I wrote a whole book (maybe a book and a half if you count Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies along with The New Hate) about Protocols of the Elders of Zion-style anti-Semitism. To say that I deplore it is an understatement.
Yet I find it beyond bizarre that Deborah Lipstadt (a writer I respect) would publish an op ed in the newspaper of record that unweaves the Christian and leftist strands of contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism without acknowledging that the biggest difference between 1939 and today lies on the Jewish side of the equation.
Back then, world Jewry was fragmented and exquisitely vulnerable; most Europeans regarded its Jewish nationals as resident aliens. Not just Hitler, but many mainstream political and religious leaders regarded the “Jewish problem” as a social contagion that needed to be contained.
Today, a nuclear-armed Israel is not only maintaining a military occupation of Palestinian territory but aggressively colonizing it, while stridently identifying its political, economic, and military interests with those of Jews all over the world and loudly deploring any and all criticism as “anti-Semitism.” Doesn’t that have more than a little to do with “the ubiquitous slippage from anger at Israeli military action to hatred of Jews”?
These days you don’t have to be delusional to posit a “Jewish conspiracy”–just hateful and/or naive. And lord knows, there’s plenty of both to go around, in 1939 and 2014.
It’s always exciting when I find out that someone famous has read me–or when one of my readers becomes famous. The white nationalist and frequent (and always civil) commenter on this blog Mindweapons in Ragnorak is such a one, though his 15 minutes couldn’t have come at a worse time for him–his wife is running for office. What his new-found notoriety will do to her political chances is an open question; his blog however, which is one of the more thoughtful of its ilk, has been suspended.
Something tells me that he won’t be quiet for long. I’ll keep an eye out for his new name.
When Benghazi is a dim memory, what happened in Ferguson, Missouri will be remembered as the moment when the blowback from America’s covert and not-so-covert domestic wars–on terror, on drugs, on African American youth–went mainstream.
As Digby writes at Salon:
All this week people were shocked to see police officers dressed up in what one wag called “commando-chic” pointing guns directly at unarmed civilians. They were taken aback at the idea that heavily armed officers wearing desert battle fatigues would enter a McDonald’s where children were present to roust the customers and arrest reporters who were sitting quietly charging their laptops. They saw the unmotivated discharge of tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters. They wondered why there were tanks and automatic weapons in our streets. Well, it’s a long overdue wake-up call. We’ve been spending billions of taxpayer dollars for decades to turn the streets of urban America into a war zone at the merest hint of dissent. And now it’s here.
And yes it’s ironic that the Tea Party and its ilk claim to be as opposed to state tyranny as they are, because these uber-militarized county cops are local Frankensteins that are largely of their own creation.
Back in the early ’60s, when the John Birch Society coined the slogan “Support Your Local Police (and Keep them Independent!),” they were back-handedly saying that the tyrannical, black-loving, communist-inclined, de-segregationist federal and state governments couldn’t be trusted with law enforcement. Sovereign Citizens like Cliven Bundy have raised it to a constitutional principle.
The usual suspects on the right have had a lot to say about the looting and of course the threats of Black Panther actions (check out this Fox News discussion), but their pointed lack of outrage about what the police are doing in Ferguson (or for that matter, what Bloomberg’s New York City police were doing with Stop and Frisk in this city’s minority neighborhoods) is telling.
It will be interesting to see how they react to Governor Nixon’s belated decision to relieve them.
When will America’s Jews–and by America’s Jews I mean its majority of secular, non- or semi-observant Jews, not its rapidly-growing minority of religious fundamentalists, or its even smaller but extremely well-funded micro-minority of political neo-conservatives and professional Zionists–recognize that the separation of church and state is what has assured their safety in the US thus far?
Of course there are anti-Semites in the world (among them many of Israel’s staunchest Evangelical supporters–and a handful of regular commentators at this very tiny, insignificant blog). And yes, it goes without saying that millions of Arabs (and most Gazans) would welcome the destruction of the Jewish state. But its existence (and its devolution into an apartheid fascist pariah state) has provided neither an antidote for anti-Semitism nor a safe-haven from it.
The horrors in Gaza aren’t an anomaly–they’re the naked face of an imperialist ethno-state.
I don’t know what goes on in the heads of American Jews whose Zionism comes from their religion or their right wing political agenda. But the rest of us should be appalled at what’s being done in our names in the Middle East–and terrified at the erosion of church/state separation at home.
I am going to be on HuffPost Live this afternoon to talk about the “Men’s Issues” convention; after that, I would love to retire from commenting on or even thinking about that world.
Not that men don’t have issues to deal with–any group that comprises half of humanity is going to have a host of them. When I hear the horror stories about divorce courts, I’m as appalled as anyone (though I also understand that the vast majority of divorces aren’t like the most contentious ones; that millions of estranged couples do manage to rear their children together). As a father and husband, I get a little tired of seeing clueless husbands and bumbling dads on TV commercials too, though I don’t think it rises to the level of a blood libel.
Beyond that, I will even concede that you can find actual examples of misandry, if you look for them in the writings and chatrooms of the most extreme man-haters. Seek and ye shall find.
But defining feminism by the writings of Valerie Solanas or Andrea Dworkin is exactly like what a white supremacist does when he takes a white-hating passage from the manifestos of a group like the Nation of Islam or the New Black Panthers and presents it as the normative attitude of blacks; or what an anti-Semite does when he culls one of those Jewish supremacist passages from the Talmud and presents them as the normative view of everyone whose mother or father was Jewish. Identifying your adversary as your polar opposite virtually guarantees that you will never be able to make an accommodation with them–which of course is exactly the point. Zionists who believe that not only the Palestinians themselves but anyone who expresses sympathy towards them are Amalek aren’t going to be particularly effective peace makers. Extremism perpetuates and exacerbates extremism.
I keep talking about cognitive dissonance these days, but I think it provides a pretty useful frame for this particular theater of the gender wars. A lot of the debate is as heated as it is because the people who are engaging in it know how un-factual most of their premises are. Men aren’t a persecuted minority; neither is “violation…a synonym for intercourse” (Andrea Dworkin).
When it comes to the fringes, neither side is really fighting about what they say they are–they’re projecting and acting out much deeper hurts: sexual and familial disappointments and dysfunction; the sense of inadequacy and emasculation that accompany economic and status struggles; and so on. The 150 or so attendees of the convention I went to weren’t all monsters by any stretch of the imagination. I didn’t fear for my personal safety. But I daresay most of them weren’t very happy people either.
So I come home from Detroit with two broad theorems and a corollary conclusion:
1) That when the personal is the political, the politics are going to be pretty distorted and the ideology somewhat incoherent;
2) That extremism breeds extremism. If you’re a hammer, all you’re ever going to see are nails.
If you really care about gender equity and empowerment, then the Andrea Dworkins and Paul Elams of the world are mostly a distraction. It’s easy to demonize MRAs, but they don’t do anywhere near the damage to women that, say, the Hobby Lobby has done, or the GOP. They’re easy to hate, but engaging with them is about as useful as it is for LGBT activists to fight with the Westboro Baptist Church.
PS A slightly different version of this piece is now up at the Huffington Post.