Israel is nearing the end of a 10-year, $30 billion package — the most generous in history and more than double what any other nation gets — and Netanyahu wants the number to climb to $40 billion or more in the next decade.
Netanyahu has warned that if he doesn’t get what he seeks from the Obama White House, he is prepared to wait for the next administration.
He’s warning he might not take $30 billion! It would be funny if Trump comes in and offers him zero.
For David Bernstein, this right-wing surge of anti-Semitism inspired by Donald J. Trump is surprising.
David Bernstein must lack commonsense. If gentiles get stronger in their national, racial or religious identities, they are more likely to have negative feelings towards out-groups including Jews, just as when Jews get stronger in their national, racial or religious identities, they are more likely to have negative feelings towards out-groups. That’s it. It really is that simple.
What is good for Jews (strong identity and cohesion and nationalism) is often bad for competing gentile groups and what is good for goyim (strong racial, national and religious identity) is often bad for Jews. Different groups have different interests. What is good for blacks is often bad for non-blacks. What is good for Muslims is often bad for non-Muslims. What is good for Jews is often bad for non-Jews. Having lots of Jews on the U.S. Supreme Court is probably good for Jews and bad for non-Jews because these Jewish Supreme Court justices invariably side with the coalition of the fringe against the core (pro-black, pro-gay, pro-minorities, pro-integration). America’s massive support for Israel may well be good for Jews and for Israel but it is terrible for the United States (9/11 would not have happened without this). A multicultural, multiracial society is probably more user-friendly for Jews and other minorities but it is bad for Christians.
Accusations of bigotry and racism and anti-Semitism are kneejerk ways of avoiding the cold hard reality that different groups have different interests. If a non-black walking down the street at night hurries to avoid young black men, is that bigotry or is that commonsense? If a taxi driver declines to pick up blacks, is that bigotry or commonsense? If a homeowner declines to rent to blacks, is that bigotry or is that commonsense? If a particular hotel in a particular time and place declines to host Jews, is that bigotry or is that in the rational self-interest of the owner?
From David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy hosted by the Washington Post:
Ben Shapiro:
I’ve spent most of my career arguing that anti-Semitism in the United States is almost entirely a product of the political Left. I’ve traveled across the country from Iowa to Texas; I’ve rarely seen an iota of true anti-Semitism. I’ve sensed far more anti-Jewish animus from leftist college students at the University of California, Los Angeles, than from churches in Valencia. As an observer of President Obama’s thoroughgoing anti-Israel administration, I could easily link the anti-Semitism of the Left to its disdain for both Biblical morality and Israeli success over its primary Islamist adversaries. The anti-Semitism I’d heard about from my grandparents — the country-club anti-Semitism, the alleged white-supremacist leanings of rednecks from the backwoods — was a figment of the imagination, I figured. I figured wrong. Donald Trump’s nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork.
Unlike Shapiro, I’ve never doubted the persistence of right-wing anti-Semitism. Way back when (but not that long ago), I volunteered for the Jack Kemp presidential campaign. As a lowly intern, I got to open a good bit of mail from donors and potential donors, many identified from rented mailing lists belonging to right-wing direct-mail gurus. The volume of overtly anti-Semitic mail was quite remarkable, especially since Kemp was not Jewish, nor did any “Jewish” issue play a significant role in his campaign.
Nevertheless, when I’ve blogged about anti-Semitism at the VC, I have focused on left-wing anti-Semitism, for two reasons. First, American Jews and their “defense” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League tend to be exquisitely attuned to real or potential anti-Semitism emanating from the right, much less so from the left. For example, in January, before the Iowa caucuses, Ted Cruz attacked Trump for having “New York values”; Hillary Clinton suddenly opened up about her Christian religious beliefs while fending off a challenge from a Jewish candidate; and Bernie Sanders was busily attacking “a handful of people on Wall Street [who] have extraordinary power over the economic and political life of our country.” Only Cruz’s comment received attention as an alleged anti-Semitic dog whistle, even though Clinton’s and Sanders’s statements were objectively at least as open to that charge. (For the record, I don’t think any of these incidents involved anti-Semitism, though they all might have pleased anti-Semites.) Meanwhile, surveys show that Jews significantly overestimate the level of anti-Semitism among Republican-leaning constituencies such as conservative evangelicals and underestimate it among Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as Hispanics.
Second, as a public political matter, at least until the Trump campaign, anti-Semitism was largely and increasingly marginalized on the mainstream conservative right. This was in significant part due to the efforts of the late William F. Buckley, who throughout his career made an effort to rid conservatism of its anti-Semitic fringe, including such former allies as Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran, and more recently due to the efforts of evangelical Christian leaders, including a theological emphasis on God’s statement in Genesis, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse,” as requiring being nice to the Jews. Not only has anti-Semitism on the right diminished significantly, but Jews, especially orthodox Jews, have of late become a significant presence in “mainstream” conservative organizations. I attended the Conservative Political Action Committee conference briefly this year and was surprised to see advertised prominently on the agenda the Fifth Annual CPAC Shabbat dinner, and there were quite a few kippot among the attendees.
Meanwhile, the left has gone in the other direction, increasingly tolerating anti-Semitism so long as its dressed up as criticism of Israel or “Zionists.” As good an example as any involves an essay written by Steven Salaita for the Nation in November. Rabbi Jill Jacobs, a prominent left-wing rabbi and strong critic of Israeli policy, took exception in a letter to the editor, arguing that “Salaita resurrects some of the most vicious anti-Semitic tropes, protecting himself by assigning these slurs to Zionism and Zionists, clear stand-ins for Judaism and Jews.” She then elaborated, quoting statements “which do not even pretend to be about criticism of Israeli policy, [but] summon the well-known bogeyman of a Jewish conspiracy that controls banks, governments, and other seats of authority.” The editors’ response failed to address her specific charges, amounting instead to, “it can’t be be anti-Semitism if you purport to be attacking Zionism.” And speaking of Shabbat dinners, recently a large group of activists at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s Creating Change conference shut down a Shabbat dinner and discussion hosted by left-wing American Jewish and Israeli groups, via a demonstration that was described by eyewitnesses as as both anti-Semitic and physically threatening.
Unfortunately — and somewhat surprisingly, given that Trump has many Jewish friends, a Jewish daughter (via conversion), and claims to be a proud supporter of Israel — Trump’s campaign has brought the anti-Semitic “alt-right” out of the woodwork, lately attacking “Never Trump” as a Jewish conspiracy. David Horowitz recently fanned the flames, arguing that Bill Kristol’s opposition to Trump made him a “renegade Jew.” Horowitz’s point was stupid but not anti-Semitic — he apparently believes the Jewish apocalypse is at hand if Hillary Clinton isn’t defeated — but his Breitbart.com commenters seem to have missed the subtlety. Trump himself seems indifferent to this, as he has been to many other manifestations of bigotry emanating from his supporters.
Yellow fever outbreaks in Africa need action, mass vaccination: WHO
Outbreaks of deadly yellow fever in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo do not constitute a global health emergency but require stepped-up control measures and mass vaccination, the World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Thursday.
The disease, which has a high fatality rate, has already spread to Kenya and China and there is an unrelated outbreak in Uganda, generating fears of the mosquito-borne disease jumping to sprawling cities in Asia and Africa.
“This can be a devastating disease with rapid spread particularly in urban areas,” Dr. Bruce Aylward, WHO executive director of outbreaks and health emergencies, said after its emergency committee on yellow fever held a first meeting.
“The big push really is around surveillance and laboratory diagnostics capacity so that if people start turning yellow and dying, you get diagnostics rapidly and vaccination,” Aylward told Reuters.
The more than 2,400 suspect cases and 300 deaths in just four months in Angola “reinforced the potentially explosive nature of this disease and the risk internationally”, he said.
Daniel Greenfield writes: Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance, made headlines when he claimed that black people don’t visit national parks because they associate them with slaves being lynched by their masters.
Yellowstone, the first national park, was created in 1872 in Wyoming. Slavery was over by then and no one had ever been lynching slaves around Old Faithful anyway. But false claims of racism die very hard.
Now Alcee Hastings, an impeached judge, and a coalition of minority groups is demanding increased “inclusiveness” at national parks. High on their list is the claim that, “African-Americans have felt unwelcome and even fearful in federal parklands during our nation’s history because of the horrors of lynching.” What do national parks have to do with lynchings? Many national parks have trees. People were hung from trees. It’s racial guilt by arboreal association. Trees are racist down to their roots.
The origin of the bizarre racist lynching theory of national parks appears to be Carolyn Finney. Finney was an actress noted for, apparently, little more than an appearance in The Nutt House. Then she became a cause célèbre for race activists when she was denied tenure by Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management because her work didn’t meet academic standards.
Her supporters blamed racism, rather than her academic shortcomings, and protested vocally.
These days she’s a diversity advisor to the U.S. National Parks Advisory Board. What wasn’t good enough for UC Berkeley is good enough for national parks. She is also the author of Black Faces, White Spaces. In it she claims that “oppression and violence against black people in forests and other green spaces can translate into contemporary understandings that constrain African-American environmental understandings.”
Finney cites the work of Joy DeGruy Leary who invented a Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome that she claims black people suffer from. Affected by PTSS, black people experience “fear and mistrust of forests and other green spaces.” According to Finney, the tree is a racist symbol to black people.
“Black people also wanted to go out in the woods and eat apples from the trees,” Finney explains.” But black people were lynched on the trees. The tree became a big symbol.” Black people are triggered by trees and suffer Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome flashbacks. You can’t expect them to go to on a hike.
What shall we do about the racist trees? Finney is front and center at the new “inclusion” initiative, “You’re sitting here making up a rule and assuming that everybody is going to feel comfortable to come to the woods and go on a hike,” she whined. “Maybe they’re not interested in doing that, that’s not how they like to come to the woods.”
In addition to complaining about the racist trees, the inclusion initiative also claimed that national parks alienate Latinos because of the “color of the uniforms that rangers wear.”
What’s wrong with the color of park ranger uniforms? According to the Hispanic Access Foundation, they look too much like the border patrol. Even though the uniforms are actually completely different. But much like the lack of lynchings at Yellowstone National Park, the truth doesn’t matter here.
Anti-Semitism and anti-Gentilism and anti-Muslim and anti-black and anti-any group are all the outgrowth of conflicting interests. If you love your people, you will react negatively to those who hurt your people. A normal person loves his own kind and hates those who threaten his group. When one group rises in power and cohesion, it usually negatively affects other groups. The more proud Jews become, the more likely they are to have negative views of out-groups. The more proud gentiles (WASPs are a bit of an exception) become in their race, religion or nation, the more likely they are to have negative views of Jews.
What does anti-Semitism achieve? Probably the same things as anti-Gentile attitudes achieve. They knit together one group more closely and make its members more willing to sacrifice for the group. Hate is the great unifier.
It’s impossible to love your group without hating those who threaten it. Every living organism has an instinctive revulsion against those that “f*** with their s***. ” This is anti-Semitism, anti-Gentilism, anti-Gypsyism, anti-white nationalism, anti-blackism, anti-Mexicanism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Adventism, anti-any group.
The stronger your in-group identity, the more likely you are to have negative views of out-groups. The stronger the goy is in his racial, national or religious identity, the more likely he is to have negative views of Jews (Protestantism is the one exception to this rule that comes to mind.) The stronger the Jews is in his racial, ethnic, national, and religious identity, the more likely he is to sacrifice for his group and to hold negative views of non-Jews.
What’s good for your group — racial, national and religious solidarity and cohesion — is usually bad for the other groups you compete with. In other words, what is good for Jews is sometimes bad for gentiles, and what is good for gentiles (racial, national and religious pride and exclusivity and cohesion) is sometimes bad for Jews.
Much of life is zero sum. Either the Jewish state of Israel thrives in its location, and Arabs and Muslims feel humiliated, or it is destroyed and Jews get slaughtered.
“Anti-Semitism” is a goyisha term. It is not found in Torah. There is no Torah mitzvah to fight anti-Semitism. The more religious the Jew, the less interested he is in fighting anti-Semitism or inquiring into its causes. Torah does not spend much space on analyzing anti-Jewish sentiments. Torah does not push Jews to give bigotry no sanction. There’s no mitzva to oppose racism, sexism and homophobia.
The more a Jew studies Torah, the less he cares about anti-Semitism, bigotry, racism and homophobia.
Those Jews who make their living with Holocaust education and fighting bigotry and anti-Semitism (the ADL, the SWC, SPLC, etc) are regarded as light-weights by most Orthodox Jews. These activists, when Orthodox, weren’t smart enough to make it in Torah study and traditional Jewish leadership. Kiruv (outreach) and fighting anti-Semitism are a way for the less able professional Orthodox Jews to make a living. If these race hustlers really had something on the ball, they’d be in traditional Jewish education and running shuls and teaching in yeshivos. Real Torah Jews don’t concern themselves with fighting anti-Semitism (or even analyzing it).
* As white societies go, so go the Jews living in these societies. If white society breaks downs and the societies become more say… Islamic… that is absolutely not better for Jews living within these societies.
So regardless of the past, at present Jews and whites, including white nationalists, should be working on the same side. Maybe the enemy is indeed disproportionately Jewish but these Jewish elites and leftists are actually becoming the enemy of us run-of-the mill Jews as well.
Basically, at this point, what is good for whites will also be good for Jews. Unless whites go crazy on all Jews. Which seems unlikely at present but there’s the rub – this fear is what prevents Jews from seeing how elites Jews are actually screwing things up.
