of talking points that aren’t lies but are amputated from context which means even if they are true they are floating in the air and thus it’s a distinction without a difference.
In other words this is the same method used by anti-Semitic leftists who jump from the creation of Israel to Gaza, Gaza, Gaza without stopping to mention that Zionism is the response to Dreyfus and the gang of Spartans in leather trench coats who thought London would look better if it had been redesigned by the Luftwaffe and Europe would be more interesting if (to paraphrase Robin Williams) all the funny people were dead – and that the Zionism from 1948 onwards is contextualized by the Arabs starting an illegal genocidal war, (followed by several more such wars) support for terrorism, the infamous three no’s, the importation of not so former Nazis, for the express purpose of finishing the job of extermination, the use of Koran humping tyrants to exterminate authentic Arab leftists, the enslavement of Arab women, (and the corresponding establishment of a patriarchal, feudalistic reactionary class based tyranny) and the establishment of military dictatorships that slipped into bed with corporate imperial America and out of bed with Soviet goons and then reversed the process as whim, caprice and a gelatinous morality required.
In other words, The Guardian’s strategy is to repeat, off an assembly line of bigots, a series of facts devoid of context in order to create an atmosphere in which the logical conclusions are that the Jews are dangerous, immoral, and cheats, wielding power in inverse proportion to their relatively small numbers, and as a result of that, Israel is illegitimate, Zionism is a trick and a real estate swindle, and the Palestinians specifically and the Arabs generally, are all trapped inside history as perpetual victims, but also exist outside of history devoid of any responsibility whatsoever for their current miserable, decadent and depraved condition.
This is clearly, and without any doubt, anti-Semitism wrapped in a patina of left smug self-righteous arrogance and is contextualized by a centuries’ long tradition on the left that rests on a dangerous if not lethal hatred of Jews.
The Guardian is an anti-Semitic rag that represents the other side of the coin to fascist populism.
The two neurosis merge in their hatred for the ruling class and both find common ground in scapegoating minorities – Jews are crafty and villainous and other oppressed groups are treated to a paternalistic and insidious “support” that uses them as cannon fodder for faux woke White hipsters, who ransom these groups to gain advantages while claiming to be “down for the revolution” and a world of equality.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If the white sheet and the brown shirt fit…or as we said some time ago about another liberal hypocrite: he wouldn’t dream of attending a lynching but he’ll sell you a rope and rent you a tree.
See the shit on a stick here:
We observe with both a depressed sense of resignation and a rueful sense of the absurd this blast from the past regarding English institutionalized anti-Semitism, and that despite some problematic suggestions the author (quite possibly the crown prince of the pinheads, Boris Johnson) makes the case that The Guardian and its soulmates are, a gang of bigots.
We also note that the context of the editorial demonstrates that essentially nothing has changed:
Another day another hit from the needle as The Guardian continues its addiction – and notice that there is not one word describing the PLO, Hamas, or any state actors engaged in direct or indirect action against Israel so that once again, it’s not that The Guardian is telling a lie, it’s just telling a portion of the truth:
Perhaps The Guardian could ask Ilhan Omar for a response to the quotes below:
“Sunday’s @GOP tweet met with fierce condemnation. Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News and formerly chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney 2004 Republican presidential campaign, tweeted: “As an Irishman this is deplorable. As an American it is unpatriotic. As a human it is racist.”
Brian Lowry, Washington correspondent of the Kansas City Star, asked: “Irish Americans are actually a pretty big segment of the electorate. There’s 30m of us. GOP’s social media team thought it was a good idea to dunk on Beto by promoting negative Irish stereotypes on our holiday?””
See the details here:
Needless to say this hasn’t generated a headline in The Guardian:
Below is yet another in the industrial scale anti-Semitism of The Guardian. the framing however is what matters as the article is set off with a headline linking Netanyahu and Trump as ideological soulmates which, to a great extent they are.
What matters though is the following paragraph from the article:
“Chances for a two-state solution will become even more remote. While the prospects for peace right now are very low – and the Palestinians’ lack of leadership and Hamas’s violence and repression in Gaza deserve significant blame…”
Imagine if the article was set off with a headline that declared Palestinian gangsterism, religious fanaticism, and systemic violent feudalism, with costumes and rhetoric that merge 20th century fascism with 20th century left tyrants, are pouring gasoline on the tinderbox of Israeli atavism.
In other words, shift the narrative and the context changes.
Is Netanyahu a goon?
Is Trump a malignant troll?
And the Palestinians are really just perpetual victims though we might casually mention in a paragraph buried below the fold that there are some other factors involved.
Sort of like saying Moby Dick is a long periodically boring book about a bad fishing trip.
Technically that’s not untrue but only a moron would say it’s accurate.
See the usual suspects rounded up, here:
Jeremy Corbyn has been secretly recorded admitting that Labour has screwed up its “investigation” into the party’s systemic anti-Semitism.
One wonders how long The Guardian will take to report on the issue?
The Guardian continues to ride two horses with one ass. Their anti-Semitic editorial policy continues as before while they also offer the article linked below without admitting their responsibility for creating an atmosphere that makes violence inevitable and normal.
In a sickening display of irony and ignorence, The Guardian reports on the alarming return of European fascism and bigotry and continues to refuse to make the connection between its bigotry and the rise of violence.
As Robin Williams once said, in the dictionary under irony, see, irony:
In keeping with their policy of spreading anti-Semitism The Guardian ran an article about a woman raised in an Orthodox Jewish family who discovered via a DNA test that she was in fact not Jewish.
Among the curiosities in the article was the assertion that being blonde and fair skinned resulted in Jews thinking less of the individual with that coloring or being suspicious of them.
At no point did The Guardian practice journalism or editorial authority and point out that as Jews can be found pretty much anywhere they tend to have a mix of “looks” including, blonde and red hair, fair skin, and green and blue eyes as well as being dark skinned with dark hair and dark eyes.
After all there are Jews from Ireland and Jews from Ethiopia; Jews from Russia and from Spain.
While no one will ever go broke overestimating the rancid Jew hatred practiced by The Guardian under the guise of “anti-Zionist” left wing solidarity what matters even more is the not so sly endorsement of blatantly racist comments below the line – comments that, had they been directed at the LGBTQ community or Africans or Asians, or in slightly modified form, at women, would have been removed or in the patois of The Guardian “modded” – that is, removed by the Moderators.
Consider this gem:
“I agree… if you know what to look for you can be almost 90% certain from the looks, mannerisms, and voice that someone is Jewish without asking or being told. It doesn’t matter if they are blue eyed blondes or brown eyed and dark skinned.”
“Of course there is a jewish look, they are a genetic group from a specifiic region as well as a religion…”*
Well done Guardian! When the revolution comes no doubt you’ll be able to select the workers from the intellectuals by checking to see who has calloused hands and who wears glasses.
The Jews of course will be even easier to identify.
For a look at the article:
*Original typos/spelling left unchanged.
Following up on their recent race baiting geneticist propaganda piece The Guardian let fly with another article attempting to equate DNA testing in Israel with Nazism.
This goes some way towards explaining why they had ignored the logical problems with the previous article and had also ignored its racist overtones.
See the Der Strummer here: