Jussie Smollett and Jewish Hoaxes
Israel Shamir • February 22, 2019
The
Jussie Smollett hoax and its debunking may yet change the trend of
baseless accusations. God knows, the hoaxers went too far, and it’s high
time for correction. The concise list of hoaxes would be too long for
this essay, but here is a small list of very recent ones. They were met by public outrage
and media indignation, for very little reason, and now we may expect a downward market correction, due to overpriced stock.
Some
unlikely persons already attempt to capitalise on the expected reaction
in order to channel it to the preferred direction – in a very unlikely
medium. Mr Noah Rothman, an editor of Commentary magazine, condemned in The New York Times the imprudent haste of media falling for the hoax. Come on, really! The NY Times is a leading propagator of similar hoaxes. Whenever there is a story of a suffering diversity person, The New York Times
usually takes it and plays it to its full extent. And when the hoax is
revealed, usually the newspaper mentions it on page 46, at the bottom.
So why is this night different, as the Jews ask on Passover night?
Mr
Rothman is all against hoaxes by coloured and gay persons, that’s why.
He mentions a few of them and adds his complaint: “There have been no
similar national paroxysms amid a sharp uptick in violence targeting New
York City’s Jewish population… The real tragedy … that hate crimes are,
in fact, on the rise in the Trump era, particularly against Jews”. He
does not mind hoaxes, he minds blacks arousing paroxysms of anguish at
the expense of the Jews. The Americans and Europeans should feel sorry
for Jews and anger for their adversaries, and every cry and tear for a
black is a waste of a good cry and tear.
Among hoaxes he mentions, there is not a single one by a Jew, yet Jews are the leading perpetrators of hoaxes. Michael Kader
of Ashkelon, Israel with over two thousand hoaxes to his account
claiming attacks on Jewish community centres and synagogues is the
shining example, but there are plenty of them. A Jewish woman had made a hoax bomb threat to a synagogue. A Jewish man spray-painted swastikas on his own house.
For Rothman, Jews are always innocent victims, as opposed to uppity blacks, who are guilty. This bias is a hallmark of Commentary
Magazine, flagship of the Neocons, and the Neocon movement was
established with a highly prejudiced attitude towards the blacks. Their
open anti-black racism has been their entry card into white society.
The
very word ‘racism’ has been grossly devalued, like the word ‘rape’.
Nowadays having mutually consensual sex amounts to rape in case of
buyers’ remorse, like in the case of Julian Assange,
while standing still in front of a Native American drummer is defined
as ‘racism’ (BTW, Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic student, is suing the perpetrator of this hoax, the Washington Post).
When everything is ‘racism’, nothing is. However, racism (and rape)
could be a real thing. The most racist anti-black rant you can find on
an American internet site is not on a KKK nor a Stormfront nor a
Hollywood Nazi page, but on the Commentary site. It was written by Norman Podhoretz, its editor-in-chief, and published in 1963, that is, 55 years ago.
In the article My Negro Problem—And Ours
the founder of the Neocon movement admits of “hating the Negroes with
all my heart”. He tells of his mother who “in Yiddish cursed the goyim and the Schwartzes, the Schwartzes and the goyim.”
All American whites are sick in their feelings about Negroes, he
asserts. He admits that he “grew up fearing and envying and hating
Negroes” and this feeling hasn’t gone. “Now do I fear them and envy them
and hate them still? The answer is yes, but not in the same proportions
and certainly not in the same way… I know it from the disgusting
prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple; If I were
to be asked today whether I would like a daughter of mine ’to marry
one,’ I would have to answer: ’No, I wouldn’t like it at all. I would rail and rave and rant and tear my hair.’”
Disgusting prurience
– neither more, nor less! David Duke’s views are moderate compared to
Norman Podhoretz’s, but Duke is ostracized while Podhoretz was a leading
light of his generation. Podhoretz nursed a special hatred of Black
Muslims, while Duke was friendly with them. Despite his admitted hate of
the blacks, Podhoretz felt “the insane rage … at the thought of Negro
anti-Semitism”. It is fine for him to hate them, but if they hate him,
it is a reason for ‘insane rage’.
Podhoretz’s
views, obnoxious as they were, derive from the traditional Jewish view
as stated by Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed, 3:51), namely “the
Blacks are like dumb animals; they are not fully human; they are
positioned below humans, but they are above monkeys for their appearance
is like human and their mind is better than that of monkeys”.
With
such views, you understand why some Jewish scribes like Mr Rothman hate
Black hoaxes – and here they find an echo chamber within some White
groups. They just do not mention Jewish hoaxes.
However,
black and gay hoaxes are annoying, that’s all. Jewish hoaxes are very
dangerous and expensive. Michael Kader’s hoaxes cost the American
taxpayer a great deal, for his bomb threats were translated into
hundreds of millions of dollars of grants for Jewish NGOs.
These funds were given by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
“because the Jews are the most commonly targeted religious group in the
United States.” Now we know that the Jews were targeted by their
coreligionist from Ashkelon, but the funds have not been returned, with
apologies. There are no statistics for the total Jewish share in the
DHS’s $50 billion annual budget, but my guess it is a large one.
Presenting
a frivolous remark of the freshman senator Ilhan Omar as an
“antisemitic attack” is another kind of Jewish hoax, or “The Growing
Anti-Semitism Scam”, in words of our colleague Philip Giraldi.
Similar
scams were practiced this week in England and France with powerful
results. In England, seven (now eight) Jewish and Judeophile MPs have
stormed out of the Labour Party claiming Labour has been ‘infected’ with
‘anti-Jewish racism’. Since Jeremy Corbyn was elected to lead the
party, it became the most numerous one in Western Europe. It became
popular because it regained its ties with the British worker. And
immediately its philosemitic Blairite wing began to campaign against the
new leader.
Their
campaign is based on the Jewish hoax of Corbyn’s alleged antisemitism
and racism. This hoax is as baseless as that of Jussie Smollett’s but
far more dangerous. You can watch the Al Jazeera film The Lobby Part 3 and see how an encounter between an elderly lady pro-Palestinian Labour-supporter and the head of Labour Friends of Israel was misrepresented
as an “antisemitic onslaught”. Actually, Smollett is a rather innocent
bloke; he bayed for sympathy, while Joan Ryan, an MP and the chair of
Labour Friends of Israel has collected over million dollars from Israel
Embassy’s slush fund.
The
scammers want to sabotage the British people’s desire to throw off the
shackles of Brussels. Their “Independent [from Brits, not from Israel]
Group” is against Brexit, for NATO, for nuclear weapons, for wars
overseas, for neoliberalism, and that is quite aside from the Jewish and
Israeli issues. They are being joined by a few ex-Tories of similar
persuasion. (My British friend heartily approved of this step, for “all
the rotten apples should be in one basket”).
A
Labour MP said it was “possible” that Israel is a financial backer of
the breakaway Independent Group of MPs, but almost immediately recanted
and apologised for the suggestion.
Many
reviews of the British Labour split explain it by Corbyn’s
pro-Palestinian views. Corbyn and his allies also prefer this
explanation.
Another, more plausible explanation crosses the bounds of the permissible in civilised society. What the heck, let us cross it.
The
British Jews overwhelmingly vote for Tories; the Jews are for Remain in
the EU; Jews are for banks and international institutions. Corbyn’s
Labour stands for its direct opposite. These are words of Jeremy Corbyn just before his election: They,
the world’s bankers, International Monetary Fund, European Union, they
are utterly united in what they want. Utterly united in deflation,
suppressing the economy, and creating unemployment. In the same
speech, Corbyn called for sanctions on Israel and for support of Gaza,
but even without that, British and American Jews think that ‘bankers’,
‘IMF’ and ‘EU’ are them.” They are what they are, in the words of
Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The
State of Israel is important for them, perhaps the Bible, Talmud and
talith are precious, but only on Saturdays. While their identification
with banks, globalism, neoliberal practice is their daily routine. Marx
advised to pay attention to the Weekday Jew, rather than to the Saturday
Jew. This advice is still valid.
Corbyn
has no problem with Jews qua Jews; everybody in the Socialist movement
is used to Jews. He is against Israeli anti-Palestinian policies, and
there are Jews of such views, too (though we take a lot of beating). But
being against Israeli policies AND against bankers, IMF and EU means
threatening the Weekday Jew’s bread and butter.
Thirty
years ago, in the formative years of Jeremy Corbyn, Jews were more to
the left, and then such a policy had been possible. But now the Jews
have moved to the right, or to the moneyed centre for bankers, and they
would have a problem with Corbyn even if he were studying Talmud daily.
The
struggle of the Seven against ‘antisemitism’ has nothing to do with
their alleged anti-racism. Angela Smith, a UK MP who quit the Labour
Party over alleged racism, next day was caught on live TV appearing to
refer to people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds as
having a “funny tinge”.
Our colleague and friend Jonathan Cook of Nazareth noticed
that the departing MPs are united not only by their uncritical attitude
to Israel, but also by “their enthusiasm for foreign wars, for the
enrichment of a narrow neo-liberal elite; [they] are ambivalent about
austerity policies, and are reticent at returning key utilities to
public ownership”. In other words, they are for neo-liberalism, and
complaints of antisemitism serve as a cover for it.
You can read my piece Love Labours Lost explaining this rightwards shift of Jews and dismay of British Labour at the loss of erstwhile allies.
In
France, the Jews greatly improved on Smollett. A French Jewish scribe
Alain Finkielkraut (let us call him f-Kraut for short) had been insulted
by a kuffiyeh-wearing Palestinian who marched with other brave Gilets Jaunes
along a Parisian street. It was a minor event; the scribe was not
beaten or roughly handled in any way; he was called ‘a dirty Zionist’,
not a big deal. He is a Zionist, no doubt. Other people in the
street even invited f-Kraut to join them. Pretty much a non-event. If I
was writing about every occasion I was called an ‘enemy of Israel’ or
‘enemy of the Jewish people’, I’d write of nothing else for lack of
time. But the reaction in France was like a million Smolletts.
“A
few insults directed against a certain essayist called “philosopher” by
the media are infinitely more serious than the loss of an eye by a young
student in philosophy of twenty years who had done absolutely nothing
wrong” – acerbically commented our friend Jean Bricmont (a partner and co-author of the columnist Diana Johnstone).
Indeed, the same day Macron’s henchmen knocked out an eye of a young Gilet Jaune;
they had left another one lacking an arm; thousands were attacked by
gas in what was perhaps the biggest gas assault in Europe since Ypres.
But the MSM took up the case of Finkielkraut and made a Kristallnacht
out of it. They claimed f-Kraut was called a “dirty Jew” and that he
was almost lynched, but saved by police. (Both claims are not true;
though there were cases of journalists being roughed up at the demos,
and calling someone a Jew is not an offence at all, but in this case it
didn’t even happen).
While doing a full Smollett, the media and President Macron went after the Gilets Jaunes, describing them as antisemites and Nazis. Thus a non-event was turned into a huge affaire;
and the first real popular movement in France since 1968 was
besmirched. On the same occasion, Macron explicitly equalled
anti-Zionism with antisemitism and made it a criminal offence.
In
addition, some unknown Smolletts painted swastikas on the Jewish
cemetery, as is their wont whenever Jews wish to show they are being
persecuted. I have little doubt these swastikas are painted by persons
hired by this or that Jewish organisation, or by Macron’s men who wanted
to amplify the f-kraut non-event.
Tens
of thousands of gullible French attended a rally for f-Kraut and
against antisemitism. “The fawning eagerness of the political class
rushing to demonstrate against something that hardly exists”, – noted a
French writer. The French political class paid no attention when a church was desecrated. But for a Jew whom somebody dissed on a street – they all marched. Media published denunciations
of Yellow Vests, and Macron made a lot of political capital out of it.
In purely political terms, the fallout of the f-Kraut affair could be
compared to Trump’s impeachment in the wake of the Smollett shenanigans.
Mind you, this f-kraut deserved to be insulted all right. He is a French Norman (“I hate Niggers!”) Podhoretz. He spoke
of “Black hatred for France”, said that “Gaza has too many children,
and they have no place in the world”; ridiculed Black football players
of France for being black; he is an enemy of Palestinians and of
Muslims, and he does not care much for the French people either. He is
known for his claim “What is good for the Jews is good for France”, for
his call for segregation between Jews and Palestinians. It is amazing
that a Jew with such views is considered to be “on the left”, and he is
invited to TV and newspaper interviews, though he is more racist than
French nationalists like Le Pen or Soral. He also wrote a nasty piece
against the Gilets Jaunes, but the GJs have insulted him far less than he deserves.
In
England and in France, as well as in the US, the Jews became a symbol of
the present neo-liberal regime, as the scams and hoaxes make it
apparent. This is more important for people here than the issue of
Palestine, and unavoidable reaction to neo-liberalism will cause
collapse of this Jewish role and incidentally will bring equality of Jew
and Gentile to Israel/Palestine.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
This article was first published at The Unz Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment