Why Don't You Write More About Right-Wing Antisemitism?

An AJC survey provides the answer

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

As regular VC readers know, I write with some regularity about antisemitism. As such readers also know, I tend to focus more on left-wing antisemitism, and sometimes write about exaggerations of antisemitism on the right. My interlocutors sometimes accuse me of doing this for ideological reasons, that I "like" the right and "dislike" the left. Well, I actually don't like right-wing antisemites. At all. To say the least.

But there is another reason why my writings skew the way they do, which is my sense that those concerned most with antisemitism, in particular the Jewish community in both its organizational and individual manifestations, tend to focus on (and indeed sometimes exaggerate the scope of) right-wing antisemitism, and ignore, neglect, or downplay left-wing antisemitism.

A new survey of American Jews confirms my instincts (I excluded the "don't knows" below). For the record, my response to each of these would be "moderately serious threat":

In your view, how much of an antisemitic threat does the extreme political right represent in the United States today?

Very serious threat 49%

Moderately serious threat 29%

Slight threat 11%

No threat at all 9%

In your view, how much of an antisemitic threat does the extreme political left represent in the United States today?

Very serious threat 15%

Moderately serious threat 21%

Slight threat 28%

No threat at all 34%

In your view, how much of an antisemitic threat does extremism in the name of Islam represent in the United States today?

Very serious threat 27%

Moderately serious threat 27%

Slight threat 31%

No threat at all 14%

A few things stand out here. First, about half of American Jews think extreme right-wing antisemitism is a very serious threat, and another 30% thinks it's a moderately serious threat. So it's not like there is a lack of concern about right-wing antisemitism that somehow needs correcting with blogging and other educational activities.

On the other hand, the statistics for antisemitism on the extreme left and from radical Islamists are remarkable. For example, Great Britain is the second-closest country culturally to the U.S., after Canada. One of the two major parties has been taken over by an antisemite, and his ideological compatriots are a growing force in the Democratic Party. There have been a series of overtly (and well-publicized) antisemitic acts on college campuses arising from the extreme left. Some Democratic politicians openly admire antisemites ranging from the overt (Farrkhan) to the somewhat more subtle (Omar). But 34% of American Jews see no threat at all.

With regard to radical Islam, there have been several murders of Jews and attacks on Jewish institutions emanating from radical Islamists over the last two decades, and Al Qaeda chose to attack New York City on 9/11 in part from antisemitic motive. Antisemitic violence in Europe, including well-publicized murders, comes primarily from Islamists. But 45% of American Jews see no threat at all or only a slight threat from extremist Islamists.

Note also this question:

Over the past five years, do you think antisemitism in the United States has…

Increased a lot 43%

Increased somewhat 41%

Stayed the same 12%

Decreased a little 3%

Decreased a lot 1%

There is, in fact, no good empirical evidence that antisemitism has increased *at all,* much less a lot, though extremist antisemites have become more vocal, organized, and more able to get a platform now that mainstream gatekeepers in the media no longer serve that function. Have they become more violent? Probably somewhat, but that's a different question than whether antisemitism overall has increased.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump's Cronies Meddling in Ukraine Undermined U.S. Goals, Says Ambassador Taylor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have no opinion on the validity of these very subjective polls. But it has always amazed me how much worse Hitler’s reputation is compared to Stalin (Mao is a different problem) when the two started WW II together, Stalin murdered more people, and both blamed Jews for their problems.

    And yet Marxian professors crowd campuses! I doubt there’s a single neo-Nazi on any mainstream American campus, but Marxians are applauded as they openly brag about how wonderful various murderers are – Chavez, Castro, Lenin. Hell, look at all the stupid Che t-shits — and wonder what a shit storm you’d get for any minor Nazi t-shirt.

    Stalin won and was an “ally”, Hitler lost and was an enemy. I suppose that’s the standard explanation.

    I’d like to see some statistics on how many communists and nazis there were in America before 1939. The communists were famous for swiveling their political opinion of Hitler on August 22, 1939, and in June 1941. They also had a 14 year head start (1917 to 1933) in having an idol to worship. Is that part of it, that the USSR lasted longer than the Third Reich?

    I just do not understand why any university tolerates a single Marxian in their faculty. Adoring mass murderers ought to be grounds for unemployment.

      1. At worst, he’s annoyingly right.

        1. He’s certainly annoyingly off-topic.

          1. It’s as on-topic as can be. The article is about left vs right anti-semitism, and why the left variety doesn’t bother anyone.

            1. Agreed. For the record, my own opinion is that our alliance of convenience with Stalin gave the Communists just enough cover that the left didn’t cleanse itself the way the right expelled its fascists.

              Now, of course, the communists are making a resurgence, with the fading, (Deliberately bleached, even.) memory of the cold war. I do hope we don’t have to learn the lesson of their evil all over again, only on our own soil this time.

              1. ” our alliance of convenience with Stalin gave the Communists just enough cover that the left didn’t cleanse itself the way the right expelled its fascists.”

                Does the name “McCarthy” ring a bell?
                After WWII, people with fascist leanings had (mostly) learned to keep them quiet. But people with Marxist leanings didn’t keep quiet about them, and they were fairly easy to spot. We went through a purge but academia was largely safe from it, because of respect for freedom of research.

                1. “Does the name “McCarthy” ring a bell?”

                  We’ve watched the Democrats do him one better for the last three years.

                  1. The rest of us cannot watch things that happen in your imagination.

                2. The “commie witch hunts” did not begin with McCarthy; they only ended with him.

                  1. They didn’t end with him, either. Hollywood kept up the blacklists into the 80’s, although some got a pass because they earned enough money. Lucille Ball, for example.

            2. The left variety doesn’t bother anyone?

              I don’t see Bernstein making that claim. He does gpo overboard here:

              One of the two major parties has been taken over by an antisemite, and his ideological compatriots are a growing force in the Democratic Party.

              He’s right about Corbyn, IMO, but not about antisemites becoming a “growing force” in the Democratic Party. The remarks by Omar which he objects to – as do I – are no worse than some by Trump.

              1. Which ones from Trump? In particular? Did he accuse Israel of “hypnotizing” the world?

                1. You’re a fucking sealion.

                2. “Did he accuse Israel of “hypnotizing” the world?”

                  His campaign sent out an ad (the one with ominous images of Soros, Yellen, and Blancfein) which might as well have.

                  1. In what way? People keep trying to claim Trump is anti-Semitic in spite of mountains of evidence to the opposite.

                    1. Did you see the ad? The antisemitic tropes jump off the page.

                      FWIW, although Trump has done and said any number of antisemitic things, I don’t consider him an antisemite. I suspect his behavior is strictly instrumental, indicating nothing about his beliefs or feelings. I assume he’d do the same to any other group if it profited him or appealed to his narcissism.

                      None of which excuses him, of course. He’s no less culpable than if he actually did hate Jews. The consequences of his behavior are the same regardless. Whether he hates Jews or loves them, he’s willing to throw them under the bus. That’s all that matters.

                    2. “People keep trying to claim Trump is anti-Semitic in spite of mountains of evidence to the opposite.”

                      Trump is biased against everybody who is not Trump. If a subgroup is personally loyal to him, he’ll return their loyalty, as long as it doesn’t cost him anything.

                  2. Leo Marvin wrote: “His campaign sent out an ad (the one with ominous images of Soros, Yellen, and Blancfein) which might as well have.”

                    I’ve seen that ad. There are brief camera shots of Soros, Yellin, and Blankfein in a much longer ad. I was struck by the fact that Soros is by far the most notable donor on the Left, and Yellen was the chair of the Federal Reserve. It’s hard to see how they could be left out of an ad from the Right that targeted economic political opponents. No one else of note was really available.

                    What about Lloyd Blankfein? It would have been possible for the Trump marketers to have chosen a shot of Jamie Dimon (Greek Orthodox) instead, rather than Blankfein, but they’d be the two most likely candidates. They might have decided “Geez! We can’t put another Jew in there! Let’s go with Dimon.” Which would have sucked all the air out of the charge. But they didn’t. Their bad.

                    Frankly, the ad is a poor vehicle for trying to document antisemitism, and in any event the extremely high regard with which evangelical Christians — Trump’s most important constituency — hold Jews would make an antisemitic approach counterproductive. Trump gets a pass on this one.

                    1. Here you go, pobyh.

                      Lots of benjamins in that ad.

    1. …Marxian?

      When’s the last time you were on a college campus.

      1. et tu? Professors are 90 percent liberal,and Democrat professors on average outnumber Republican faculty by a 12-to-1 ratio. Are you going to find someone who calls themselves a Trotskyite? No. But about 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists. Expand the definition of communism to cultural marxism, and the universities are the nucleus of the movement.

        My links were flagged for some reason, causing my post to not appear. Here is the search terms for the survey data:
        Universities Breed Anger, Ignorance, and Ingratitude
        By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

        Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors

        1. An opinion piece from Victor Davis Hanson is an anecdote at best.

          The key to avoid flagging is one naked link per post.

          1. Not the survey data he cites.

            1. Hanson cites one survey that shows Democrats outnumebr Republicans on college faculties by 12-1. He provides no link to the survey, or details of its methodology. Still, I’m prepared to believe that Democrats do substantially outnumber Republicans.

              That is early in the article. The rest is just an uninformed rant.

              1. Or this.

                “My sample of 8,688 tenure track, Ph.D.–holding professors from fifty-one of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. News 2017 report consists of 5,197, or 59.8 percent, who are registered either Republican or Democrat. The mean Democratic-to-Republican ratio (D:R) across the sample is 10.4:1, but because of an anomaly in the definition of what constitutes a liberal arts college in the U.S. News survey, I include two military colleges, West Point and Annapolis. If these are excluded, the D:R ratio is a whopping 12.7:1.”

                1. Let’s suppose the numbers as reported are 100% accurate.
                  The next question is “so fucking what?” People with more higher education tend to be more liberal, and faculty at liberal-arts colleges are selected for having higher education. Is being smarter causing people to be more liberal?
                  My answer is no… Conservatives, as a bunch, are much more dismissive of higher education. They respect a guy who dropped out of school to start a business that made him a multimillionaire more than they respect the guy who stayed in school, and earned a stack of degrees. If they’re capable, they’re more likely to follow that path.

                1. Does any of that change the fact that Hanson’s article is primarily a rant?

                  1. Just addressing your complaint. The enormous and growing disparity between the number of liberals and conservatives in college faculty is a well studied topic, that it is in the double digits and rising fast is not particularly in doubt.

                    1. …and if it involved ANY “protected” group would be proof of systemic racism/sexism/whatever.

                    2. ” The enormous and growing disparity between the number of liberals and conservatives in college faculty is a well studied topic, that it is in the double digits and rising fast is not particularly in doubt.”

                      The cause is certainly in doubt.

                  2. bernard11 wrote: “Does any of that change the fact that Hanson’s article is primarily a rant?”

                    Whether it’s a rant or not is immaterial. This is about the numbers. A lot of people wrap numbers in rants. Are the numbers bad? Is there any reason to think they’re bad? Are there /any/ numbers that point in a different direction?

                    1. Um, Hanson provides a link only for m_k’s claim about the 12-1 ratio, not the 18% business.

                      And yes, the article is a rant.

              2. New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists

                “One item asked “Where would you put yourself on a continuum from liberal to conservative?” …The graph shows that 291 of the 326 people who responded to this question picked a left-of-center label (that’s 89.3%), and only 8 people (2.5%) picked a right of center label, giving us a Left to Right ratio of 36 to one. This is much higher than that found by Inbar and Lammers. The main source of political diversity appears to be the 27 people (including me) who self-identified as centrists.”

                “Another item asked: “Who did you vote for in the last presidential election (if you are not a US citizen, or if you did not vote, who would you have voted for if you had voted)? The options were: “Obama,” “Romney,” or “Other.” … The graph shows that 305 of the 322 people (94.7%) who responded to this question voted for Obama, 4 (1.2%) voted for Romney, and 13 (4.0%) said they voted for another candidate. This gives us a Democrat to Republican ratio of 76 to one.”

                1. Lots of numbers that there are lots of liberals on faculties.

                  Says nothing about indoctrination or Marxism or any of that rot.

                  1. But about 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists according to the second article, did you miss that?

                    1. 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists according to the second article, did you miss that?

                      I did miss it originally, but checked it when I saw this comment. It;s a claim by two academics at an AEI meeting – no details of the basis for it are given.

                      I did enjoy this headline:

                      Panelists for the American Enterprise Institute agree that American universities are driving away much-needed conservative intellectuals because of their liberal policies..

                      Panelists at an AEI event think that? Wow!

                      Of course the assumption that there are a lot of “conservative intellectuals” is worth questioning.

                    2. CAPABLE Conservative intellectuals tend to choose careers other than academia, in fields where they can make more money.

          2. Thanks for the tip on links.

          3. Victor Davis Hanson (Cal Santa Cruz, Stanford) figures other people should avoid strong liberal-libertarian colleges? (But not his children, I would wager.)

            He reminds me of Prof. Bryan Caplan (Berkeley, Princeton), who also counsels against choosing strong colleges and universities, but is destined to find a reason to consider his children the exceptions, too.

        2. Your links were probably flagged not because of their content but because there were multiple. The Reason commenting system automatically flags any comment containing more than one hyperlink for review. As near as I can tell, however, there is no actual “review” – the comment just stays in quarantine forever.

          While the limit makes some sense from an anti-spam point of view. this limit of the commenting system inexplicably doesn’t seem to be documented anywhere. You have to find out about it by trial-and-error.

      2. Considering your lousy punctuation, I’d guess more recent than you.

        1. I found one Nazi, of the grammar persuasion at least.

        2. I use Marxian punctuation. You wouldn’t understand.

          Dude, it’s Marxist. Whatever lame semantic burn you’re trying to pull is only making you look weird.

          Anyhow, Stalin sucks. I don’t know if he sucks as much to the US as Hitler does, though. Plus, as noted below, gas chambers > Whether that chaps your butt or not is your own personal struggle.
          But also has little to do with Marx or Marxism. Marxism is still dumb and wrong, and inspired the regime that allowed Stalin, but blaming Marx for Stalin is red-bating more than anything else.

          Plus, of course Marx did a lot more than Marxism. He did some work in paradigms and methods of scholarship, beyond anything ideological.

          1. I wonder, do you not blame the ideology of white supremacy for Nazism the same way you do not blame the ideology of Marxim for Stalin?

            1. Stalin was a guy who liked to be powerful, and who was willing to do whatever it took to remain powerful. This is a trait he shared with Hitler. Ideology had approximately 0.00 to do with it… some people are just drawn to power and have difficulty giving it up if they manage to accumulate any. Jesus declined to rise up and displace the Romans, or exercise any kind of authority over anyone. But Jesus was also Jesus, and (surprise!) most people are not Jesus, and the likelihood seems to go down as the level of power over others increases. Noblesse Oblige is a nice theory, but doesn’t find its way into practice very often.

              1. What is your point? Are you trying to say that dictators have no ideology, therefore whining about Marxians is immature?

                1. I said that two dictators in specific weren’t driven by ideology, except to the effect that exhorting ideology kept them in power. You CAN have dictators who aren’t driven to get and keep power… Cincinnatus comes to mind… but most people who become dictators have dictatorial leanings long before they obtain their dictatorship. The American electorate is spoiled… they haven’t had to deal with an actual dictator since the Founding. There have been some would-be dictators, but the structure of government here tends to place limits sufficient to restrain them.

                  1. I said that two dictators in specific weren’t driven by ideology, except to the effect that exhorting ideology kept them in power.

                    This is of course nonsense. Stalin had been a fervent Marxist revolutionary for twenty years before the Bolshevik Revolution. He was fully bought in to Marxist theory and was determined to stick to it even when it was obvious that it was a miserable failure – see collectivisation. The notion that Stalin was just a thug who didn’t understand or care about Marxism is just Trotskyite fake news.

                    Likewise Hitler was fully on board with his own rather eclectic ideology and had clear objectives for what was to be achieved with political power. Which he proceeded to pursue, at pace, as soon as he had power.

                    There was nothing fake about either man’s ideological commitment.

                    The fellow whose ghost you are not quite making out in the murky background when you put Hitler and Stain side by side and chatter about dictatorship, is Lenin.

                    The Soviet ideology was not Marxism but Marxism-Leninism. And Leninism is not the same thing as Marxism. Leninism is the creed of politics as pure power, with unlimited violence and without restraint or nuance – no holds barred, no rules, no mercy, no pity, no prisoners, no regrets. Leninism is ruthlessness as an ideology.

                    And as such it can be attached just as well to Nazi-ism as it can to Marxism. Hitler was not a disciple of Marx – he was a disciple of Lenin. The fundamental insight that he had gathered from watching the Reds at work was not Marxism but Leninism.

                    What he and Stalin had in common was that they were both devout Leninists.

                    1. “This is of course nonsense. Stalin had been a fervent Marxist revolutionary for twenty years before the Bolshevik Revolution.”

                      And once he came to power, he’d have dropped it instantly if that were necessary for him to remain in power.

      3. …Marxian?

        = influenced by Marxism, without being actually Marxist.

        Thus the Russian Social Democratic Party (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) were avowedly Marxist.

        While the Socialist Revolutionary Party were not. They were Marxian.

        1. That’s just some awful flexible framing.

          Congrats for devaluing issues with Marx into another partisan cudgel.

          1. Yup, if there one thing you hate more than being wrong, it’s somebody pointing it out. Take up your cudgels with Websters.

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Marxian

          2. The difference between “Marxist” and “Marxian” is really quite simple, so you should have no problem……

            Wait. Never mind.

    2. For all the deaths he was responsible for, Stalin had nothing comparable to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Extermination of “lesser races” was never a part of Marxist ideology. So yes, the ideas of Nazism are worse than the ideas of Communism. Even if, in practice, the latter has killed more people.

      1. I think you’re wrong, in that while Nazism did designs upon the extermination of an entire people (Jews), Maxist ideology designs upon the extermination of all who disagree with it. Thus, by sheer quantity of the dead alone (which you admit too on a practical level) and the possibility of a much larger pool to draw upon (all who disagree), Marxim is by far the more dangerous in practice AND in Theory.

      2. Dead is dead. Trying to excuse Stalin because he wasn’t as horrible as Hitler, even though he murdered at least twice as many, is a perfect illustration of how Marxians get excused for being worse than Nazis.

        1. Stalin’s numbers are inflated because they include the large number of people killed by famine due to organizing the farms along Lysenko’s incorrect theories of biology. Those are manslaughters, not murders.

      3. Marxians may not have killed for race, but they sure killed for class.

        Dead is dead. Pathetic excuses for letting Marxians off the hook just shows how right Professor Bernstein is.

        1. His reasoning doesnt require him personally to restore cosmic balance by writing about each side’s antisemitism with an equal number of articles.

          He demonstrated that American JEws fear/care about right wing antisemitism almost to the exclusion of left/Islamic (this rings true in my Jewish American opinion). Bernstein believes that this tunnel vision is not warranted by the facts. This is really simple stuff

      4. For all the deaths he was responsible for, Stalin had nothing comparable to the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

        True, as a matter of aesthetics there’s something particularly gruesome about the industrialisation of mass murder, and the collection of usable waste product from the victims. No doubt that’s why Nazi extermination carries a particular horror.

        Though the fact that we have still and moving pictures of the camps and (some of) the victims, dead and alive, also helps. Plus lots of emotionally powerful movie depictions. Which we don’t have for the Gulag, the killing of the kulaks and the Ukrainian famine, or the Great Leap Forward. That which happens off screen is never so emotionally powerful.

        Probably the best emotionally valenced commie-slaughter depiction we have is the Killing Fields. And though accomplished in low tech manual fashion without benefit of industrial sophistication, accomplished it was.

        And Cambodia is perhaps the clearest example of the fallacy herein :

        Extermination of “lesser races” was never a part of Marxist ideology.

        The Nazis exterminated because the Jews (and the physically and mentally impaired) were an infection of the German body. They did not fear the Jews as rivals or enemies. They were disgusted by them as an infectious disease.

        The Khmer Rouge slaughtered the educated, the bourgeoisie, those with past colonial or government links for exactly the same reason. With those people alive, there could never be a pure, clean start . The new order had to be sterilised against the contamination of the old. Year Zero. And where did Pol Pot get that from ? 1950s French Marxists.

        That has been a consistent theme in communist thought in power. The remnants of the ancien regime are a pathogen whose extermination is essential to get that blank state on which to build the new order. Every communist regime has found that the residue of oldthink has hindered the flowering of the new. And it has proved easier to pull up the weeds than to persuade them to behave in a flower like fashion.

        This line of thinking – in generally milder form – is ubiquitous in left wing academic thought. Why do women still want to get married and sell themselves into a life of oppression by men ? Because the culture and the patriarchy is polluting their minds with false consciousness. Why do they choose to be nurses rather than engineers ? Because we haven’t managed to catch them early enough. Nothing will work properly in accordance with progressive thinking unless we get to control all the levers from Day One.

        The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. And their ideas are polluting our grand plans.

      5. The gulag system was abhorrent. An, keep in mind, if Germany had managed to be on the winning side *shudder* — we’d have seen the Soviet camps instead of the Nazi ones.

        They weren’t appreciably different.

    3. I don’t know why it is a competition. Both reputations are pretty bad. Might as well argue which serial killer is worse. Do you go with cruelest method, child-killers or straight-up most murders? I will say that you don’t see campus socialists endorsing Stalin or Stalinism these days–much less expressing love and admiration for Stalin’s spiritual offspring, Kim Jong-un. How did his and the ex-KGB agent running Russia get such good reputations in certain circles? So, I guess you may be correct that Stalin’s odious reputation has less force than Hitler’s.
      (As for the campus, you need to keep up. Socialism is so 1990. Class analysis is utterly insufficient to deal with race, gender, culture. Marx is modern, not post-modern. The tweedy, pipe-smoking, armchair commies of the campus that W.F. Buckley railed against have all but died out.)

      1. The current rhetoric of the left is Marxist dressed up in new clothes. While Marx talked about oppression of the masses. Of the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisiese.

        Modern woke leftests have updated the same rhetoric to speak of the marginalization of “people of color”, LGBTQ and women.

        Since there isn’t much proletariat left in the sense Marx knew and since the bourgeoisiese have at least to some extent joined the revolution is was necessary to come up with a new oppressed group of sufficient size. The fundamental achievement is the inclusion of women and the amalgamation of all racial groups together as “people of color” to gain sufficient mass.

        1. Hmm. Even assuming everything you said were true (it’s not), I would still take those *actual* victims over the right’s “victims”: billionaires, Christians, rich Republicans, and generally the people who rule this country yet still play the victim.

      2. Oh. When your side loses by murdering several times as many as the other side, suddenly it’s not a competition. But suddenly it is a competition in who murdered more humanely, because you think your side murdered more humanely and you win.

        Dead is dead. Murdering more people is worse than murdering fewer people.

        1. Stalin is not at all “my side.” Is your side is the other guy?

      3. According to my 1970s Guinness Book of World Records, both Hitler and Stalin suck. Genghis Khan holds the record at 80 million Chinese peasants.

        1. Genghis Khan would have had nothing but contempt for Hitler’s industrialization of genocide. Khan’s raping, pillaging, and murder were obstinately artisanal.

    4. Why are the polls “subjective”? Is there something wrong with the methodology used in the polling that makes it subjective, or are you saying the opinions expressed by those polled are subjective?What exactly would be an “objective” poll?

      “I’d like to see some statistics on how many communists and nazis there were in America before 1939.”

      What “statistics” would count as evidence given your previous statement that the statistics presented in the quoted poll are “subjective”? If there was a poll done in 1939 that asked people if they were communist or nazis, would that just be a “subjective” poll, or would that could as the “statistics” you are looking for?

      In short, your standards for evidence are confusing and potentially undermining.

      1. The concepts themselves are more subjective than things like “how many bedrooms in your house”.

    5. How many guns are owned by left-wing antisemites, and how many by right-wing antisemites?

    6. But it has always amazed me how much worse Hitler’s reputation is compared to Stalin … when the two started WW II together

      WHAT?
      That’s like saying Japan and the US started the Pacific Theater of that war together (at Pearl Harbor)!

      Or that Abe Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth started an assassination together.

      If I stop a nuclear bomb on your house, then you and I started the destruction of your house together!!!

      Stalin won and was an “ally”, Hitler lost and was an enemy. I suppose that’s the standard explanation

      HITLER ATTACKED RUSSIA!

      (my emphasis)
      June 22. On this day in 1941, over 3 million German troops invade Russia in three parallel offensives, in what is the most powerful invasion force in history.”
      “Germany launches Operation Barbarossa-the invasion of Russia”
      https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-launches-operation-barbarossathe-invasion-of-russia

      Plus THIS!!!

      just do not understand why any university tolerates a single Marxian in their faculty. Adoring mass murderers ought to be grounds for unemployment.

      Even WORSE on Marxism??? Is this the same alt-right hysteria that, equates Democratic Socialism with gulags and mass murder? … Perhaps ANOTHER left-wing conspiracy??

      No, I did NOT defend Marxism. (sigh)

      1. But it has always amazed me how much worse Hitler’s reputation is compared to Stalin … when the two started WW II together

        WHAT?
        That’s like saying Japan and the US started the Pacific Theater of that war together (at Pearl Harbor)!

        You were obviously not paying much attention in History class.

        The Second World War did not begin in Russia in June 1941. By then it had already been going on for nearly two years, as plenty of Poles, Finns, Balts, Norwegians, Danes, French, Belgians, Dutch, Greeks etc would be able to confirm.

        Not to mention Brits who had, by then, managed to rack up little details like the catastrophic landings in Norway, the catastrophic defeat of the British Expeditionary Force and the “miracle” of Dunkirk, a few early defeats at the hands of Rommel in North Africa, and an impressively complete defeat in Greece. And Crete. And the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe bombing of London and a little scuffle with U boats in the North Atlantic. Oh yes and the sinking of the Bismarck.

        If you teacher started in June 1941, she was phoning it in.

        In fact WW2 began in Poland in September 1939, with the Germans invading from the West and the Red Army invading from the East, and the two sides meeting at the dividing line that they had privately agreed the previous month.

        1. “In fact WW2 began in Poland in September 1939”

          There’s a fairly strong argument that it began in Versailles in 1918, with the terms the Allies enforced on Germany at the end of WWI. The shooting stopped (well, paused), but that’s where the seeds of WWII were planted.

  2. “Antisemitic violence in Europe, including well-publicized murders, comes primarily from Islamists. But 45% of American Jews see no threat at all or only a slight threat from extremist Islamists.”

    Is there a lot of Islamist antisemitic violence in America? If the answer is no, it’s hardly surprising that American Jews are less concerned about things that affect Europe. (Violent antisemitism generally is something we should all be worried about, regardless of where it is, but I’m not surprised that Americans are less concerned with things that they do not experience as directly as Europeans.)

    Omar didn’t say anything antisemitic. There’s no point insisting on weakening the brand. There’s real antisemitism out there to worry about.

    1. God you’re annoying.

      Let’s see …. no content. Missing comma. Did I do that right?

    2. More to the point, if you can’t find any anti-semitism in what Omar says or does, you are going above and beyond in willful misunderstanding.

      Maybe you’d like to reconsider your profession.

      1. And if you can’t find any when Trump tell a group of American Jews that Netanyahu is “your” Prime Minister you’re being fairly dense.

        1. When did I ever deny that or even comment on it? What does it have to do with this post?

          1. So let’s comment on Professor Bernstein’s post, since it’s pretty easy to see through.

            (1) The Jewish community in the United States votes majority Democrat, and by a sizable margin.

            (2) Bernstein hopes to erode that support by hyping anti-antisemitism of the Left and ignoring the same filth from the Right.

            It has zero to do with the prevalence of basis on either side, or the danger in one extreme over the other, or what is being reported where. It’s just Bernstein promoting his guys with the means at hand. I only wish he’d spare us the painful spectacle of pretending otherwise……

            1. He wrote the exact opposite of what you say.

              1. Seemed like a fairly accurate summary.

      2. I’m not going to take social cues advice from some fucking anti social weirdo who thinks everyone who disagrees with him politically is “[a]doring mass murderers”.

    3. Omar has admitted to the public she has made antisemitic comments. It is “real” antisemitism.

        1. ““I heard from Jewish orgs. that my use of the word ‘hypnotize’ and the ugly sentiment it holds was offensive,” she (Omar) tweeted. “I spent … little energy [in] disavowing the anti-Semitic trope I unknowingly used, which is unfortunate and offensive.”

      1. You’re back to the question of whether using an anti-semitic trope indicates true and avowed antisemitism, or just ignorance (or poor taste in attempted humor or sarcasm). When Omar admitted to the public that she has made antisemitic comments, which of these branches did she claim?

  3. extremist antisemites have become more vocal, organized, and more able to get a platform now that mainstream gatekeepers in the media no longer serve that function. Have they become more violent? Probably somewhat, but that’s a different question than whether antisemitism overall has increased.

    Why is that a different question? Antisemitism can increase “overall” either by becoming more widespread or by becoming more intense. It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about an increase in violence against Jews whether or not antisemitism is becoming more popular.

    Ever heard of Robert Bowers?

    1. Ever hear of Louis Farrakhan? Why was he invited to speak at the Congressional Black Caucus lunch, given his comments and MASSIVE antisemitic behavior?

      Because, antisemitism on the left is brushed off…. By the left.

      1. Likewise Al Sharpton, notorious for whipping up an anti-Semitic riot that resulted in people being burned alive.

        That’s the sort of thing that should normally get people exiled from polite company, but it didn’t hurt him any.

        1. Antisemitism, it’s the good way to be bigoted in the Liberal left. Jews aren’t really oppressed, right? So if you want to discriminate against them, it’s A-OK on the left.

        2. No one was “burned alive” in the Crown Heights riots.

          1. I don’t see where Brett Bellmore said anything about Crown Heights. I suspect he is referring to the 95 Harlem clothing store burning.

            While you can contest his usage of the term “riot”, it was Al Sharpton that organized the (clearly anti-Semitic) protests that led to the burning and deaths.

            One could also argue that a long term trend of anti-Semitic rhetoric by Sharpton instigated both incidents and the resulting deaths.

      2. Farrakhan is an antisemitic asshole.

        And Sharpton is an all-purpose asshole.

        Unlike Bowers, neither one has been motivated by Presidential rhetoric.

  4. Neo – nazi’s are not part of the right wing Hint – national socialists party

    The KKK is also not part of the right wing.

    1. The NSDAP was seated on the far right side of the Reichstag. Why? Because everyone thought they were a right-wing party. The KPD were, not surprisingly, on the far left side.

      1. Do you have evidence that the Reichstag followed the seating pattern of the Estates General of 1789?

        1. That’s even WORSE than saying Nazis were NOT tight-wing

          Fascism = socialism with private property = can be EITHER left-wing (Mussolini’s “guild” socialism) OR right-wing (Hitler)

          Even FUNNIER, how do Hitler’s policies compare with
          a) Trump and the alt-right
          b) Sanders/Warren.

          Hint: Learn what happened at Charlottesville.

    2. “Neo – nazi’s are not part of the right wing Hint – national socialists party
      The KKK is also not part of the right wing.”

      Do your bedfellows make you uncomfortable? No problem… just deny they’re there, and imagine them in someone else’s bed.

    3. So the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic republic with a government that acts in the interest of its people?

  5. “For the record, my response to each of these would be ‘moderately serious threat. . . .'”

    So, Prof. Bernstein, you still haven’t answered the question.

    If you consider the antisemitic threat from the extreme political right and extreme political left as (somewhat) equal, then why do you “tend to focus more on left-wing antisemitism, and sometimes write about exaggerations of antisemitism on the right” instead of treating both with equal weight?

    1. I thought he was clear enough about that:

      But there is another reason why my writings skew the way they do, which is my sense that those concerned most with antisemitism, in particular the Jewish community in both its organizational and individual manifestations, tend to focus on (and indeed sometimes exaggerate the scope of) right-wing antisemitism, and ignore, neglect, or downplay left-wing antisemitism.

      He figures there’s no shortage of writings attacking right-wing anti-Semites.

      1. That was the whole point of this article. Why anyone would read an article and not even try to understand it is beyond me.

      2. “I’m not a right-wing hack, I’m a *contrarian* hack.”

        1. “I’m not a left-wing contrarian, I’m a Marxian apologist.”

        2. If you marshal evidence that a prevailing narrative is mistaken thats not being a hack

          1. Notably, he doesn’t. He made a weak attempt in late ’18 to discredit the ADL’s study showing a rise in anti-Semitic violence, citing no contrary study and simply cherrypicking a handful of incidents and speculating about ways the data could be different. And even now he’s forced to retreat to an admission that there has been an increase in the severity of violence, just not in the number of violent incidents.

            1. In the ‘18 article he showed how much of the increase that the (increasingly hacky and dishonest) ADL points to was due to an Israeli hacker’s prank calls (which constituted many of the supposed hate crimes) and an incident where some drunk guy went by a cemetery and there was no evidence of antijewish animus. Once these were accounted for the increase was no more.
              Hardly a weak attempt or cherrypicking. People should be rejoicing that the Trump surge in antisemitism appears to be a myth

            2. LOL. The study in question actually showed a decrease in antisemitic violence, but an increase in antisemitic “incidents.”

              1. Specifically, the report found 19 instances of assault in 2017 vs. 36 in 2016.

              2. As I wrote below, the definition of “anti-semitic” is slippery, and covers a lot of ground. The old days were simple and obvious, but the more egregious sort of antisemitism has been largely suppressed… people hide that sort thing now, instead of wearing it openly. So we’re left to guess at signs and portents that someone has anti-semitic leanings. Sometimes the guess is accurate, and sometimes its just silly.

      3. “He figures there’s no shortage of writings attacking right-wing anti-Semites”

        Does anyone take this seriously? Even for a second? Do we really buy the theory if six more articles were written on leftist antisemitism each month, then suddenly Professor Bernstein would write two more articles on rightest antisemitism to restore the cosmic balance ?!?

        Sometimes an excuse is so egregiously bogus it’s painful to watch people believe it (or pretend to). This is such a case.

        1. When you have to fall back on “we”, it’s a sure sign of lack of personal responsibility.

          No, “we” don’t have to do anything. You can do whatever you want, buy into whatever theory you want, and write comments as egregiously devoid of content as you wish.

          How about attacking the message next time instead of the messenger? “We” might pay more attention.

          1. “Indignant” posturing to defend a child-grade excuse. Think that’s worth attention?

            1. It got yours.

      4. Yeah, it’s a weird excuse. “My audience hears enough about X already, I don’t need to talk about X more” only works if the folks that are talking about X are doing so in the channels and venues that your audience patronizes.

        It’s like CNN saying “we don’t need to talk about Clinton scandals, Fox News does that already” or Fox News saying “we don’t need to talk about Trump scandals, CNN does that already”. Even if the underlying logic made sense, the fact that their audiences have large non-overlapping portions means it doesn’t apply in that context.

        So in this specific case, “other people talk about right-wing anti-Semites” only works as an explanation if the publications in which Bernstein is published are included in that “other”.

        1. CNN and Fox have pretensions of providing comprehensive coverage of the news. Bernstein never claimed to be doing anything other than commenting on what happened to interest him.

          1. Uh huh. And what interests him is trashing the left end of the political spectrum. Given there’s nothing wrong with that interest, you have to wonder why Bernstein needs to pretend….

            1. I find it odd that people who say they are mainstream liberals are so protective of the extremist, antisemitic far left. No one I know who is libertarian or conservative gets offended when someone attacks the extremist antisemitic far right, because such folks aren’t “their people.” Why do so many liberals seem to believe (wrongly, in my opinion) that the Corbynista types are “their people?”

              1. I find it odd that people who say they are mainstream liberals are so protective of the extremist, antisemitic far left.

                Good lord, that’s a lame swipe. ‘By taking issue with my posts, I can only assume you love antisemites on the left.’

                Check this comments section for people who are offended at attacks on the neo-Nazis of the right.

                1. Did you fail logic classes like you did physics?

                  1. “My interlocutors sometimes accuse me of doing this for ideological reasons, that I “like” the right and “dislike” the left. Well, I actually don’t like right-wing antisemites. At all. To say the least.”

                    Leaving aside the silliness about liking right-wing antisemites, this is a useful reminder that it’s been a couple of years since my last harangue about your blindness to that which is obvious to everyone else, i.e., you’re no non-partisan, David. You’re very much a right-wing partisan.

                    You wrote a book about Obama’s lawlessness.
                    Yet your opposition to Trump’s 2016 candidacy notwithstanding, you’ve had barely anything to say in the ensuing three years about Trump’s comparable fidelity to the law and legal norms. Or much of anything else about his presidency, for that matter.

                    You blog at InstaPundit, for Pete’s sake.

                    Why do you deny it? There’s no shame in partisanship. Surrender to the dark side. It’s your true nature.

                    1. How this comment ended up here is beyond me. It was supposed to be a standalone.

                      I’m going to re-post it at the end of the thread where it belongs, so if David sees this, please feel free to delete this iteration.

              2. I find it odd that people who say they are mainstream liberals are so protective of the extremist, antisemitic far left. No one I know who is libertarian or conservative gets offended when someone attacks the extremist antisemitic far right,

                I don’t see a lot of liberals protecting extremist antisemitic leftists. I do see a lot of “mainstream rightists” claiming there is no serious antisemitism on the right.

                I also don’t see a lot of liberals, especially in the US, claiming Corbynistas are “their people.” I’m sure you have a quote or two, but that’s not going to prove your point.

          2. CNN and Fox […]

            Were examples given to illustrate the absurdity of the argument. Don’t overthink it.

            Bernstein never claimed to be doing anything other than commenting on what happened to interest him.

            Which is a valid explanation of why he doesn’t complain about right-wingers more, and one I wouldn’t critique.

            It’s also not the justification he gave here, which is the one actually being critiqued.

    2. “For the record, my response to each of these would be ‘moderately serious threat. . . .’”

      So, Prof. Bernstein, you still haven’t answered the question.

      He did, but you LIED about what he wrote, by pulling a partial quote … out of context.

      Shameless, and typical of your ilk.

  6. “Great Britain is the second-closest country culturally to the U.S., after Canada ”

    I call that third-closest. Did I miss something in grade school?

    1. Closest.
      Second-closest.
      Third closest.

      Why would you remove the middle step?

    2. “Did I miss something in grade school?”

      Yes, the fact that when counting the Nth closest thing to X, X itself doesn’t count. The US is the 0th closest country culturally to the US, not the first.

    3. Maybe. How do you get to third-closest?

    4. “Great Britain is the second-closest country culturally to the U.S., after Canada ”

      You left out Australia.

      1. and New Zealand. the UK may actually be 4th

        1. Wrong, culturally.

      2. Wrong, culturally

    5. “Great Britain is the second-closest country culturally to the U.S., after Canada ”

      I call that third-closest. Did I miss something in grade school?

      KINDERGARTEN!
      YOU ASS-ume THE “CLOSEST” COUNTRY TO THE UNITED STATES IS ….. THE UNITED STATES

      What are the odds he still doesn’t get it?

  7. My interlocutors sometimes accuse me of doing this for ideological reasons, that I “like” the right and “dislike” the left. Well, I actually don’t like right-wing antisemites. At all. To say the least.

    No one thinks you like right-wing antisemites. I do think you “like” the right, and are sensitive to the charge that there is a lot of tolerance of antisemitism on the right, and that whatever the numbers, to the fact that right-wing antisemitism is more strident and violent than left-wing antisemitism.

    1. “whatever the numbers, to the fact that right-wing antisemitism is more strident and violent than left-wing antisemitism.” One should definitely be sensitive to this charge seeing as its based solely off a fairly small number of high profile (for good reason as they were tragic) incidents. The ore run-of-the-mill anti semetic incidents (e.g.: those in Brooklyn) are largely ignored because they conflict with The Narrative and/or are insufficiently seductive for newsreaders

      1. FAKE NEWS!!
        (HE SAID “NARRATIVE!!!)

  8. So, liberals don’t write about anti-Semitism within their midst because they’re ignorant of it or tolerate it, but you don’t write about anti-Semitism on the right because liberals already do so. That’s quite convenient. We just have to take your word that you don’t tolerate it on your side, that when, say, Lou Dobbs talks about sinister tentacles to describe Soros, oh how your blood boils but I guess some liberal will handle the criticism while you calm down in private. Sure. It’s entirely unpersuasive to attack the other side of being tolerant for not calling out anti-Semitism in its midst when you have zero track record of doing so within your own camp.

    1. What you’re missing is that I’m not a populist conservative like Lou Dobbs not calling out antisemitism on my own side; my libertarian self has no more in common with Lou Dobbs ideologically (to the extent I know what he stands for, which is anti-immigration and anti-free trade) then I do with Bernie Sanders.

      1. That’s a neat and selective bit of grouping. Liberals and the left get caught up in one big net to be critiqued, but on the right there are discreet groups that lack sufficient commonality in your eyes. But even granting that, you’re fine with critiquing one set of ideological foes, but somehow those on the non-libertarian right don’t concern you when they engage in anti-Semitic tropes? Why does Lou Dobbs not merit your critical gaze? It comes down to, once again, that you have no track record of meaningfully criticizing anti-Semitism on the right, only your assurances that you’re opposed to it. And because of that, your accusations that liberals’ selective criticism of anti-Semitism demonstrates their tolerance of it applies to yourself equally well.

        1. If you can’t discern the difference between the “extremist left,” the only members of the left discussed in this post, and “liberals,” it’s not me who lumping people together.

          1. And indeed, it’s just your imagination that I have ever accused “liberals,” writ large, of being antisemitic. I have talked about the problem of antisemitsm on the “far left,” among “leftists,” on the “extreme left”… and even then never claimed it was universal, just a real problem.

            1. […] it’s just your imagination that I have ever accused “liberals,” writ large, of being antisemitic.

              Um….

              I find it odd that people who say they are mainstream liberals are so protective of the extremist, antisemitic far left.

              When has “oh, I’m not racist, I just protect, provide cover for, and help racists” ever been persuasive? But that’s the distinction you want us to think you make?

              Who are you trying to persuade here?

            2. it’s just your imagination that I have ever accused “liberals,” writ large, of being antisemitic. I have talked about the problem of antisemitsm on the “far left,” among “leftists,” on the “extreme left”… and even then never claimed it was universal, just a real problem.

              Yet you freely accuse mainstream liberals of being unduly tolerant of antisemitism on the “far left.” Do you truly believe mainstream conservatives, of whatever ilk, aren’t extremely tolerant of antisemitism on the right? You’re wrong. Trump himself winks and nods at it.

          2. Oh please, you’ve long had a habit of using liberal, left, far left, extreme left, and ultra left interchangeably, and more for rhetorical effect than meaningful description. Whether you’re just a sloppy writer or intentionally demonizing is the only mystery.

            1. It says more about you than it does about Bernstein that you think he uses those terms interchangeably.

              I know with sufficient specificity what he means when he uses those different terms, which is why I’m a liberal, but not a leftist.

      2. So the reason you don’t mention Lou Dobbs’ antisemitism is because the airwaves are flooded with reporting on the subject; the presses are going nonstop.

        Really ?!? I don’t see much sign of that. Are you sure there isn’t just a tiny bit of work available for you to do on the subject? Of course that would take valuable time away from trashing leftists (anti-Semites or not), and there’re only so many hours in the day. I guess the maximum efficiency is found in trashing leftist & anti-Semites simultaneously, as a two-fer.

        Now all you need is a semi-plausible excuse…………

        1. I’m not even aware of the relevant incident involving Dobbs, whether he has exhibited antisemitism in general, whether he apologized for using an image that is often associated with antisemitism, or anything else. My point is simply that one can’t say that ignore Dobbs because he’s an ideological ally, ’cause he ain’t.

      3. Professor…I hear you. The statistics are what they are; I don’t disagree with your assertion. But after Tree of Life and Poway, I am a lot more wary when I attend services.

        I only wish the People’s Republic of NJ was a shall issue and open carry state.

        1. Neo-Nazis are more violent; far leftist antisemites far more influential.

          1. If they’re “influential” but not “violent”, why should I, as a neutral third-party observer, care?

            1. Because influence allows you to change the background law and culture to a far greater extent than outright violence does.

              Take the actions of the people on the planes on 9/11 – the US had seen decades of occasional hijackings, essentially none of which ended in significant death, so that the public (to the extent they ever thought about it) believed that a hijacking would lead to some mild annoyance at their travel disruptions, an unplanned trip to Central America, and likely some payout from the airline eventually. In other words, something to be tolerated because while annoying, it’s not ultimately particularly harmful.

              Those decades of that being the pattern is what non#violence gets you – a complacent populace.

              To give the right wing argument about guns: that’s why we are still largely a free nation, and so long as the citizenry has lots of guns (and the more militaristic the better) we’ll remain so, as the first action of a tyrant will necessarily be the confiscation of guns, so that only the State has hard power.

              1. “Those decades of that being the pattern is what non#violence gets you – a complacent populace. ”

                And when you apply non-violence to a complacent populace, you get… violence somehow?

                Your argument is not very clear.

  9. This shouldnt be complicated. Right wing antisemtism, to the exclusion of other forms, is so extensively worried about and covered by the media and nonprofits that the ADL feels the need to grasp for straws and label Pepe the Frog and the “ok” sign as antisemetic hate symbols

    1. So all the sources that conservatives and libertarians (ie, most of the expected audience here) denounce as “fake news”?

      “I don’t cover X because these other sources already cover X” doesn’t make sense when your readers don’t trust those other sources.

  10. antisemite

    You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

  11. To be clear, I’m not one of Bernstein’s critics saying he should cover right-wing antisemitism more. I have no opinion there.

    But this reasoning is bogus.

  12. Same general reason I focus (like most people should) on criticism of the left. Sure there is the occassional rightwing crazy that everybody breathlessly zeros in on. Sure there is an occassional Trump in office. But the left has the lionshare of the power and money, controls all major institutions, and sets up the mainstream narrative. For the average person in America and Europe and increasingly most of the rest of the world, you are affected far more often and far more negatively on a daily basis by the left. So its absurd to spend all your day griping about some boogeyman that hasn’t had any real power for decades.

    1. Holy fuck, quit playing the victim.

      “But the left has the lionshare of the power and money”
      No.

      “controls all major institutions”
      Like the Presidency, executive agencies, Senate, and Supreme Court? No, no, no. Fuck your lies.

      “and sets up the mainstream narrative.”
      The people in power, and their supporters, adopt the narrative from Fox News, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, talk radio, Brietbart, RedState, and innumerable others. “Sets up the mainstream narrative”? What the fuck does that mean? It’s 2019–there is no “mainstream” narrative anymore, and to the extent that there is, it’s not dominated by the Left.

      1. There are two concepts that share a name. One the one hand, you have conservative thought, (which I identify with a lower-case c) which is the instinct to keep things as they are rather than to make changes, or to keep changes small rather than large scale. The other is Conservatism (upper-case C), which is an active attempt to turn back changes that have already occurred. A majority of Americans are lower-case-c conservative, but a minority is upper-case-C Conservative. Using the same word for both concepts causes some Conservatives to believe that they are actually a majority.

        Over on the other side, the historical trend in America is towards progress… the average American has access to things today and 100-years-ago average American could only dream of, if they could imagine it at all. A telephone that you can carry about with you? Every person has their own automobile? A Washingtonian, Californian, Floridian or Mainder can go into a restaurant, and all get exactly the same meal? AND they can Supersize it? Radio has pictures now? People who embrace change have plenty of good changes they can point to, but they tend to avoid mentioning, or even thinking about, the bad changes that have also come along.

  13. Hi Professor. One area you might look at is the rise of right-wing antisemitism in Europe, e.g. Orban. You have covered the shameful antisemitism that has infected British Labor–that is not even in power. To me, the toleration/expression of antisemitism on the left is mirrored on the right by the new push for “illiberal democracy” that is gaining ground on the right here and abroad. (See Ahmari-French controversy as a symptom, not example). The question of why Netanyahu is best friends with Orban may be at least as interesting as why Sanders accepts endorsements of antisemites. Call it “Israel-washing”?
    To me, it seems that calls for cultural conformity/engineering by governments are more likely to accept antisemitic allies than those with a more traditional liberal or libertarian philosophy.

    1. Netanyahu has made it a goal to reduce Israel’s diplomatic isolation. Oddly enough, those who focus on Orban (“best friends”) is quite a stretch never seem to mention that under his PMship, Israel has established close albeit less public ties with far more openly antisemitic regimes in the Arab world, and of course also tend to want him to be more open to negotiation and diplomacy with the explicitly antisemitic PA and even Hamas. There is some inconsistency here…

      1. I wasn’t talking about it from Israel’s realpolitik standpoint–one needs to talk to countries one doesn’t like. (E.g. Meir’s defense of contacts w/S.Africa). I was looking at it as Orban’s use of Netanyahu/Israel in defense to charges of antisemitism, including the anti-Soros campaign, which got him suspended from the (center-right) European People’s Party in Brussels. I recommend (giving links would kill this post) a pair of articles by William Echikson (editor, Holocaust Remembrance Project) in Politico 5/13/19 (updated 5/15) and 4/12/18. There is a trend, at least in Europe, to harness antisemitism for political purposes by both right and left. Corbyn and Orban are peas in a pod. To me, this is the disturbing overarching problem that seems something more than nascent in this country. Its manifestation should be treated as a single problem, not a political symptom of one side or the other.

  14. “My interlocutors sometimes accuse me of doing this for ideological reasons, that I “like” the right and “dislike” the left. Well, I actually don’t like right-wing antisemites. At all. To say the least.”

    The second sentence doesn’t actually answer the accusation you point out in the second sentence. Are your interlocutors accusing you liking right-wing antisemites and disliking left-wing antisemites? If so, then the second sentence responds to that. But if you are accused of liking the right and disliking the rest, then you haven’t answered that accusation. Do you in fact “like the right” and “dislike the left”?

    1. *point out in the first sentence

  15. The problem with “right-wing” anti-Semitism is that it is often not in fact right-wing. There’s nothing right-wing about Nazism. Sure, there’s fascistic elements to it, but the American right-wing has nothing to do with it. People just don’t like to own labels, and for some reason we put Communists and Nazis on polar opposites even though they’re much more like the ends of a horseshoe than a line.

    1. Nazism is a weird mix of racial and leftwing socialist ideas. Of course the meme around the internet is its silly to say the Nazis were left wing or had left wing ideas because you’re only doing it because they have the word socialist in their name. I’ve lost count of how many smug leftists threw around this talking point and nobody bothered to correct them because noone reads past the second paragraph of a wikipedia article or they only get their info from wiki these days.

      1. Nazism is a weird mix of racial and leftwing socialist ideas.

        Which is why the German business community fought it so vigorously.

      2. Exactly. Bonus points when people try to tie any sort of racialism to a political ideology. There are elements of nativism in every ideology that has ever existed.

        For instance, while it was not directed at Jews, Tarrant (NZ Christchurch shooter) was, in the objective sense, a left-wing populist. I don’t mean left-wing in the sense that he would associate himself with someone like Elizabeth Warren, but in the sense that if someone did exactly what they said they would do, she would mirror his desires much more closely than any of the ’16 GOP nominees. I read his manifesto and it sounded like the same old regurgitated shit Stormfront (and neo-Nazis in general) have spammed across internet forums for decades.

        The thing about the politics of anti-Semites is that it is fundamentally build around anti-Semitism. Why are neo-Nazis environmentalists? Because they think us Jews promote a market oriented society that depletes and destroys the planet. Why do neo-Nazis draw from certain aspects of Marxism, like state ownership of industry and redistribution of wealth? Because us Jews control everything and we need to be stripped of our control. Every conclusion they arrive at is based on whether or not Jews are involved in it, which is why right-wing Jews often drive neo-Nazis insane.

        For instance, neo-Nazis will often say “open borders for Israel” as if that is somehow supposed to shatter this hypothetical Jewish monolith of international Jewish power forcing illegal, non-white immigration into white nations. What they fail to realize is that even in America, almost 30% of Jews voted for Trump. If you were looking for a monolith, you might want to at least look at blacks who typically vote 90% Democrat.

      3. I’m sorry you don’t like it that your chosen political ideology is on the same side as the Nazis, and this makes you uncomfortable and defensive.

        Nazis were socialist the way the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic.

        1. Because Republicans are advocating for extreme environmental protections, seizure of wealth, nationalization of industry, and genocide, right?

          Funny how there’s 20+ Democrat candidates right now who check off three of those four boxes.

          1. I said I was sorry you don’t like it that your chosen political ideology is on the same side as the Nazis, and this makes you uncomfortable and defensive. But that’s all the relief you’re going to get here. It’s your own damn fault.

            1. Feel free to keep asserting that, but assertions alone don’t make it so. There is nothing about the American right-wing that is remotely comparable to Nazism. There’s barely anything comparable to the American left-wing either. You’re just grossly oversimplifying things for dubious reasons.

              1. Still sorry you don’t like it that your chosen political ideology is on the same side as the Nazis, and this makes you uncomfortable and defensive.

                But growing less so with each repetition.

                1. I’m only as defensive as one inherently is when rejecting a blatant falsehood.

                  What makes me feel uncomfortable is how you seem apt to repeatedly assert yourself instead of supplying at least an example of how my chosen ideology (which you haven’t even tried to define either) is on the same side as Nazis.

                  1. Still a tiny bit sorry you don’t like it that your chosen political ideology is on the same side as the Nazis, and this makes you uncomfortable and defensive.

  16. The fundamental flaw is the premise that all the people on the left (or on the right) are monolithic in their attitudes, beliefs, and irrational assumptions. They aren’t.

    Of course, the definition of “anti-semitic” is rather loose. Does criticism of Israel’s government policy count as “anti-semitic”?

    1. Sigh…Does criticism of Israel’s government policy count as “anti-semitic”?

      Answer: It depends. And I will leave it at that.

    2. “The fundamental flaw is the premise that all the people on the left (or on the right) are monolithic in their attitudes, beliefs…”

      Not to mention Jewish people themselves. Have people been following Israeli politics in recent weeks? Jews are not monolithic.

      So when Trump (just as an example), tells an American Jewish audience that Netanyahu is “their” prime minister and that, to quote Trump, “I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” that’s anti-Semitic.

      That’s right-wing anti-Semitism, from the fucking American president. And bad-faith commenters in this thread are asking, “What has Trump said that’s anti-Semitic?” Well, maybe nothing *if* one thinks that Jews are monolithic conservatives and any of them who aren’t are “disloyal.” That’s what we’re dealing with.

      But yeah, Professor Bernstein. Focus on the left wing for “blog balance” or whatever. Meanwhile, the most powerful man in the world is selling right-wing anti-Semitism and you’re fucking silent about it.

      1. Jews who vote D are pretty damn stupid. Are you yourself Jewish? You should see what more liberal Jews say about Israel. They don’t even want it to exist anymore. They fell for Arab propaganda hook, line and sinker.

        I always tell them to imagine how they might feel if they were a Muslim and Mecca was occupied for 2,000+ years and every time they tried to reclaim it, they were universally reviled because of blatant lies and global governing organizations primarily representing the oppressors who expelled you in the first place.

      2. So when Trump (just as an example), tells an American Jewish audience that Netanyahu is “their” prime minister and that, to quote Trump, “I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty,” that’s anti-Semitic.

        No it isn’t. It’s thinking that :

        ” Jews are monolithic conservatives and any of them who aren’t are “disloyal.”

        Which is absolutely routine “groupism” – ie treating all members of a group as if they had the same political interest. This is, at root, a Marxist idea and you can find it in leftist and progressive thought all over the place.

        African Americans should vote D, because the Rs are racist. Women should vote D, because the Rs want to impose the Handmaid’s Tale. Gays should vote D because the Rs want to send them to prison. Und so weiter.

        Somebody who thinks blacks should stick together politically, ditto women, ditto gays – and who thinks defectors from the class interest should be shunned and shamed are not anti-black, anti-woman, or anti-gay. They don’t want to visit pain and suffering on blacks, women and gays. They don’t think members of such categories are inferior.

        Their crime is that they are anti-individual. They believe in the group identity.

        Although leftists are fundamentally collectivists – hence the social in socialist – and hence the current ascendancy of group identity politics on the left, they don’t own the philosophy of collectivism and group identity. Right wingers can be group identityists or collectivists too, and that’s what “White Supremacy” and “Men’s Rights” are all about. Assigning people to groups and treating them as interchangeable does not have to imply any hatred or contempt for members of the group. It just implies that you’re applying a group identity.

        Trump’s groupist remarks about Jews may be deplorable, but they’re deplorable because they’re based on group identity and so anti-individual, not because they’re anti-Jew.

  17. Just classify all anti-Semites as right-wingers, problem solved!

  18. Leftie multi cultis don’t like it when the inconvenient truth of their bigotry and racism is brought to light. These days it is hard to find anyone on the Left that doesn’t hate whites or jews.

  19. It’s because the popular left “apologizes for” and hides their own antisemites. Covering for them. While the right exiles them.

    The most famous example is Louis Farrakhan, who has called the Jewish people Satanic, and compared them to termites. He’s given a “yeah, he might be antisemitic” bit from the left.

    Meanwhile President Obama’s taking pictures with Farrakhan. Real “condemnation” there….

    1. “Meanwhile President Obama’s taking pictures with Farrakhan. Real “condemnation” there”

      Yeah, and Trump “Exiled” David Duke by pretending to not know who he was… and welcoming his endorsement.

      1. Come see me when Duke gets an invitation to the White House for a photo op with Trump.

        Until then, it’s false equivalence.

        1. No, Trump’s handlers had more sense than to invite Mr. Duke. But Trump himself (shockingly, I know) got caught lying about knowing the man.

          1. That’s your TDS talking. When Trump said he didn’t know of Duke, that wasn’t a factual statement of “I genuinely have no idea who this is.” It’s dismissive. Of course he fucking knows who Duke is. But he paid him no mind, which is exactly what Duke deserves.

            1. The fact that taking Trump at his word is “TDS” really should be a red flag.

              1. Taking someone in the most literal and autistic manner possible, devoid of context, is not taking someone at their word.

            2. “That’s your TDS talking”

              Except… stay with me here… I don’t suffer from TDS, so that can’t be correct. Want to try again?

              “When Trump said he didn’t know of Duke, that wasn’t a factual statement”

              Period. Stop there.

              1. You are willfully ignorant and it’s pathetic. Many people have, in the same exact tone as Trump, said that they didn’t know of someone. It is a common way of being dismissive and conveying that someone is not even worth one’s time or mental energy.

                1. “You are willfully ignorant and it’s pathetic.”

                  Shockingly, being childish and turning to insults isn’t going to convince me you’re right.

                  “It is a common way of being dismissive and conveying that someone is not even worth one’s time or mental energy.”

                  OK. I don’t know of you.

                  1. It’s not an insult, it’s the truth. You are choosing to ignore common English mannerisms because you’re trying to score political points instead of being committed to logic and reason. There is absolutely no reason to believe, based on the actual video and audio recordings of Trump discussing Duke, that he literally meant “I have never heard of this person and legitimately have no idea who you are talking about.”

                    1. Um, he said he didn’t hear the name because his earpiece wasn’t working. If your explanation was correct, he would have presented it, while mustering the indignation you display. I think you should apply to the White House communications office, as your spin work is a lot better than what we are getting. Very impressive.

                    2. “You are choosing to ignore common English mannerisms because you’re trying to score political points instead of being committed to logic and reason”

                      When you next see your therapist, tell him/her that you seem to have a problem with psychological projection.

                    3. Speaking of spin, your source for that claim, the NYT, also had the factual rigor to admit that Trump previously DECLINED the Reform party candidacy due to Duke specifically.

                      He’s been dismissive of Duke before and he did it again. The earpiece is a red herring and just another case of foot in mouth that we often see from Trump. Your conspiracy-tier “he knew he was asked to disavow Duke and chose not to to dog whistle to white nationalists” argument is complete and utter nonsense because he disavowed Duke decades prior when nobody was watching.

                      Also, shitty logic in assuming that a correct explanation would be offered simply for being correct. Just because I am more logical and argue better than Trump doesn’t mean that he would know to use a more convincing argument.

  20. I’m not sure that the UK is a particularly good comparison when it comes to Muslimy matters. Muslims constitute about 1% of the US population, but about 6% of the UK population.

    So if some percentage of Muslims may be dangerous to Jews, the danger is six times as large in the UK than in the US. Consequently, it’s hardly any surprise if American Jews are much more relaxed about Muslims than Britsh ones. Or French ones etc.

    As for politicians, “anti-Semitic” UK politicians divide into different categories.

    (1) those who actually hate Jews qua Jew – rather few outside the ranks of Muslim immigrant communities.
    (2) those who hate Israel (rather than Jews qua Jew) because of its “oppression of the Palestinians” – typically Labour leftists who have supported any radical cause on offer, since forever. Corbyn is one of these. But I doubt very much that he’s actually any more anti-Israel than Obama. It’s just the Overton window for expressing anti-Israeli sentiment differs between the UK and the US. You can be an American Jew and anti-Netanyahu easily enough. Being anti-Israel would be trickier in the US.
    (3) Those who couldn’t care less about Jews or Israel, but who know that 6% of the population concentrated into 20% of the districts makes a political constituency that it would be foolish to alienate.

    1. So if some percentage of Muslims may be dangerous to Jews, the danger is six times as large in the UK than in the US.

      That’s not how that works at all.

      And your theory that Corbyn and Obama hate Israel is just partisan BS. It does not bode well that support for Israel has become part of the partisan narrative, at least on the right.

      And your final theory that a big thing in the UK is to pretend to hate Jews and Israel so as not to alienate Muslims is, again, substanceless speculation.

      You can speculate your way into anything.

      1. Jeremy Corbyn has praised Hezbollah and Hamas as his friends, and laid wreaths at the graves of Palestinian terrorists who murdered Israelis. But don’t say he hates Israel! That would be partisan BS!

        1. I know this is shocking to you, but being opposed to Israel (in general, or in specific instances) isn’t proof of anti-semitism. Being opposed to China’s oppression of minorities within (and without) its borders doesn’t prove anti-Asian racism, either.

          You’re going to have to do better than that.

          1. If you noticed, I was responding to the claim that Corbyn isn’t even anti-Israel. Of course he is. Now, I’d say that praising the world’s 2 most murderous antisemitc organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, is pretty good evidence of antisemitism as well, and of course if you’d bother to follow it, there is tons more evidence of Corbyn’s antisemitism to boot–just for example, writing a foreword to a blatantly antisemitic book https://www.ft.com/content/ac5670ec-6c2f-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d. But without getting into that, it’s odd to respond to a rebuttal of a denial that Corbyn is anti-Israel with a point about whether being anti-Israel makes him antisemitic.

            1. “it’s odd to respond to a rebuttal of a denial that Corbyn is anti-Israel with a point about whether being anti-Israel makes him antisemitic.

              Your posting is a defense of your disinclination to write about antisemitism on the right. I’m attacking your extremely broad definition of anti-semitism.

              ” I’d say that praising the world’s 2 most murderous antisemitc organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, is pretty good evidence of antisemitism”

              Such as here. Praising them for WHAT? For example, if I were to praise them for taking a couple months off of murdering Jews, do you determine from this that I am antisemitic? You get credit for this one IF he’s praising them for murdering Jews. If not, then not. You actually have to make the case, rather than assuming. (Note: I’m not saying such evidence doesn’t exist, nor that your assessment it unsound… I’m saying you didn’t make your case in this instance.)

              1. The evidence of Corbyn’s antisemitism is easily available to anyone with an internet connection who knows how to use google and spell Corbyn. I wasn’t trying to make the case, I don’t think it’s sufficiently disputable that it’s worth trying. Beyond that, you chose to comment on a specific thread that wasn’t about Corbyn being antisemitic but anti-Israel, which is why it’s weird for you to go on to antisemitism. Finally, I’m really wondering what you think a leftist socialist athetistic type like Corbyn would have to praise about theocratic kleptocrats like Hezbollah and Hamas beyond their mutual dislike of Jews.

                1. “The evidence of Corbyn’s antisemitism is easily available to anyone with an internet connection who knows how to use google and spell Corbyn.”

                  OK. Now… whose job is it to present this information, if it’s part of their argument?

                  “you chose to comment on a specific thread that wasn’t about Corbyn being antisemitic but anti-Israel, which is why it’s weird for you to go on to antisemitism”

                  Because, again, I dispute your assumption that being anti-Israel = being antisemitic. That’s only weird if you don’t want to address the objection.

                  ” I’m really wondering what you think a leftist socialist athetistic type like Corbyn would have to praise about theocratic kleptocrats like Hezbollah and Hamas beyond their mutual dislike of Jews.”

                  I don’t know, but you didn’t offer anything to help answer the question. You just assumed I’d follow your assumption, but it turns out not to be the case.

                  1. You’re really having some trouble with basic logic. A commentator says that Corbyn isn’t anti-Israel. I say of course he is. You chime in with “but that doesn’t make him antisemitic.” OK. That, by itself, doesn’t. We can have a whole separate discussion about that. But it still doesn’t explain why you think that making the point that being anti-Israel doesn’t make you antisemitic is responsive to the question of whether someone is anti-Israel.

                    1. Specifically, Sacastr0 wrote: “And your theory that Corbyn and Obama hate Israel is just partisan BS.” And I said that everyone knows that Corbyn does in fact hate Israel. “But that doesn’t make him antisemitic” is a non sequitur in that context.

                    2. “OK. That, by itself, doesn’t.”

                      And to that, you chose to add… nothing.

                      “the question of whether someone is anti-Israel.”

                      As a non-Israeli, I don’t care if someone is anti-Israel. I don’t even have a reason to care.

                    3. “I said that everyone knows that Corbyn does in fact hate Israel.”

                      That’s a factually incorrect statement. Is that sufficiently sequitur for you?

                    4. You would have to ask Sacastro why he thought that making the ridiculous assertion that it’s “partisan bs” to note that Corbyn hates Israel was a useful contribution.

                    5. So you have no answer, is your answer?

        2. Sarcastro: the Labor Party’s antisemitism problems are well-documented. The charges are not from political enemies, but those within the party. Google it. From the BBC:
          In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented “Enough is Enough” rally outside Parliament.
          In a further sign of the breakdown in trust between Labour and the Jewish community, the Jewish Labour Movement considered severing its century-old affiliation to the party.
          While deciding to retain its ties, the organisation of 2,000 members did pass a motion of no confidence in Mr Corbyn and voted to describe the party as “institutionally anti-Semitic”.
          Professor Bernstein: You leave the charge against Obama on the table. It is a perfect example of claiming that mere disagreement with Israeli policies, or mere expression of sympathy for Palestinians is antisemitic. It does not contribute at all to your ethos in discussing the matter.

      2. It’s interesting how France is just a tad bit higher than the UK at ~9% and that’s the place where we keep hearing about stabbings, synagogue bombings, and public executions of Jews and almost every single time there’s some mouth breathing third worlder shouting allahu ackbar. Really makes me think. It’s almost like Ashin Wirathu has a point!

  21. The failure to mention that right-wingers shot up two synagogues in the past year seems odd . . . .

    1. That’s because the two you are referencing are not right wing. Matter of fact, one of them despises Trump and called him a ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) puppet for his defense of Israel and Jewish immediate family.

      I hate people who try to score political points with murders.

      1. Not clear on how despising Trump disqualifies a person from being on the right side, politically speaking. I seem to recall a fairly substantial number of American Republicans who opposed Trump’s candidacy, before they found that he could actually deliver voters.

        1. They don’t despise him as a person. They despise his politics because neo-Nazis aren’t right wing.

          1. Right. Come back when the medication wears off.

            1. You’re quite duplicitous.

              1. Hasn’t worn off yet.

  22. The mess this comment section has become, from arguing Nazis are actually liberals, to wild speculations about how major liberal figures like Obama are secretly anti-Israel, to rants about Marxist professors being behind every tree.
    To be fair, it’s only luck we don’t get one of those one-off ‘but Jews control the media’ tools. Maybe next thread.

    This is what an unbalance critique brings. Your are not injecting objectivity into the world.

    Also ‘the right antisemites are more violent, the left are more influential’ is some prime partisan red meat right there, and makes a lot of assumptions of who is antisemitic that are disputed.

    1. I’m more concerned about the 2 billion Muslims and the left that champions them than I am about a few dozen neo-Nazis.

      1. Most of those 2 billion Muslims are highly conservative. You’re right to fear them.

    2. I saw people, wrongly, claiming that Naziism is a left-wing ideology. If true, I don’t see how they makes them “liberals.” If we put Nazis on the right, that doesn’t make them “conservatives.” Once again, I’m left to wonder why it’s so difficult for self-identified liberals to acknowledge that the far left is anti-liberal, in the broad sense of the word liberal, which includes American style liberals. They say so explicitly. There’s a reason they made up the ill-defined “neo-liberalism” to describe everything they hate in the world.

      1. We tend to draw the political scale as a straight line, with commies at one end and Nazis at the other end. It would be more accurate to draw that line as a U-shaped curve, again with commies at one tip and Nazis at the other tip. The round part of the curve is the freedom “end” while the part with the two tips is the totalitarian “end”. Drawing this in 2 dimensions instead of 1 would also allow us to insert a couple of distinct, discontinuous points… a dot somewhere in the totalitarian end for theocracy, and a dot somewhere near, but not connected to, the bend in the U for anarchy.

      2. Is there a course RestoreWesternHegemony can take to show where the line is between mainstream left[or right] and far (or extreme) left[or right]?

      3. I don’t know that it is difficult, but it happens. Omar was forced to apologize over and over. The dissension caused by Sarsour ended up blowing up any reprise of the women’s march–not exactly riddled with right-wingers. McKinney was drummed out of the party. Larry Summers called BDS “objectively antisemitic.” Naturally partisanship will do its best to minimize the warts on one’s own group while trying to magnify those on the other. Each side is very astute at discerning antisemitism or racism in the other, but do not apply the same exacting standards to themselves. Intellectual honesty has always been in short supply.

    3. Nobody has argued that Nazis are liberals. What I have stated is that if you made a list of every policy objective and ranked them least to most important, based on objective facts, Nazis supported ideas that are in line with current far-left political ideology in America. I also explained that this is not actual leftism. Nazi ideology isn’t right or left; it’s anti-Jewish. Every position is based on whether it is in opposition to international Judaism or not.

  23. “My interlocutors sometimes accuse me of doing this for ideological reasons, that I “like” the right and “dislike” the left. Well, I actually don’t like right-wing antisemites. At all. To say the least.”

    Leaving aside the silliness about liking right-wing antisemites, this is a useful reminder that it’s been a couple of years since my last harangue about your blindness to that which is obvious to everyone else, i.e., you’re no non-partisan, David. You’re very much a right-wing partisan.

    You wrote a book about Obama’s lawlessness.
    Yet your opposition to Trump’s 2016 candidacy notwithstanding, you’ve had barely anything to say in the ensuing three years about Trump’s comparable fidelity to the law and legal norms. Or much of anything else about his presidency, for that matter.

    You blog at InstaPundit, for Pete’s sake.

    Why do you deny it? There’s no shame in partisanship. Surrender to the dark side. It’s your true nature.

    [If you think you saw this comment elsewhere in the thread, stop buying your designer drugs at trucker rest stops.]

Please to post comments