Anti Semitism And Its Consequences

April 23, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2019-04-23 at 07.07.58.png

By Eve Mykytyn

On March 11, 21 year old William Sullivan allegedly turned off the lights on a co-worker at Mother Earth Health Food Store and said, “you’re in the gas chamber now,”  and “fuckin’ Jew.”  Kevin Schneider co-owner of the upstate New York store released a statement that: “The situation has been handled and the employee is no longer employed by us. We have never, nor will we ever tolerate hate.”

Amazing, an anti Semitic incident and a rational response. Just kidding.

Sarah Shabanowitz (Sarah) claims that she immediately reported the incident and received from Sullivan what she considered an ‘insincere apology.’ The pair continued to work together. The next day, Sarah said she related the incident to Schneider and told him she believed management had not responded to her concerns. She claims he responded that  “My friends have called me worse.”

On March 15, Sarah claimed an assistant manager rebuked her for telling co-workers that Sullivan was ‘anti Semitic.’ The  manager told her that,  “He [Sullivan] was just making a joke,” and either to get to work or be fired. She claimed she was warned not to discuss the incident, word of which began to circulate after her mother posted about it on social media.

Sarah then relayed her account to the Ulster County Jewish Federation and filed a formal complaint against Sullivan with the state police.

On March 22, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and state police Superintendent Keith Corlett held a press conference to announce that Sullivan has been charged with aggravated harassment, a misdemeanor that carries the possibility of up to a year’s imprisonment. Although Cuomo is a lawyer and should know better, he said, “Bias-related crime, hate crimes, are not just wrong,… they are illegal,” Hate crimes require an underlying crime, and under New York criminal law aggravated harassment entails that the actor knows that his actions will cause harm or the threat of harm or that the actor creates physical contact or the threat thereof with the intent to harass. Without harm or the threat of harm, obnoxious speech is just that, and protected by the first Amendment.

Cuomo’s  office said he wanted to bring attention to the rise in anti-Semitic episodes in the state. Cuomo then rushed out a press packet with transcript, photos and video of his event. This is ironic; Cuomo and the state legislature had just come to an agreement on a law that would ban the public release of arrest mugshots and information to protect people from having their reputation ruined simply because they were arrested.

So, now Sarah the stock clerk is represented by a Manhattan civil rights attorney, Ilann M.Maazel. Maazel wrote that his client would pursue “every available remedy” in response to what he called Mother Earth’s “badly bungled handling of her complaint….They did nothing to keep Sarah safe, they belittled anti-Semitism in the workplace and they told Sarah to keep quiet.” This certainly sounds like the forerunner to a lawsuit against the store for what seems to me like no damage.

Social media has delivered outrage and calls for a boycott against the store.  Schneider, on behalf of Mother Earth, said the company is taking action to shore up their anti-harassment and discrimination policies but, he said, parts of the story told on social media and in the press were misleading — both about the incident itself and the company’s handling of the complaint. He added, “I’ve just been trying to sell good products and do good things for 41 years, I always thought of us as an asset to the community.”  Presumably Schneider will learn, if he has not yet realized, that a stupid statement by a stock clerk might ultimately cost the owners their store and the town of Saugerties its health food store.

As for Sullivan, he appeared before Town Justice Marsha Weiss on March 26, to state he could not afford a lawyer and ask for court appointed counsel. The case was continued until April 30.

Advertisements

When God is reduced into an Arsonist

April 22, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

arsonist god.jpg

 

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned last Wednesday that Shlomo Aviner, a prominent Zionist rabbi and Yeshiva leader, suggested the fire that gutted Notre-Dame may have been divine retribution for the burning of Jewish manuscripts in 1242.

In the eyes of His followers, the Jewish almighty is an elastic substance. He morphs occasionally to fit with the needs of His favourite sons and daughters. Early Zionists, for instance, demoted God into an ‘estate agent’ as they reduced the Torah into a ‘title deed’. The early Zionists were secular Jews, they didn’t believe in God but were happy to expel the indigenous Palestinians in ‘His name’ and on ‘His behalf.’  But Rabbi Aviner takes us one step further. He made the Jewish God into a lazy but revengeful arsonist. The rabbi practically makes the Jewish God into a church burner who takes eight centuries to ‘hit back.’

Shlomo Aviner is the rabbi of the Beit El settlement and head of the Ateret Yerushalayim yeshiva. He provides the ‘rational’ behind the divine retribution. “Christianity,” he says, “is our number one enemy throughout history. [They] tried to convert us by arguments and by force, carried out an inquisition against us, burned the Talmud, expulsions, pogroms. Western anti-Semitism draws from Christianity’s hatred of the ‘murderers of God.’ It also had a role in the Holocaust.”

It is needless to mention that many Israelis and Jews were appalled by Rabbi Aviner’s statement. Some Israeli politicians condemned the Rabbi and yet his blatant hatred towards Christianity is unfortunately engraved in both Jewish and Judaic thought.

Back in 2009, the Jerusalem Post reported on the growing tendency of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem to spit on their Christian neighbours. Father Samuel Aghoyan, a senior Armenian Orthodox cleric in Jerusalem’s Old City, told the JPost “that he’s been spat at by young Haredi and Orthodox Jews ‘about 15 to 20 times’ in the past decade”. Similarly, Father Athanasius, a Texas-born Franciscan monk who heads the Christian Information Centre in Jerusalem’s Old City, said he’s been spat at by Orthodox Jews “about 15 times in the last six months”.

The Israeli professor Israel Shahak commented on Jewish hatred towards Christianity and its symbolism, suggesting that “dishonouring Christian religious symbols is an old religious duty in Judaism.” According to Shahak, “spitting on the cross, and especially on the Crucifix, and spitting when a Jew passes a church, have been obligatory from around AD 200 for pious Jews.”

As I am currently in Prague, I am obliged to add that church spitting has had an impact on the landscape of the city. The following can be read in a ‘Travel Guide for Jewish Europe’:

“In Prague’s Charles Bridge, the visitor will observe a great crucifix surrounded by huge gilded Hebrew letters that spell the traditional Hebrew sanctification Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzvaot, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts.” According to various commentators, this piece, degrading to Jews, came about because in 1609 a Jew was accused of desecrating the crucifix. The Jewish community was forced to pay for putting up the Hebrew words in gold letters…”   (To read more: Travel Guide for Jewish Europe, pg 497)

Charles Bridge, Prague

Charles Bridge, Prague

Shahak maintains that “in the past, when the danger of anti-Semitic hostility was a real one, the pious Jews were commanded by their rabbis either to spit so that the reason for doing so would be unknown, or to spit onto their chests, not actually on a cross or openly before a church.”

But the anger towards the church extends well beyond the rabbinical realm. Some traces of it can be found in most secularised Jewish so-called ‘progressive’ circles. In a letter to his mother dated November 25 1937, Chaim Katz, a combatant within the Yiddish speaking Spanish International Brigade, writes “I took up arms against the persecutors of my people–the Jews–and my class–the Oppressed. I am fighting against those who establish an inquisition like that of their ideological ancestors several centuries ago, in Spain.” As we can see, Katz defines himself in the letter “as a Jew and a progressive” and sees the deadly civil war in Spain as a possible platform for Jewish retribution against the Catholic Church. It is hardly a secret that the battle in Spain escalated quickly into an orgy of burning churches.*

A week ago, we learned that the Jewish world was outraged by pro Israel Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s suggestion that the crimes of the Holocaust can be forgiven, though not forgotten. While Bolsonaro expressed the most basic Christian belief, both Yad Vashem and the Israeli president were quick to clarify that Jewish forgiveness is not an option. President Rivlin announced that “no one will enjoin the forgiveness of the Jewish people, and no interest will buy it.” Yad Vashem spokeswoman Dana Weiler-Polak said nobody can decide “if it is possible to forgive the crimes of the Holocaust.”

 If Christianity is all about forgiveness, Jewishness can be seen as an accumulative project of ‘Amalek’ characters. If Christianity is all about compassion, the ability to defy gravity by means of harmony and reconciliation, Judaism and Jewishness can be described metaphorically as gravitational forces. They are there to unite the tribe around the constant fear of an emerging enemy. I guess that those who insist on pushing the phantasmic notion of ‘Judeo-Christian values’ should bear in mind the clear ideological, spiritual, metaphysical contrast between the two distinct religious precepts that in fact have very little in common.

*Rather than taking Franco’s side I am dealing here with Jewish means of identifications.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

 

Combatting Anti-Semitism: Washington Goes to War for World Jewry

By Philip Giraldi
Source

Elan S. Carr 074e5

One of the most extraordinary displays of Jewish power in the United States took place in the State Department press briefing room on April 11th though it went virtually unreported in the mainstream media. It involved the introduction to the media of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Elan S. Carr, who had been sworn in earlier that day by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Carr, who will “lead United States policies and projects aimed at countering anti-Semitism throughout the world,” is a former Los Angeles prosecutor, who is, of course, Jewish, and ran for Congress in 2014 declaring that he was a “reliable vote for Israel.” He believes U.S. support for Israel should be “constant, unequivocal and bipartisan.” Carr speaks Hebrew, boasts about his visits to Israel every year and is a protege of GOP casino magnate and mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.

The State Department already has an Office of International Religious Freedom which inter aliaseeks to “Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries” while also “identify[ing] and denounce[ing] regimes that are severe persecutors on the basis of religious belief.” It would seem that the International Religious Freedom office has all the bases covered, but there is apparently the Jewish exception rule that operates across the federal government and even at state levels. Jews, definable both as a religion and an ethnicity, clearly require more protection from government than other groups even though they are the most wealthy and politically powerful segment of the population both in the United States as well as in numerous European and Anglophone countries where they have a significant presence.

Here in America, Jewish organizations already benefit directly and grossly disproportionately as recipients of over 90% of Department of Homeland Security discretionary funds to protect their buildings and offices and such largesse is also the rule in countries like Britain and France. Holocaust education is mandatory in nearly all school districts, presumably to depict both Israel and Jews in a favorable light, and legislation to penalize or even criminalize any criticism of Israel is now in place in a majority of American states. Criticism of Israel is already regarded by the federal government as de facto anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism is itself considered a hate crime, subject to harsh penalties.

The United States is now committed to protecting Jews worldwide, with Carr putting it this way in a comment he made at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in February, shortly after he was nominated: “My office was created by law and designed to protect the Jewish people throughout the world. Think about that. The world’s greatest power is focused, by law and design, on protecting the Jews.”

One is hard pressed to find in the Constitution of the United States some mention of the “law or design” that mandated protecting one particular ethno-religious group worldwide at taxpayer expense. Nor has there ever been a referendum on the question of whether Jews should be protected by Washington no matter where they live. Indeed, if there is a religious group that is facing extinction it is Christians in the birthplace of the religion in the Middle East, but there is little advocacy on the part of the U.S. government regarding their plight because it is Israel that has been actively engaged in creating unfavorable conditions for Palestinian Christians that eventually lead them to emigrate. It is called ethnic cleansing to make the Jewish state truly and completely Jewish. Ironically, Christians are better protected in neighboring majority Muslim countries Syria, Lebanon and even in Iran.

To be reminded once again just how powerful Jewish interests are in the United States, it is only necessary to examine some of Carr’s remarks. He is, of course, an opponent of the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which seeks to apply economic pressure against Israel to persuade it to end its colonization of the Arab West Bank and its ruthless suppression of the Palestinians.

Carr regards it as an “honor” to be sworn in to “fight against anti-Semitism, to the protection of the Jewish people throughout the world, and to the support for the Jewish state.” He intends to do that by “ focus[ing] relentlessly on eradicating this false distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.” He elaborated that “…if there is an organized movement to economically strangle the state of Israel, that is anti-Semitic, and the administration has gone on the record for – as being opposed unequivocally to the BDS movement and the idea that somehow there can be movements organized to deny Israel its legitimacy and not to allow Israel to participate in economic commerce in the world – sure, that is. Hatred of the Jewish state is hatred of the Jewish people, and that’s something that’s very clear and that is our policy.”

Carr, responding to a question, also discussed what is now the U.S. government’s accepted definition of anti-Semitism, that “Criticism of the policies of any country, whether it’s the state of Israel or of the United States, is entirely proper and can’t be regarded as being inappropriate. However, as you may know, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism gives as a specific example the application of double standards to the state of Israel. And so if Israel is criticized in a way that no other country in a similar circumstance is criticized, yes, that is anti-Semitism.”

A journalist asked “Having covered the Israeli-Palestinian issues for – like many other people in this room – for a very, very long time, we know that U.S. former President Jimmy Carter did refer to Israel as an apartheid state, that it’s more of a human rights issue, especially with – in terms of policy. And a lot of things that the Trump administration has done – moving the U.S. embassy, recognizing the sovereignty of Israel over the Golan Heights – as not recognized under the international community. Can you tell me why you think Israeli settlements and a boycott, which was reminiscent of sort of South African sanctions issues and divestment, is an anti-Semitic issue specifically and not really one of more of a human rights or two peoples that need to get along?”

Carr responded: “I think any comparison between the state of Israel and apartheid is offensive to its core, and anyone who makes that comparison needs to check their facts. Israel is an exemplar of a democracy with democratic values, where all citizens of Israel not only vote but have representation in the Knesset, including, by the way, in the election we saw just yesterday. And so any notion that the state of Israel, which is a shining example of a democracy and a shining example of an American ally, one of our best allies – any suggestion that the state of Israel in any way, even remotely, reflects apartheid is offensive.”

Elan Carr is living on fantasy island, but he knows perfectly well that within the framework of the United States government he can say all the good things he wants about Israel while simultaneously labeling its critics as evil, even if you have to make things up, which he does when he claims repeatedly that BDS is seeking to “strangle” the Jewish state. He certainly knows perfectly well that hatred of the Jewish state is not hatred of the Jewish people but chooses to ignore the fact that Israel is criticized for how it behaves not because of what religion it claims to represent. If it is uniquely criticized it is because its record of war crimes is unique.

And Carr also should understand but clearly chooses not to, that criticism of Israel is not equatable to anti-Semitism but for the fact that he offers a definition designed to come to that conclusion. And even if it were so, there is that pesky thing called the First Amendment. Israel is no “shining example of democracy,” nor is it an ally of the United States. It is a perfect example of an essentially racist apartheid state, worse than South Africa was before it democratized, and it is also a parasite that has completely corrupted America’s body politic, which is why Carr has the position that he holds.

Finally, the United States has no moral or legal authority to police the world on behalf of international Jewry. It does not need a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism to lead it on a crusade – dare I use that word in this context – to fix the world and make it a more comfortable and enriching experience for people like Elan Carr. American taxpayers should not be required to support this kind of entitlement nonsense, particularly as Israel and worldwide Jewish communities are wealthy and powerful enough to protect themselves without having to bleed the rest of the world by virtue of an unending victim narrative that generates a guilt trip relating to events in Europe seventy years ago. Will Americans ever arrive at a point where Israel and its diaspora helpmates like Carr will just leave the rest of us alone? One can only hope.

Is Julian Assange An Anti Semite As Well As A Publisher?

assange.jpg

April 19, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Eve Mykytyn

The public debate around Assange has to do with government secrecy, the rights of the press and the ability of the United States to impose its laws upon a nonresident noncitizen. Why is it then that for some outlets the crucial issue is whether Assange is an anti Semite? Must every public figure undergo examination for possible anti Semitism or is this how an unrelated discourse is diverted?

The media has frequently accused Assange of anti Semitism with what seems like shaky evidence. See: The Guardian, Slate, Wired and The New York Times. The media does not credit Assange’s consistent denials, failing to treat them as even evidence of his own state of mind.

Not surprisingly, the faux left outlet The Forward gives breathless coverage to Assange’s ‘anti Semitism,’  lamenting that his anti Semitism persists “despite the fact that some of his most loyal employees and public defenders are themselves Jewish.” Actually, this fact gives weight to Assange’s claim that he is not an anti Semite.

As evidence, the Forward charges that Assange employed “the anti Semitic holocaust denier … Israel Shamir.” Shamir has denied such allegations, writing: “my family lost too many of its sons and daughters for me to deny the facts of Jewish tragedy, … I do deny the morbid cult of Holocaust.”  Whatever Shamir is, does merely employing him transfer his beliefs to Assange? Is anti Semitism, like the measles, contagious?

The editor of the British Magazine Private Eye, Ian Hislop  wrote about an alleged phone call he had with Assange based solely “as much as I could remember.”  According to Hislop, Assange said there was an “international conspiracy to smear Wikileaks… an obvious attempt to deprive him and his organisation of Jewish support and donations.”  Assange called Hislop’s story a lie, and noted that his organization has “some Jewish staff and enjoys wide spread Jewish support” and has itself been accused of working on behalf of the Mossad and George Soros.

Some of Assange’s other offenses? He called out the idiocy of those who identify as Jewish by using a triple parentheses. ((())): The WikiLeaks website’s online shop sold a t shirt with the words “first they came for Assange,” words that the Forward interprets as Assange comparing himself to a holocaust victim, apparently a comparison only permitted the children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews of a holocaust victim.

Haaretz, the ‘liberal’ Israeli outlet uses Assange’s alleged anti Semitism to join their Labour brethren in condemning Corbyn. Why? Here’s the Haaretz  headline:  “Why Jeremy Corbyn Loves Julian Assange So Much; The UK Labour leader’s kneejerk support for the Wikileaks founder is entirely predictable, as is Corbyn’s lack of response to the scent of anti-Semitism Assange exudes.”

Jeremy Corbyn called Assange a twenty-first century folk hero for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and has opposed his extradition. Yet Haaretz fantastically ‘discerns’ that the real reason Corbyn supports Assange is because Wikileaks published material stolen from the CIA that included 2500 files relating to cables sent by the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Why do Israel’s supporters condemn Assange with seemingly irrelevant charges of anti Semitism?  Anti Semitism is the default argument against perceived opponents of Israel.

I suspect that the true basis of their opposition is based on Corbyn’s actual words. Assange exposed the present neocon wars for the tragic mess they are. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were pushed by Israel.  As Israel seems to be leading us to the edge of a war with Iran, it hardly wants us reminded of the deadly costs of war.

By damning Assange for anti Semitism instead of grappling with the more important issues of waging neocon wars or even freedom of the press, some of Israel’s supporters can maintain their ‘leftist’ credentials  while still helping to minimize Assange’s influence.

Source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/writing/2019/4/16/is-julian-assange-an-anti-semite-as-well-as-a-publisher

On Jews Being United

April 18, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

soral.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In his Times of Israel article “What All Anti-Semites Have In Common,” Andres Spokoiny, president and CEO of the Jewish Funders Network, tells us everything we shouldn’t know about the current state of the Jew/Goy divide.

“Today,” Spokoiny complains, “many Jews are willing to overlook and even excuse anti-Semitism when the bigots hate a certain type of Jews.” In the good old days, anti-Semitism was a uniting force. “Anti-Semitism used to be the big Jewish unifier. Jews were always fractious and quarrelsome, but when it came to anti-Semitism, everybody agreed. Anti-Semites hated us without distinction, so in the face of a common threat, we would recognize the danger and unite.” Spokoiny is nostalgic, he wants to see the Jews reunited into a fist of resistance against anti-Semitism.

In the eyes of Spokoiny, the three types of contemporary anti-Semitism, be it Left, Right or Islamic (“which is not only fascistic but outright genocidal,” according to Spokoiny) are in fact one by nature: “there’s just one type of anti-Semitism that simply dresses its ugly persona in different ideological garments.” So it isn’t just the Jews that should be reunited; the Goyim, or shall we say the rest humanity, aren’t diverse either, their oppositions to Jewish politics, Israel or Zionism are only a matter of “different ideological garments.”

In Spokoiny’s universe, the Jews are hated for being Jews. It is not that some oppose Israel for being racist, expansionist and genocidal. It is not because some may be upset that the Israeli Lobby dominates Western foreign affairs in the open. It is not because American and British boys and girls are sent to fight and die in Zio-con wars, it is not because some have noticed that it was a bunch of prominent Jewish intellectuals who have managed to reshape the Western ethos by means of so-called progressive ideologies. It is not because the media seems to be biased in favour of a criminal state, which happens to be a Jewish one. In Spokoiny, reasoning and self-reflection are pushed aside. In his universe some just hate Jews blindly, irrationally and for no reason.

But Spokoiny may as well be right. There is a common element in the Left-wing, Right-wing, Christian and Islamic opposition to Jewish politics, culture and ideology: opposition to choseness is how Bernard Lazare described it in his 1894 Zionist text Antisemitism: Its History and Causes. There is a shared common ground that unites all those so-called ‘anti-Semites.’ The alleged ‘enemies of the Jews’ are people who want the Jewish past to be subject to scrutiny like all other historical chapters, Israeli barbarism to be curtailed, Wall Street to be restricted, Palestine to be free. They want globalisation to be halted, immoral interventionism to die out. The so-called ‘anti-Semites’ actually follow the Zionist promise, they want Jews to finally assimilate and become ‘people like all other people.’ The so-called ‘enemies of the Jews’ are upholding the most enlightened rational universalist ethical positions. They treat Jews as ordinary people and expect their state and institutions to subscribe to ethical standards.

Spokoiny hates Alain Soral, the French intellectual who was sentenced this week to one year in prison by a French court for “negationisme” (history revisionism).

In the eyes of French Jewish institutes and Spokoiny, Soral is the ultimate enemy. He has managed to present a unifying message that appeals to the Left, the Right and Muslim immigrants. Soral calls for a universal reconciliation, between them all under a French nationalist egalitarian ethos. The French Jewish institutions see Soral’s call as a vile anti-Semitic message as it doesn’t seem to accommodate Jewish exceptionalism. However, some Jews have joined Soral’s movement. But they clearly demoted themselves to French patriots. They left chosenism behind, they see themselves primarily as French.

“We in the Jewish community need to believe him (Soral).” Spokoiny writes, “We need to stop participating in the divide-and-conquer game of those who hate us.” In other words, Spokoiny wants to see Jews as one monolithic identity. One that sticks together and exercises its power. If Spokoiny or anyone else thinks that such politics may eradicate anti-Semitism, he or she must be either naïve or just stupid   . What Jews need to do is to self-reflect, to ask themselves why anti-Semitism is rising again. Jews must identify their own role in this emerging reality. Rather than constantly blaming their so called ‘haters,’ Jews may want to repeat the early Zionist exercise and ask what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

The Brink-a film review by Eve Mykytyn

April 04, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: Steve Bannon is probably the most unpopular character as far as progressives and liberals are concerned. People who like to see themselves at the Left side of the political spectrum  regard Bannon as a vile hateful character as well as a rabid antisemite. Yet, symptomatically or even tragically, those who detest Bannon shy away from tackling his populist mantra. This is rather concerning considering the fact that Bannon has proven to be a shrewd political tactician and even a kingmaker. It is probably Bannon who carries the prime responsibility for Trump’s successful presidential campaign. Those who are fearful of Bannon revert to name-calling: they slalom in between his ideas with the hope that no one notices. They do their best to avoid anything that may evoke thinking or resemble reasoning.  It is not a secret that those who currently claim to advocate social justice are apparently too fearful to engage with substance but they fail to do so in the name of social justice.  

 In the following film review Eve Myktyn tells us about Alison Klayman’s The Brink.  Mykytyn went to the film hoping to learn more about Bannon but it seems she left the cinema knowing more about Klayman’s phobia of the man. If those who call themselves progressives want to sustain relevance, sooner or later they will have to engage in a proper intellectual exchange as name calling, misquoting and crude editing tactics do not do justice to social justice. 

A film review by Eve Mykytyn

Steve Bannon may well be, as he is often called,  the ‘architect of evil.’  But Alison Klayman’s mystifying documentary, The Brink, which sets out to “[use] Bannon’s own words and behaviors to reveal his hypocrisy and expose the danger he poses to liberal democracy”  fails to show Bannon as hypocritical or dangerous.

The film’s opens begins with Bannon talking about a journey he made to World War II’s concentration camps. He notes that the Birkenau concentration camp was built using the finest of German engineering and wonders how ordinary Germans could get together and plan such a site. Perhaps Klayman felt that she couldn’t cut this otherwise disconnected scene because it showed Bannon to be an anti Semite, although he was simply musing about how a concentration camp came to be built. Is any question about any aspect of the Holocaust verboten? Apparently so, The Forward  interprets Bannon’s remarks as: “rhapsodiz[ing] about the precise engineering of one of the most evil thing humans have ever created, the Birkenau extermination camp.”

Instead, of engaging with Bannon’s avowedly nationalist politics, much of the film is devoted to a fly-on-the-wall view of Bannon’s daily routine. Bannon eats and drinks (a combination of  Red Bull and a disgusting mess of green ‘diet’ juice), speaks at rallies, poses for photos, meets with nationalist leaders in Europe, touts his propaganda movie, and texts and talks endlessly on the phone: so much film time is devoted to the quotidian aspects of Bannon’s life that the shrewd and divisive political operative is reduced to boring.

Klayman attempts to score a point by asking Bannon where he is, so that she can report that he is on an airfield for private planes. Is Bannon’s not particularly luxurious private plane, filled with his allies and journalists really relevant to the larger debate?

The film follows Bannon to Toronto where he appears for a formal debate with David From on the proposition that the “future of western politics is populist, not liberal.”  This is finally the real debate. Is it ‘country first’ or do we have a responsibility to all without regard to borders? The debate can be found here (the first 10 minutes of chatter can be skipped): the exchange between two articulate men whose views are antithetical to each other is well worth the time. Tellingly, The Brink does not show the debate, instead we see the effects that Bannon’s presence evokes. The protests outside the debate are portrayed as huge and scary, inside Bannon gently confronts hecklers, whose poor behavior he comically attributes to an ‘ex-wife.’  That’s it. The Brink apparently feels no need to counter Bannon’s views or even better, simply show From’s effective dissent.

 

When the film does allow Bannon to articulate his thesis, it is in a brief scene in which Bannon is speaking to a rally. In it, Bannon states that the benefits of citizenship should be distributed only to citizens, without regard to race, religion or sexual preference.  This is the core of the populist nationalist movement that helped elect Donald Trump and has scored victories in Britain, France, Belgium and Sweden.  Bannon’s current project is to knit together like-minded counter globalists from Europe and the United States.

The Brink’s opposition to nationalist populism is left to Guardian reporter Paul Lewis who accuses Bannon of using “anti-Semitic tropes,” then interrupts Bannon’s denial. Bannon insists that there’s nothing nefarious about using the term “globalist” or criticizing George Soros for the NGOs he funds. Vogue claims Bannon uses the term globalist “with a wink and a nod…as a stand-in for Jews.”  Bannon’s movement is opposed to globalism. Is there a non anti Semitic way to oppose globalism?

Just  in case anyone failed to understand the intended message, the film ends with a stirring homage to the current crop of new representatives with the background picture of Washington, DC lit in rainbow hues. Apparently, a diverse group of new congressmen and women is a refutation of Bannon and what he stands for, too bad that The Brink fails to explain why that may be so.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/reviews/2019/4/3/review-of-the-brink

Denote

Is Anti Semitism A Symptom Of Measles?

ortodox.jpg

By Eve Mykytyn

The New York Times reported that: “An Outbreak Spreads Fear, of Measles, of Ultra Orthodox Jews, of Anti Semitism.” The Times’ reporting on a measles outbreak focuses not on the negative health effects of measles or on the risk that others will contract the disease but on the sensitivities of the Hasidic community and the as yet unsubstantiated fear that the outbreak might increase anti Semitism.

Rockland County, a northern exurb of New York City, has one of the largest concentrations of Hasidic Jews in the United States. Since October, there have been 157 confirmed cases of measles in the county. County health officials said that after the first cases of measles were contracted by people who had traveled to Israel the disease spread to the children of ultra-Orthodox families who were not vaccinated.  In November, the county instituted “exclusion orders” that barred unvaccinated children from attending schools with low vaccination rates.

Last Tuesday, County officials declared a state of emergency, barring unvaccinated children from public places, including restaurants, shopping centers, houses of worship and schools. County spokesman, John G. Lyon, said there would not be any active enforcement of the emergency rule. “There won’t be police officers… outside of grocery stores. Nobody’s going to ask anyone to see their vaccination records or medical history.” He explained that  the order was intended as an incentive for people both to vaccinate their children and to cooperate with the health department’s efforts to contain the outbreak.

Hasidic leaders said they feared an invasion of their community by the authorities under the guise of public health. Aron Wieder, an Hasidic Rockland County state legislator, complained that he had learned about the order from news reports, and that Hasidim had been excluded from the decision-making process. Of course, the decision was made by health authorities and no communities should have been or were consulted. But Wieder warned that people “who are true haters, will take advantage of this type of situation and it just pours fuel on the fire.”

Wieder claimed that he has fielded ‘nonstop phone calls’ from fellow Hasidim fearful of being vilified. “The conception that is out there is completely distorted, and that is, that the Orthodox community for the most part don’t vaccinate their children, and that is not true.” Wieder said that the county executive had a’ moral obligation’ to defend the Hasidic community against accusations of spreading measles. Which I suppose means that Wieder believes that the county executive has a moral obligation to correct the accurate observation that the Hasidim are the ones spreading measles. (larger outbreaks are occurring in Hasidic communities in New York City). There have been measles outbreaks in other states as well, and not all are linked to Hasidic communities.

Steve Gold, the chairman of the Jewish Community Relations Council for the Jewish Federation of Rockland, shared Mr. Wieder’s concerns, saying the move by county officials risked exacerbating the anti-Semitism that already existed in the area before the measles crisis. He pointed to anti-Semitic episodes, citing a 2017 incident of swastikas spray-painted on trees. “I think it just opened up the door for everybody to say whatever they wanted to say,” Mr. Gold said. “And they’re putting, the way it looks right now, 100 percent blame on the Orthodox community.”

This outbreak of hysteria by the Hasidim over possible anti Semitism resulting from their own behavior, is in part a continuation of the existing tensions between the Hasidim and their neighbors in this formerly exurban environment now marred by high density developments. The divisions are primarily the result of the battle over schools and school funding.  The Hasidim, who do not use the public schools, have managed to gain control of local school boards. Funding for the public schools has been cut and money has been siphoned to yeshivas. It is possible that where the Hasidim see anti Semitism, what they are really seeing are the consequences of their own treatment of their neighbors.

source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/writing/2019/4/2/is-anti-semitism-a-symptom-of-measles

%d bloggers like this: