The Guardian view on Soweto and the rise of anti whiteism
Of course, it wasn’t like that. In 1976, the Guardian and the rest of the Western press didn’t worry that the massacre of black schoolchildren in Soweto, South Africa, by the police, supported by a large section of the white population, would result in hostility to white people.
The Guardian view on Gaza and the rise of antisemitism
But today, when Jews are doing pretty much the same thing, the Guardian is worried that people might not like them.
Attacks on synagogues, Jewish shops and individuals – even children – are rising. They are inexcusable.
This article whines about “antisemitism” in Europe, amalgamating the Toulouse killings by a lone demented Muslim two years ago, with protests against Israel today, and claiming that French people defending themselves against the JDL are “racist”. Yet the article contains an admission:
Yes, Jews feel bound up with Israel, they believe in its right to survive and thrive. But that does not mean they should be held responsible for its policy…
Firstly, not all Jews believe in Israel’s right to “survive and thrive”. Secondly, those that do are responsible — not for its “policy” — it’s not a question of policy. Israel doesn’t do ethnic cleansing — Israel is ethnic cleansing.
Israeli Jews murder hundreds of people, including many children, and Jews around the world support them. Naturally, there is hostility toward these murderers and their supporters. The media is at least as concerned with the reaction, which it labels “antisemitism”, as it is with the cause. The liberal veneer comes off — the Guardian and most of the rest of the media subordinates itself to Jewish interests.
Knott’s accusations against me are a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand, he chides me for not discussing “Jewish power.” At the same time, his inaccurate descriptions of me and my motivation echo Zionist mistruths about me.
But in regard to Jewish power, I merely argue the book hints at it, “doesn’t take this further”, and “we need a theory” which explains it. My review starts by lavishly praising her book, and her skill in holding a conference against Zionism in the occupied territories.
However, I have valid criticisms. Alison is correct that, unlike her, I don’t take the State Department’s statements seriously. Its secretary recently lectured the president of Russia, to universal derision:
You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext
She is also right to say that I am wrong to say that her book mentions the USS Liberty, attacked by Israel in 1967. However, her organizations and websites distribute a patriotic version of this tragic story. But a naval spy ship is a warship, even in peacetime, and this was during the Vietnam war. Weir says claiming it was a warship is “echoing Zionist mistruths”, but in this case, they are telling the truth.
Same with the Zionist attack on the King David hotel in 1948: it’s not a war crime to bomb a building partly occupied by enemy soldiers. Civilians staying in that hotel were idiots.
More seriously, an important part of my critique goes like this:
Patriotism also leads Weir to quote opponents of the Lobby within the Pentagon as follows: ‘no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security‘ without realizing that this could imply the suppression of any movement which endangered US imperialism.
She responds:
Knott foolishly writes, “Patriotism also leads Weir to quote opponents of the Lobby within the Pentagon”
This misses out the sinister quotation from the Pentagon, which I found in her book, implying the suppression of all unpatriotic movements, not just Zionism.
In response to my sarcastic remark
Weir gives the impression America is inhabited by well-meaning, simple, Christian folk, who are manipulated into supporting the oppression of the Palestinians by dishonest, clever Jews
she says I have ‘missed an important point in the book: “Zionist” is not synonymous with “Jew.”’. But my interpretation of her book does not imply that. “Manipulated by dishonest, clever Jews” does not imply that I think that she thinks that all Jews are dishonest, or clever, or Zionist. Why does she get defensive when I mention the J-word? I’ve consistently argued that the Palestine solidarity movement should not dignify the allegation of “anti-semitism” with a response. To Zionists, this concern surely looks like a weakness. It only reinforces their elitist attitude.
P.S. 5/28/14 – Read Alison’s latest over-the-top tribute to the USS Liberty:
Journalist Max Blumenthal is one of those Jews who claim to defend the Palestinians by “disavowing” Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon recently published on his website a video of Blumenthal being interviewed, denouncing Atzmon as “anti-Semitic”. Atzmon countered Blumenthal with his customary sarcasm (1).
Blumenthal is a leading member of the “hate industry”, a well-funded, Jewish-led movement which exploits the idea that Europeans are exceptionally xenophobic. White guilt has long been a weakness of the American left. Agents used allegations of “racism” against activists to undermine the movement against the Vietnam war. Covert Zionists are using similar techniques to undermine the campaign to persuade co-ops to boycott Israeli produce.
Blumenthal’s attempt to “clean out” the Palestine solidarity movement is part of the same strategy.
But he is at least more consistent than some of Atzmon’s supporters, who replace concern about “anti-Semitism”, with opposition to “Islamophobia”. Many of them believe that Islamic terrorist attacks are faked up by Western intelligence services to turn people against Muslims, and that violent conflict between Sunnis and Shi’ites is the result of Zionist manipulation. They employ victimology to give special rights to members of their favorite minority. An amusing example of this double standard can be found in a recent article by Shabana Syed on deliberation.info (2).
Blumenthal’s disavowal of “anti-Semitism” is consistent with his whining about “Islamophobia”. His writings classify ideas he disagrees with, rather than answer them (3). It’s an approach to evaluating ideas which was perfected by the Soviet Union, and is alien to Western skepticism: “this idea belongs to that category, therefore it can be dismissed out of hand”. An obvious example of this technique is labeling those who question the scale of German war crimes “holocaust deniers”.
The unanswerable allegation “Islamophobe” is just as much an attempt to stifle discussion as the use of the classification “anti-Semite”. It’s logically inconsistent to criticize Blumenthal’s attempts to politically correct the Palestine solidarity movement at the same time as endorsing his denunciations of “Islamophobes”. You can’t promote Soviet-style thought policing when you feel like it, then complain when it turns around and bites you.
Whether a viewpoint is “anti-Semitic” is irrelevant. Meaningful statements are more-or-less true or false. One cannot be concerned about their truth or falsehood at the same time as worrying if they might offend someone – if you encountered a concept which was both offensive and true, you would have to choose between these two approaches. The same applies to “Islamophobia”, etc..
On February 7, Omar Barghouti and Judith Butler defended the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) movement in front of an audience of over 200 at Brooklyn College. Far more than 200 people have heard about it, because the college’s decision to host the talk was publicly denounced by renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and other Jewish supremacists, using their customary hyperbole. For example:
Hate orgy… second holocaust… hostility towards the vast majority of Jewish students at BC who identify with the Jewish state… the department’s sponsorship serves to condone and legitimize anti-Jewish bigotry… a hostile environment for Jewish students on our campus.
Jewish students oppose the meeting
As a result, it got a lot more publicity than if he’d left it alone. This led a columnist in Israeli newspaper Haaretz to complain about “the perils of pro-Israel overkill”:
Overzealous Israel defenders used a five-megaton bomb to swat a fly, and it blew up in our faces. But Brooklyn is only a harbinger of nasty things to come. (haaretz)
He’s accusing Dershowitz of making a tactical mistake. But, though the Dersh may be accused of many things, no-one ever said he is dumb. The columnist may not realize it, but I suspect Dershowitz does – over-the-top attacks benefit Zionism. They move Israel’s goalposts closer together, making it look as if people like Barghouti are militant opponents of Jewish supremacy, strengthening their effectiveness within the Palestine solidarity movement.
Now thousands of people have heard about Barghouti and Butler’s brave stand against censorship. What most of them haven’t heard about is the BDS movement’s quiet abandonment of the right of return for the Palestinians. Without consulting its affiliates, the movement changed the wording of its mission statement from demanding that Israel ends
This recognizes the legitimacy of the Jewish state within its 1967 borders. It means rejecting the right of return for all those expelled since 1948, and their descendants. It means accepting the fruits of the Deir Yassin massacre and numerous others. It means capitulation to Jewish racial supremacy.
Another thing many of those who have heard about the Butler/Barghouti Brooklyn BDS bash may not realize, is that Barghouti tries to stop them hearing what Gilad Atzmon and his supporters have to say. His claim “we are witnessing the rise of a new McCarthyism” is an example of the ethnic strategy known as chutzpah – hypocrisy so brazen it takes your breath away – and he’s Palestinian!
The BDS movement has become another racket, like “Jewish Voice for Peace”, “Jews for the Boycott of Israeli Goods”, and the rest
by denouncing “the occupation”, which means Israel’s gains in 1967, which sneakily implies that ethnic cleansing up until then was legitimate
by trying to stop discussion of Jewish power, the Holocaust, and everything else which makes them feel uncomfortable
by spreading lies about more intransigent solidarity activists, trying to prevent them speaking, or get them fired
This billboard helps the Palestinian cause – Detroit
The Western countries encouraged South Africa to abandon apartheid, but their unquestioning support for Israel ensures the continuation of this crime against humanity. Might it have happened the other way round? Could the USA and its allies have decided to pressurize the Jewish state into granting the right of return to the Palestinians, while supporting a nuclear-armed white apartheid state in southern Africa?
If it had happened the other way round, there would be non-stop wailing that Western Europeans once again abandoned the Jews, while continuing to defend their racist cousins. But it didn’t. This is not a coincidence. The political atmosphere encouraged the West to abandon white power, and reinforce Jewish power. This is something the current anti-racist approach has difficulty comprehending.
Palestine solidarity in Western countries has tended to assume that, since Zionism is a form of racism, it can be defeated in the same way apartheid in Africa and segregation in America were defeated. Like the anti-apartheid movement, Palestine solidarity has been dominated by the left. Unlike the anti-apartheid movement, it has been unsuccessful.
Not everyone is a liberal. Rather than pointing out that Israel is “Islamophobic”, it might be more effective to raise the wider truth that Zionism ethnically cleansed the Palestinians because they are not Jews, not because many of them are Muslims. Lauren Booth’s phrase “we are all Palestinians” is a teeny bit exaggerated (Booth, L.; 2012). But it is true that Jewish supremacy is harmful to most of us, over 95% of the inhabitants of the Western world, rich and poor. Exposing Israeli anti-gentilism and Christophobia might be more persuasive to most of this population than the left-wing anti-racist argument that Zionism is an offshoot of their own racist, imperialist, Western attitudes.
The post-world war two academic left-wing consensus includes
the Franz Boas school of anthropology, which lied about the peaceful nature of hunter-gatherer life in contrast to European civilization
scientists Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and others, who slandered academic rivals, who tried to apply the Darwinian approach to human beings, as “racists”
the “critical race theorists”, who excoriate and exaggerate white ethnocentrism, but give Zionism a pass
For example, Mari Matsuda, in Words That Wound, (1993; p. 40), says: “I reject the sweeping charge that Zionism is racism”, and goes on to claim that Jews can only be racist if they identify themselves as white. Stanley Fish agrees with former president George Bush senior, that to equate Zionism with racism is to twist history, which tells us that Jews have always been persecuted (1994; p. 60).
Not all of these theorists are self-identified Jews, but many, if not most, are. They say things like
it’s hard to see racism when you’re white”
while denying that “race” is a meaningful concept, and relying on the taboo against mentioning their Jewishness. In their introduction to Alas, Poor Darwin, Steven and Hilary Rose approve of Boas’s 1950 claim that “the concept of race is not science but pseudo-science” (Rose & Rose; 2000). Richard Lewontin concurs, on the grounds that there is approximately seven times as much genetic diversity within human populations as there is between them (cited in Frank Salter, Genetic Interests, 2007; p. 92).
But, regardless, it is in every one of your genes’ interests to influence you to favour individuals with copies of itself over those without. Of the genes you don’t share with the whole of humanity, there are, on average, more copies of those genes in individuals whose ancestors lived in the same area as yours than there are in people whose ancestors have not.
Frank Salter explains that, if everyone in the world were cousins, altruism would not be adaptive at all. It’s the difference between our relatedness to each of two individuals which makes us prefer one over the other. Of the genes which differ between individuals, those in our parents, children, and siblings, are more likely to be copies of our own. This is why we are altruistic to our relatives. Evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane worked out that it makes genetic sense to die for two or more brothers or sisters, or eight or more cousins, but not fewer (cited in Connolly, K., and Martlew, M., 1999; p. 10).
But what about choosing to help someone from the local population, rather than another person taken at random from the world population? The percentage increase in selective advantage is just as great as that in choosing your relatives over random individuals in the local population. I am inclined to spoil my granddaughter rather than nearby children who look similar to her. My genes also code for favouring those nearby children over children from far away who look different to them. But we’re taught that the first of these indulgences is a grandparent’s privilege, whereas the second is a symptom of white privilege.
A rough measure of the explanatory power of a theory about society is how infrequently it uses the word “ideology”. Racial identity isn’t ideology. It is the result of the workings of natural selection. Perhaps even ethnic hostility is genetic. There is evidence of inter-tribal massacres during the Stone Age (Keeley, L.; 1996). Given its adaptive character, it would be surprising if genes failed to code for ethnic identity; it is no great leap of faith to suggest that xenophobia may have a biological basis too.
Given the genetic basis of race, what needs explaining, is not white identity, but its relative absence. Yet we are supposed to believe that this identity is strongly entrenched, uniquely malevolent, and invariably xenophobic.
Some readers will think, mistakenly, I’m advocating white self-awareness to counter Zionist influence. But that misreading only illustrates my point; we are always on the lookout for “racism”.
It could be wrong – that’s the nature of scientific theories – but the evolutionary approach at least helps us steer clear of anti-white attitudes. It also avoids hatred toward Zionists; we can understand why Jewish xenophobia exists – because it works. Whether or not the Jewish people were “invented”, any group which intramarries, homogenizes. Ethnic cleansing can be adaptive too. There might be payback, but genes have no foresight. Throwing away our Rose- (and Gould-) coloured glasses, enables us to understand Zionism, rather than moralizing about it, which can be dangerous; it might lead you to try to blackmail the driver of an Israeli bulldozer, by standing in front of it.
In the co-op movement on the American west coast, crypto-Zionists undermined the campaign to boycott Israeli goods by slandering Palestine solidarity activists as “racists”, who needed to “unlearn oppression”. Similar things happen in universities. White guilt has also begun to influence the workings of mainstream society. Minnesota is having a campaign against white privilege, featuring highway billboards of a blonde, blue-eyed girl with anti-racist messages written all over her face (Unfair Campaign, 2012), and a sermon by Jewish critical race theorist Tim Wise.
Palestine solidarity in Australasia, North America and Western Europe would be more effective it it
emphasized the differences between Jewish and gentile interests
proclaimed the virtues of Western tolerance in contrast to Israel
