MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Has There Been a Surge of Anti-Semitism Under and Because of Trump?

In short, probably not. And about that ADL study everyone is citing...

In the aftermath of the horrific murders at a synagogue in Pittsburgh on Saturday, a good part of the media, social and otherwise, wishes to blame Donald Trump. Surely, Trump's inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exactly calm societal waters, and his remarks on Charlottesville, though often exaggerated by hostile sources, did not exactly come across as a rousing denunciation of white supremacy. Nevertheless, there are some barriers to blaming Trump for anti-Semitic acts specifically.

First, Pittsburgh was hardly the first time an anti-Semitic gunman murdered people in a Jewish insitution in the U.S. Between the Clinton and Bush II years, there was a shooting at a Jewish Community Center in L.A., a shooting at an El Al counter at LAX, a shooting at the Jewish Federation in Seattle, a shooting at a Jewish Community Center in Kansas City, and a shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Lower levels of vandalism and violence have been even more common. It's true that the death toll in Pittsburgh was especially high, but that's just happenstance; any of the other shoooters would have been happy to kill as many or more. [UPDATE: It's worth noting that many commentators, such as Franklin Foer in The Atlantic, simply ignore these past crimes, and act as if the Pittsburgh murders were some unique event in recent American Jewish history.]

Second, the Trump administration includes some very strong opponents of anti-Semitism. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has fought anti-Semitism in the world body, one of the world's primary purveyors of it, with a vigor and effectiveness not seen since at least Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Trump appointee Ken Marcus, head of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, has devoted much of his career to fighting anti-Semitism (but was confirmed over the objections of Senate Democrats, some of whom thought he was too opposed to anti-Semitism too willing to identify certain types of Israel-bashing as a form of anti-Semitism).

(Some would add here that the Trump administration has been the most pro-Israel in history. While true, I'm not sure that this affects domestic American anti-Semitism one way or another, except perhaps to especially irritate anti-Semites.)

Those who wish to blame Trump have an ace in the hole, an Anti-Defamation League study that purports to show an almost 60 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, which is implicitly blamed on Trump. This study has been cited on over and over in response to Pittsburgh.

There are several problems with relying on this study for Trump-bashing, however. The first is that the study includes 193 incidents of bomb threats to Jewish institutions as anti-Semitic incidents, even though by the time the ADL published the study, it had been conclusively shown that the two perpetrators of the bomb threats were not motivated by anti-Semitism. One can only guess why the ADL chose to inflate its statistics in this way, but none of the explanations speak well of it.

Second, the ADL report itself acknowledges that some of the rise in incidents may simply be due to better reporting ("more people are reporting incidents to ADL than ever before").

Third, "college campuses saw a total of 204 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016." How many of those incidents emanating from traditional forms of anti-Semitism that one might associate with Trumpian populism, and how many from leftist/pro-Palestinian sources? The ADL doesn't say.

Fourth, the ADL counts ambiguous incidents as anti-Semitic incidents, so long as they were reported as such. For example, the report states, "Jewish graves or cemeteries were desecrated seven times in 2017. The desecration of Jewish headstones is a classic anti-Semitic act employed for hundreds of years. The majority of the cemetery desecrations occurred in the first months of the year, at the same time as the bomb threats were called in to Jewish institutions, which contributed to a sense that the Jewish American community was under siege." The problem is that desecrations of cemeteries of all faiths is not uncommon, and are often the product of either bored teenagers or vagrants. In fact, at least some of the cemetery incidents counted by the ADL were ultimately determined by police not to be anti-Semitic in origin. The desecraton of a cemetery in St. Louis got a particularly large amount of attention. The police eventually caught the perpetrator, and determined that he was just "mad and drunk," not anti-Semitic. The ADL has not updated its study or press release to reflect such facts. Other questionable "anti-Semitic" incidents I've seen reported include graffitti with a swastika and "TRUMP." Is the "author" supporting "Trump the Nazi" or attacking Trump by accusing him of being a Nazi? My inclination would in most cases be to suspect the latter, but surely it's at least unclear.

None of which is to say that we can rule out a "surge," or at least a significant increase in anti-Semitic incidents during and perhaps because of the Trump administration. But the ADL study everyone is relying on to prove this doesn't show any such thing.

UPDATE: The most-read article in the Washington Post this morning is this piece by Dana Milbank. To my lack of suprise, he both ignores all the previous shooting incidents at American Jewish institutions and backs up a rather hysterical tone with, you guessed it, the ADL study.

Some of my friends tell me that adding reasonable context to the Pittsburgh shooting "excuses" Trump, and thus makes future incidents more likely. On the contrary, I think that reasoned criticism of Trump is useful—for example, noting that Trump's conspiratorial mindset inadvertently feeds anti-Semitism because the latter is a product of the same mindset, or that Trump should have unequivocally rejected support from white nationalists during his campaign, or that Trump is too narcissistic to apologize when he retweeted from anti-Semitic websites, and so on, though I would draw the line at blaming Trump for the incident, unless one wants to also explain why there were similar shootings before Trump, and also talk about all the other currents of anti-Semitism on both left and right that contribute to Jews' being by far the most targeted religious group for hate crimes for many years running.

Meanwhile, Trump's hardcore supporters are ever-alert for "fake news." Exaggeration, double-standards, failure to provide context, and blatant falsehoods about Trump simply feed their narrative that all news is fake news. And citing the obviously flawed ADL study not only ultimately is counter-productive to legitimate criticism of Trump, it also ultimately will highlight the extent to which the ADL itself has dipped its toe into the fake news business (it's not the only example). The ADL should be taken to task for its malfeasance in spreading dubious statistics, not relied upon, if one wants to retain the ADL's credibility in the long-run.

ONE MORE UPDATE: Putting aside the question of an increase in "incidents," has there been an increase in anti-Semitic attitudes among Americans that correlates with Trump? Are Trump supporters disproportionately like to be anti-Semites? I've been asking those who insist that both those things are true to provide me with survey or other data backing these claims. Yes, data, not anecdotes, not feelings. I haven't had any responses.

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.

  • AmosArch||

    Also nobody cares that the shooter was an outspoken and unabashed Trump hater but Trump might as well have served as best man at his wedding for all good that would have done in changing the prescripted narrative.

  • NToJ||

    You seem to care that the shooter disliked the President. So did USA Today, when they reported it several days ago. And CNN, etc.

  • bernard11||

    Let's be careful here, David.

    It's entirely possible that the ADL misclassifies some incidents, but so long as they are consistent, the alleged increase is not necessarily completely inaccurate.

    And whether there has been a "surge" or not is really less important than whether Trump, along with various right-wingers, has encouraged anti-Semitism. He, and they, have. Soros funding the caravan? Really?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "...not necessarily completely inaccurate."

    OK then.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Its a meta comment on his posts.

  • David Bernstein||

    I've been asking for about a year and a half for any survey evidence that shows that Trump's supporters are especially like to be anti-Semitic, or that anti-Semitic attitudes have shown a major increase since Trump. So far, all I've seen is one study showing a slight rise in anti-Semitic attitudes, not large enough to indicate anything unless it's the start of a trend. When I get such empirical evidence, if I do, I will update my understandings. So far, I just have a lot of people (left and right, though the right tends to blame the left, not Trump) insisting that anti-Semitism is "surging," without providing any empirical evidence.

  • santamonica811||

    I suspect that the truth ends up being like one of those logic sentences many of us learned. "All finches are birds, but not all birds are finches."

    I would expect that a relatively small percentage of Trump supporters are anti-Jew. But, I would not be surprised if most anti-Jew bigots supported Trump (as compared to other politicians). To the extent that it could be accurately measured: Of anti-Jew voters who do go out and cast their ballots; I expect that Hillary Clinton received very very few of those votes, and Donald Trump received the vast majority in 2016.

    (There is a segment of the black activist universe who are virulently anti-Jew, and maybe they'd be voting for Hillary [not sure if black antipathy towards Republican politicians in general would factor in here]. I'd have to see actual data, to see how large this sub-group was/is.)

  • JoeBlow123||

    "To the extent that it could be accurately measured: Of anti-Jew voters who do go out and cast their ballots; I expect that Hillary Clinton received very very few of those votes, and Donald Trump received the vast majority in 2016."

    Interesting contention. I suppose you have not visited a college campus in recent decades and witnessed the leftist Jew bashing the pro-Palestine student population engages in.

  • santamonica811||

    Of course I have. My point (which was, I think, pretty clear) was that I am guessing that, for people who proudly identify as Jew-haters, and for people whose positions are labeled as anti-Jewish by most observers, Hillary probably got very few of their votes, and Donald Trump probably got almost all of their votes.

    I have seen no data on this, so I am perfectly willing to offer mea culpas if this (a) has indeed been studied, and (b) shows an even level of support for Hillary...or a majority voting for HRC.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But the BDS movement is a left-wing movement. Trump has Jewish relatives. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem. He's never said anything remotely anti-Semitic.

    Seriously, I suppose it's possible that a lot of the anti-Semites in the Democratic party are in denial about what they are, but it makes no sense at all for somebody who's primarily an anti-Semite to be a Republican. You want anti-Semitic policy, the Democratic party is your reliable source.

  • Leo Marvin||

    it makes no sense at all for somebody who's primarily an anti-Semite to be a Republican.

    The alt-right, the Klan, neo-nazis and other judeophobic hate-mongers believe they know their self-interest better than you do. And they feel enough love from and for Trump to threaten and otherwise make life miserable for anyone who publicly opposes him.

  • damikesc||

    The alt-right, the Klan, neo-nazis and other judeophobic hate-mongers believe they know their self-interest better than you do. And they feel enough love from and for Trump to threaten and otherwise make life miserable for anyone who publicly opposes him.

    The Klan and neo-nazis are overwhelmingly Democrat. And antifa is virulently anti-Jewish and quite violent.

    Trump has done literally nothing anti-Semitic.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The Klan and neo-nazis are overwhelmingly Democrat.

    Not these days! Check out who the 'Jews will not replace us' chuckleheads support.

  • damikesc||

    Yes, these days. Overwhelmingly Democrat. The GOP is "too fond" of Israel for them.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You keep saying stuff that's demonstrably untrue and don't even bother to support it. Repeating something doesn't make it so.

    I present Unite the Right, the alt-right, David Duke, Steve King, quite a few GOP candidates for office.

    How do you explain the voting patterns of Jews and blacks, given your version of reality?

    Here's Haaretz. Are you and your 'nuh-uh' posts more enlightened than them?

  • JesseAz||

    Hey sarcastro... The lefts current favorite kkk and alt right target is actually a democrat. Keep pointing to someone who is irrelevant like the ignorant person you are.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I don't care about what targets you see the left attacking, nor what they claim to be their party affiliation. I provided quite a lot of examples. Given your lack of engagement and insults, it looks to me you're the one letting your feels dictate against the evidence.

  • damikesc||

    Unite the Right was created by a former Occupy Wall St guy.

    The Grand Dragon of the KKK endorsed Hillary. The GOP has opposed David Duke for decades.

    And blacks started voting Dem WHILE Dems were lynching and segregating them. Tell me more, please.

  • Sarcastr0||

    1) Do you think Unite the Right was a liberal thing?!

    2) don't fall for hoaxes.

    3) Hmm. That seems crazy. Almost as though you're missing a bunch of nuance about Dixiecrats versus northern Dems. Why do you think blacks and Jews act against what you seem to think is their obvious interest?

  • damikesc||

    1) Do you think Unite the Right was a liberal thing?!

    If Milo Yiannapoulos spearheaded an antifa mob, would you assume it was legit? Even if antifa was involved?

    2) don't fall for hoaxes.

    Your link makes claims and provides, literally, zero evidence. Odd.

    3) Hmm. That seems crazy. Almost as though you're missing a bunch of nuance about Dixiecrats versus northern Dems.

    There was no difference in them. FDR helped kill off anti-lynching laws. Northern Dems were every inch as bad as Southern Dems. The GOP just could not protect blacks from Dem depravity. Even in the Civil War, the Northern Dems wanted to surrender to the Confederacy.

    Remember, the Civil War was not North v South. It was Republican v Democrat.

    You know who doesn't have any track record of racial crimes? The Republicans. None whatsoever.

    Why do you think blacks and Jews act against what you seem to think is their obvious interest?

    Given how wonderfully blacks and Jews who dare to leave the plantation are treated...I hardly can blame them.

  • Sarcastr0||

    So you're going False Flag. OK, wow. Leadership aside, do you think all those super hard core Aryan lads heiling Trump were secret Democrats?

    My link quotes the original story, notes it's single-sourced provenance, and quotes experts to the contrary. How else do you suggest debunking such a claim?

    The Civil War was not a fight between parties, it was between states, dude.

    Reaching back to the Civil War to proclaim the innocence of your political party today, 150 years later, shows a bit of straw-grasping desperation, no?

    Plantation?! Yeah, blacks and Jews vote Dem in secret ballot elections because they are afraid of their slavemasters. Way to undercut your argument about who has a race problem by accusing blacks and Jews of false consciousness.

  • damikesc||

    The Civil War was not a fight between parties, it was between states, dude.

    No, it was between political parties. The Democrats wanted to keep slavery. Republicans did not.

    Plantation?! Yeah, blacks and Jews vote Dem in secret ballot elections because they are afraid of their slavemasters. Way to undercut your argument about who has a race problem by accusing blacks and Jews of false consciousness.

    Yes, ask Clarence Thomas how pleasant it is being black and conservative. I bet Dr Carson liked being called racist names. Kanye has had a grand old time, hasn't he?

    The Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of racism. That never changed.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I'll just leave your 'the war between the states wasn't' lie right there. It's pretty funny, though.

    Have you ever talked to a real liver black or Jewish Democratic voter? Despite your speculative telepathy, in my experience you won't find a lot of fear of the Dems there.

  • NToJ||

    "Your link makes claims and provides, literally, zero evidence. Odd."

    Yes it did, it had the link to the original article from March 2016. And he wasn't the "Grand Dragon of the KKK" he was "a grand dragon of the Klan's California chapter". And he's pretty obviously just stirring up shit, based on the original article. You fell for some dipshit email chain from your grandmother.

    But that's neither here nor there. You're the one making the claim ("The Grand Dragon of the KKK endorsed Hillary."). Where's your evidence?

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Here's Haaretz. "

    That is the best you can do? An extreme left wing foreign publication

    "more enlightened than them?"

    I think bernard wrote that particular article.

  • Slocum||

    "Trump has Jewish relatives. "

    Not just Jewish relatives. A (converted) Jewish daughter and Jewish son-in-law (who are both very close to him) along with their Jewish children (Trump's grandchildren). Have their been any other presidents with such close Jewish family connections?

    Why would right-wing anti-Semites overlook this? The synagogue shooter certainly didn't. Tying Trump to supposedly increased antisemitism is absurd. Trump's unhinged critics appear to be working overtime to make him look reasonable by comparison (not an easy task, but they seem to be giving it their all).

  • James Pollock||

    "Why would right-wing anti-Semites overlook this?"

    The same reason marriage-and-faith Republicans overlook his pornstar mistresses and multiple divorces, I guess.

  • santamonica811||

    You didn't even mention Trump's sexual fantasies about his own daughter. (Okay, his sexual thoughts about her, if you want to be charitable.)

  • iowantwo||

    You're a great example of the left that has had 2 years to figure out President Trump and just doesn't care enough to even try. You could ask evangelical leaders. I've heard half a dozen or more interviewed. They give a simple answer.
    Yes, President Trump did live an amoral life, wish he would not have done what he had done. Now? The choice was between a leader that actively advocates for the anti religious policies of the United States govt, and, the full throated support demonstrated by a flawed President Trump.

  • eyesay||

    "Have their been any other presidents with such close Jewish family connections?" for what it's worth, President Clinton has a Jewish son-in-law, but only since 2010, and he left office in 2001.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    but it makes no sense at all for somebody who's primarily an anti-Semite to be a Republican.

    The Republican Party seems to attract, appease, embrace, and enable your more well-rounded bigots -- the ones who hate gays, blacks, women, immigrants, and Jews.

  • JesseAz||

    So your analysis is based on your feelz and your ignorant perception of Trump's voter base. At least you admit your ignorance and bias.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's Trump's base that is ignorant (and intolerant, and poorly educated, and grievance-consumed, and gullible, and . . .)

    Until next Tuesday, it's all just jabbering.

    Except the racist gunfire, the Trump-inspired bombs, the anti-Semitic and xenophobic gunfire . . .

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's Trump's base that is ignorant (and intolerant, and poorly educated, and grievance-consumed, and gullible, and . . .)

    Until next Tuesday, it's all just jabbering.

    Except the racist gunfire, the Trump-inspired bombs, the anti-Semitic and xenophobic gunfire . . .

  • James Pollock||

    " I suppose you have not visited a college campus in recent decades and witnessed the leftist Jew bashing the pro-Palestine student population engages in."

    How is the antipathy (if it exists) to ISRAELI Jews related to the antipathy (if it exists) to American Jews, or antipathy (if it exists) to Jews in general?

    I ask, because being against Israel or actions the Israeli government makes or considers is not at all the same thing as "anti-Semitism".

    The weirdest group of all, to my eyes, are the American Christians who want to see Israel conquer the entire Middle East, because they believe that this is a necessary precondition to the re-appearance of Jesus.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I said Jew bashing. Not Israeli Jew bashing, but Jew bashing. You are being charitable to if you think the big brains in the pro-Palestine crowd are discerning enough to differentiate.

  • James Pollock||

    "You are being charitable to if you think the big brains in the pro-Palestine crowd are discerning enough to differentiate."

    No, I was being charitable to you in assuming you were discerning enough to differentiate.

    But you've corrected my misunderstanding.

  • JesseAz||

    So in santa Monica's dumb and ignorant world there is no anti Israel movement growing on modern campuses, pro Palestine is trump voters, Linda sardour and her ilk are trump supporters, Farrakhan is in Trump's cabinet ..

    God the stupidity of some people.

  • ipsquire||

    I know numbers over 2 are hard. Pro-Palestine+anti-Israel people and white supremacists are separate groups outside the "all things Jewish are good" group. One even has a fair number of American Jews.

  • aluchko||

    I don't think Trump supporters are more anti-Semitic on average.

    Overall the Trump administration has an awkward relationship with anti-Semitism. It is extremely pro-Israel and Trump's highly favoured son-in-law is Jewish (as is his daughter by conversion). Yet one of Trump's most dedicated sets of supporters includes White Supremacists and Neo Nazis, who are extremely anti-Semitic, and this is a fairly unique phenomena amongst US politicians. He also (perhaps unintentionally) ends up echo'ing some anti-Semitic propaganda with talk of "globalists" and demonizing George Soros.

    I'm kinda neutral on this one. I don't think this would cause a rise in anti-Semitism since Trump dominates the conversation and he doesn't really say anything particularly anti-Semitic. But he's been driving up the rhetoric, and when you do that all the extremists start getting more extreme.

  • damikesc||

    Yet one of Trump's most dedicated sets of supporters includes White Supremacists and Neo Nazis

    Such as?

    Richard Spencer has been a Democrat for damned near ever. The leader of the original Unite the Right rally was a fucking Occupy Wall St geek.

    He also (perhaps unintentionally) ends up echo'ing some anti-Semitic propaganda with talk of "globalists" and demonizing George Soros.

    Not sure how criticizing a Nazi collaborator like Soros is "anti-Semitic", but YMMV.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Richard Spencer has been a Democrat for damned near ever.

    Weird how many of his supporters wear that MAGA hat then.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not weird.

    Fitting.

    Natural.

    Inevitable.

  • NToJ||

    George Soros was not a Nazi collaborator. You keep falling for false stories.

    You do know that George Soros is Jewish, right?

  • donojack||

    Admitted to helping in the confiscation of Jews' property. "If I hadn't done it someone else would." He was 14 but it's still collaboration.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id0-Lsyr0

  • NToJ||

    No he didn't. Immediately after your selectively quoted portion, he said:

    "And it was the — whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the — I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

    He was saying that being there left him with no guilt because he (1) had no role in actually taking property; and (2) the property was confiscated regardless of what he did.

    He went with his caretaker to take an inventory of already-confiscated property. He was a 14 year old whose job was to pretend to be the godson of a Hungarian bureaucrat, while in the presence of actual Nazis. What did you expect him to do? You're such a partisan asshole that you'd take a swipe at a 14-year old trying to avoid the Holocaust by inventing a story about him that you've been told is false.

  • donojack||

    Obviously he didn't take the property. That would have been the German soldiers, the guys with the guns. And you are making up the part about inventorying property after it was confiscated.

    Also the fact that he was 14 is an excuse for collaboration not the denial of it. I didn't invent any story about him, he told it himself.

    You got caught lying as usual and you don't like. Sorry.

  • donojack||

    He admitted to helping confiscate Jews' property. "If I hadn't done it someone else would have."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id0-Lsyr0

    He was 14 but it's still collaboration.

  • Sarcastr0||

    He was 14 but it's still collaboration.

    Not in any functional sense of the word.
    French plants provided oxygen for Germans to breath to, the moral monsters!

  • donojack||

    So when does he get to be called a collaborator? 15, 16, 17?

  • donojack||

    "You do know that George Soros is Jewish, right?"

    Like saying about those who turned in Resistance fighters in WWII: "You know they were French, right?"

  • Liberty Lover||

    It is not Trump's fault white supremacists and Neo-Nazis support him, given their only other option was Hillary Clinton.

  • Leo Marvin||

    "It is not Trump's fault white supremacists and Neo-Nazis support him"

    Would you like a 5 minute recess to huddle with damikesc and get that narrative straight?

  • JesseAz||

    Idiot leftists keep making this claim but never back it up with more than feelz.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It makes about as much sense to blame Trump for being supported by "White Supremacists", (Sneer quotes because the left is pretty indiscriminant about who they call that.) as it does to blame Hillary for being supported by outright communists.

    Obnoxious wackos who lack a successful political vehicle for their views are going to gravitate to whichever major party they find doesn't offend them the most, but "doesn't offend them the most" is a long ways from being allied with the wackos.

    The GOP gets some support from white racists on account of being in favor of actual equal treatment under the law, because the alternative is the Democrats, who actively favor racial discrimination against whites. That doesn't make being opposed to racial discrimination into a form of support for it.

  • JesseAz||

    The problem is that nobody has ever proven anti semites like Spencer actually voted for trump, they just repeat the talking points for as fact. Even when they are given facts like Spencer is a democrat. Then there's the whole game of hide the picture of famous democrat with Farrakhan like he's not heavily involved with democratic politics.

  • bernard11||

    Spencer voted for Trump. He said so.

    He made a speech shortly after the election screaming, "Hail Trump," and got Nazi salutes from his followers.

    Never been proven. My ass. You're nuts.

  • NToJ||

    Where is this fact that Spencer is a "democrat" however you are defining it? He voted for John Kerry? Do you think he voted for Clinton? If he voted for Trump, does that make him "a republican"?

  • NToJ||

    "That doesn't make being opposed to racial discrimination into a form of support for it."

    I sense from things that white supremacists say that they do, in fact, support racial discrimination.

  • M.L.||

    "Yet one of Trump's most dedicated sets of supporters includes White Supremacists and Neo Nazis"

    But this is nothing more than a figment of your mind that was planted there by the media's endless obsession with a few dozen hillbillies, who curiously became the subject of thousands of headlines and thinkpieces.

    "demonizing George Soros."

    Again, this is simply media brainwashing. Remember the hysteria and hatred over the Koch brothers? Apparently they're Jewish. But we didn't get thousands of headlines making the Democrat party out to be Nazis. Odd case.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Apparently they're Jewish"

    No they are not but I do wonder if their "Jewish sounding" name plays a role in how vicious the left is against them.

    Adelson is a prominent Jew who supports the GOP. He gets as much hate as Soros does.

  • M.L.||

    I stand corrected, I guess, I got this notion from a bunch of recent headlines from Trump's criticism of the Kochs, like this.

    You're right, same story with Adelson. Then there are different examples of hated people like Stephen Miller.

  • NToJ||

    So which one of us is being brainwashed?

  • DStraws||

    I know this is hard, but how about some citations demonstrating the hatred toward Mr. Adelson. He is often seen as supporting Republican causes, but is not the subject of the antisemitism to which Soros is subjected.

  • FlameCCT||

    "...this is a fairly unique phenomena amongst US politicians..."

    Not so unique when you realize that Democrats receive strong support from both Jews and Palestinian Arabs throughout the USA, especially in large urban areas.

  • redfish||

    No, Trump hasn't said anything remotely anti-Semitic at all, and his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.

    Your blame for "various right-wingers" is vague. And one might as well cast blame on the far-left for fanning narratives about Israeli apartheid and Netanyahu trying to manipulate the US into a war with Iran. This is why the shooter thought that Trump was "controlled by Jews," because of a foreign policy pursued by Trump which is supported by the mainstream of the Republican Party and mainstream of conservatives, but its demonized by the left with anti-Semitic undertones. So, you have some on the alt-right who are concerned about immigration, and then pick up the left-wing narrative on Israel and add that to their ideology.

  • bernard11||

    Trump hasn't said anything remotely anti-Semitic at all,

    Ted Nugent. Steve Bannon. Soros funding "the caravan."

    Fuck you. Trump and the Trumpists - Limbaugh, Coulter, McCarthy, etc. are haters.

  • bernard11||

    I thought you had some magnificent IQ. I would have thought a genius like you would know the origin of the term "anti-Semitism."

    I guess not, and I guess you're just as stupid as I thought you were.

  • bernard11||

    "Good people on both sides."

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, and what's your problem with him saying that? All he was saying was that it was a mixed crowd on both sides. Which was objectively true, even if inconvenient for the left.

  • bernard11||

    "Mixed crowd?" Sure Brett, lots of fine people lie to chant anti-Semitic slogans.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, a mixed crowd. Just like everybody on the left there wasn't an Antifa goon determined to physically attack anybody who disagreed with them, not everybody on the right there was a white separatist.

    You don't have to be a Neo-confederate to oppose having Civil war memorials and statues torn down, any more than you have to worship Ra to oppose ISIS going around destroying archeological sites. Some people just don't want history to be erased.

  • Leo Marvin||

    I don't know any fine people who march with neo-nazis behind neo-nazi banners at a demonstration organized and led by neo-nazis.

  • damikesc||

    Given that antifa were no better and everybody there wasnt tied to either group...

  • NToJ||

    So why did he say antifa were "good people" too?

  • JesseAz||

    The March was about free speech and got coopted. There were people there purely for free speech dumb fuck. It's like claiming every crowd antifa invades has no good leftists. When did liberals get this god damn stupid?

  • M.L.||

    Yes, the march was about free speech and confederate monuments. Even the NYT had a human interest piece about regular folks there, something like "good people can go to Charlottesville."

  • Leo Marvin||

    Between your uninformed insults, you didn't manage to contradict a thing I said.

    Spew belligerent hackery to your heart's content. I'm done wasting time on you.

  • Leo Marvin||

    (That reply was to Jesse, not M.L.)

  • mad_kalak||

    The people who protested to the removal of the statue only, were not part of the nighttime tiki torch parade of white supremacists, and both happened at different times. But don't let that temper your righteous anger.

  • NToJ||

    That doesn't save the argument. Removal of confederate statues has nothing to do with "free speech" from above.

  • bernard11||

    So they were only pro-slavery. Is that your point?

  • mad_kalak||

    Bernard, that is a particularly inflammatory comment, in that no one is pro-slavery these days except for militant Mohammedans. Can you understand why a group of people wouldn't want their history erased? Why they might be proud of their cultural ancestors, in that they fought with honor and bravery, even if for the wrong side?

  • NToJ||

    "Can you understand why a group of people wouldn't want their history erased?"

    Stop changing the subject. This isn't about history being erased. It's about state statues being removed.

    "Why they might be proud of their cultural ancestors, in that they fought with honor and bravery, even if for the wrong side?"

    Anyone who has spent time in the American south understands why people are proud of their cultural ancestors. But what does that have to do with losers who would fight to keep confederate statues up that were erected in direct response to the civil rights movement? It was never about being a proud confederate. It was about the race-culture war and preserving their supremacy. Don't be naive.

  • Toranth||

    Are you now claiming that saying "Soros" is anti-Semitic? Because that may be one of the stupid things I've heard in a while.

    Soros is a very politically active man. He funds lots of groups, including fringe activist groups. If criticism - or even just naming him - becomes an act of racism, then you've created a magical ruling class. Sane people don't do that, and sane people don't accuse people of anti-Semitism for criticizing a Jew for something unrelated to his ethnic or religious background.

  • bernard11||

    Are you now claiming that saying "Soros" is anti-Semitic? Because that may be one of the stupid things I've heard in a while.

    Then you haven't been listening to Trump.

    And if you don't think talking about the malign influence of George Soros - "funding the caravan," etc, - is anti-Semitic then you don't know much about the subject.

  • JesseAz||

    You're an idiot Bernard. But we knew that.

  • bernard11||

    Yet another incisive comment from the dumbest bastard in Arizona.

  • damikesc||

    So, recognizing Soros actions historically is anti Semitism. Got it. Interesting.

    Is all criticism of prominent Democrats racist?

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Is all criticism of prominent Democrats racist?"

    No, some is misogyny.

  • Toranth||

    You are crazy. You have turned criticizing the secular political actions of someone into bigotry based on their ethnicity.

    That's not sane. Rational people can recognize that there is more than a single genetic attribute that makes up a person and their actions. It sounds more like your own prejudices about ethics groups and behavior are clouding your mind.

  • bernard11||

    No Toranth, you're the one who's crazy, or maybe brainwashed, and definitely ignorant. What has Soros done, exactly, that you find so terrible?

    You've swallowed a lot of lies about him, and you plainly don't know that dark mutterings about shadowy international financiers is a staple of anti-Semitism, and has been for a long time. Trump did that during the campaign, and attacks on Soros are a regular theme on Fox.

    It's hard to believe that any sane person person believes all that crap. I guess you think the caravan is infested with smallpox too.

  • I Callahan||

    Ted Nugent is not Doanld Trump. Steven Bannon is not Donald Trump. And there is evidence that Soros groups are involved in that caravan. The fact that you stick your head in the sand and ignore that is your fault.

    Wrong on all counts. And grow up while you're thinking about that.

  • bernard11||

    Oh stop. Soros funding the caravan? Are you a fucking moron?

    What other idiotic RWNJ ideas do you believe?

    Nugent and Bannon are Trump pals. That ought to tell you something, if you were capable of listening. .

  • damikesc||

    Farrakhan was an Obama buddy. Ditto Al Sharpton.

    Your point?

  • Leo Marvin||

    Farrakhan has repeatedly expressed support for Trump.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, back when Trump was understood to be a Democrat.

  • damikesc||

    Meanwhile, the press covered up photos of Farrakhan and Obama for years.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Was Trump understood to be a Democrat in 2016?

    Was he understood to be a Democrat last week?

  • damikesc||

    Farrakhan is also calling him a racist and will send us to Hell..

    MEANWHILE, the #2 man at the DNC --- you know, the one who likes to beat up women --- is an acolyte of Farrakhan's.

  • XM||

    Ted Nugent and Steve Bannon apparently said something antisemitic so... Trump.

    Obama was a member of a church led by a antisemite for..... 20 years?

  • JesseAz||

    It wasn't anti semetic. People don't hate Soros for being Jewish. It's an idiot leftist attempt at a dog whistle.

  • JesseAz||

    Soros does fund the group that originated the caravan. Sin Fronteras is directly funded by Soros. So fuck you? Soros is hated for his activism not his ethnicity idiot.

  • KevinP||

    The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With [racist and anti-semite Louis] Farrakhan in 2005


    Quote:
    A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have "made a difference" to Obama's political future.

    The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he "gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy."
  • Rip Murdock||

    ...... and his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.

    Sounds like "I can't be anti-Semitic, I've got a Jewish son-in-law" or "I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black." A pretty weak defense, esp. after Charlottesville, where they chanted "Blood and Soil" (Blut und Boden), a slogan directly related to Nazi ideology, and Trump said there were good people on their side.

  • Milhouse||

    Sounds like [..] "I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black."

    That is a perfectly sound argument, if it is true. The only reason such claims have become a cliche for a poor defense is that they're often not true. If someone really does have close black friends then that is strong evidence that he is indeed not racist, and there's not a reason in the world why he should not say so. Those who mock it without having a clue why merely make fools of themselves.

    And the Charlottesville confrontation did have good people on both sides, as well as vicious thugs. If you claim that anyone who didn't boycott the pro-statue rally because of the neo-nazis' presence is not a good person, then you must say the same for everyone who didn't boycott the counterprotest because of the communist thugs' presence.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Actually it is not a good defense at all. See the Austrian politician Karl Lueger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lueger) credited by Hitler as an inspiration. Apparently he had lots of Jewish friends, was not particularly biased himself, but used it as a populist way to get elected. In my view, harnessing and exploiting racism and antisemitism to get elected is worse than having personal animus.It is the opposite of leadership. White supremicists may not have increased in number, but they used to be outside mainstream politics, and did not bother voting for the most part. There is no doubt that Trump revved them up and got their votes, mostly because of the immigration issue. One can be anti-immigration without being racist, but one can't be racist and for immigration. In my view, Trump went out of his way not to alienate these voters and widened the Overton window to allow at least some of their "reasoning" to be mainstreamed. I don't buy the incompetence or naivete argument that retweating white supremicists was inadvertent. At best it was done because he and they did not care. Imagine if Obama had retweeted from a communist website.

  • Toranth||

    It's a good defense, just like claiming you wouldn't murder someone because they were family.

    Other evidence may show you are, in fact, lying - but having a Jewish daughter and being fond of her and her husband, without caring about her choice of religion, is pretty good evidence that you do not hate Jews.

  • bernard11||

    No it's not a good defense.

    Historically, it's been a commonplace for anti-Semites, and I can remember racists in the Jim Crow South talking about how fond they were of their maids or gardeners. It's a BS argument.

  • damikesc||

    Democrats main claim that they arent racist is "blacks vote for us".

    They started doing so WHILE Democrats were banning them from public schools, colleges, and from voting.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The proof is in the practical pudding of Republicans' race-targeting voter suppression project.

    I am glad that our vestigial bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots. That is a substantial improvement in America, generated by our liberal-libertarian mainstream.

    Carry on, "colorblind" clingers.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "The only reason such claims have become a cliche for a poor defense is that they're often not true."

    I'd say the reason it's become a cliche is that the left wants their attacks to be unfalsifiable, so providing a defense is treated by them as confirmation of guilt.

    Seriously, I've had people tell me that being in an inter-racial marriage is proof I'm a racist!

  • bernard11||

    No Brett. Your paranoia is showing again. Seriously.

    It's a cliche because it's used to cover bigotry. So what if you have a black friend but still consider blacks inferior? So what if you have a Jewish son-in-law but still talk about the great financial conspiracy, run by Jews, incidentally, to control the world?

  • damikesc||

    Why would you be friend with people you find inferior?

    You dont find it odd how, uh, MONOCHROMATIC the areas are where elite Progressives live?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    At worst that makes it a rebuttable, rather than conclusive, defense. But it's still a defense.

  • damikesc||

    I am baffled how both a LACK of black friends AND having black friends BOTH makes one racist.

  • General_Tso||

    The same way that lack of hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes are both indicative of Global Warming.

    Thinking like a liberal require mental gymnastics.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Being accused of being a racist by a leftist makes you a racist. Once you're accused you're automatically guilty, and any defense you proffer just proves your guilt.

  • bernard11||

    You are easily baffled and more easily fooled.

  • damikesc||

    A pretty weak defense, esp. after Charlottesville, where they chanted "Blood and Soil" (Blut und Boden), a slogan directly related to Nazi ideology, and Trump said there were good people on their side.

    So EVERYBODY there chanted Nazi slogans or were antifa?

    EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The left is pretty heavily into guilt by association these days. Every last person who isn't on their side is a Nazi, haven't you heard?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Wow, that's quite a goalpost you chose there.

    When your argument requires you to start making up hypothetical naifs to prove Trump's weak failure to condemn a white supremacist rally is actually OK, you're not having a good day.

  • damikesc||

    Trump condemned both sides. Because both sides were abysmal. Sorry if not ignoring antifa...you know, those brave souls the media compared to the Normandy invasion...offends you so.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Nice pivot away from endorsement to condemnation.

    But I am not gonna be distracted. When your response to a white supremacist rally where they chant about Jews and blood and soil includes, 'but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides' you're playing in a bad pool and deserve contempt for it.

    No one thinks that was Trump being conciliatory to Antifa.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They've lost the culture war, Sarcastro. Increasingly painted into a desolate, rural, left-behind corner, clinging to guns, religion, and memories of unearned privilege. A little desperation and delusion is to be expected from them in this situation..

  • JesseAz||

    It was coopted by white supremacists. It was originally a free speech March. Not everyone there was for the racism. Why do you ignore basic facts sarcastro? You revel in your dishonesty.

  • damikesc||

    Hes on the same side as Kirkland. That, for sane folks, would be evidence that they went wrong somewhere.

  • damikesc||

    He endorsed nobody. He said both sided were terrible. The Left ACTIVELY defended antifa.

    Trump wasnt being concilliatory towards either side. YOU are, however.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "They" chant... There wasn't any "They". There were a bunch of individuals, with varied motives for being there!

    This is the problem here, Sarcastro: You're insisting on treating everybody on one side of the skirmish line as a big homogeneous blob. If one person is chanting some stupid chant, every last person must agree with it. Guilt by association.

    You'd never treat your own side like that. You understand that there can be peaceful protesters, people who are offended by Confederate monuments, and goons looking for a fight, on your side of the skirmish line. But on our side, it's all uniform cardboard cutouts, and they're all equally guilty of anything any one of them does.

  • damikesc||

    It's why any conservative is demanded to explain away the comment from any Republican running for office anywhere while no Democrat is demanded to explain away the comment from any Democrat running for office anywhere.

  • Leo Marvin||

    If I showed up at what I thought would be a free speech rally, and it turned out the leaders and most of the demonstrators were neo-nazis, carrying neo-nazi placards, and shouting neo-nazi slogans, I'd get the hell out of there. To do otherwise would rightfully entitle anyone who saw me associating myself with those people to also associate me with what they stand for.

    What would you do?

  • Leo Marvin||

    That response and question was for Brett.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I cosign Leo's answer, as that is my answer to Brett and Jesse as well. Co-opted or not, you see that bullcrap (and yeah, there were open white supremacists there during the day), you get out. I'm at some anti-war thing and I see Antifa, I'm leaving.

    It's not lumping people together to say Trump was playing nice with antisemites. (although note Trump and Islam and immigrants etc. etc.)

  • damikesc||

    If you're at an anti-war rally and don't see antifa, you are hiding your eyes and trying to avoid seeing them.

    It's not lumping people together to say Trump was playing nice with antisemites. (although note Trump and Islam and immigrants etc. etc.)

    I'll let you note that. Your point...?

    Any country that wants control of their borders is Nazi, basically?

  • Sarcastr0||

    How would you know, damikesc?

    You complain that I'm lumping people in a particular protest together, and yet Trump lumps disparate populations together in order to target them.

    Strawmanning the person you're replying to is not a great move.
    I'm not an open borders guy. I'm also not a Nazi. There's a lot of middle ground there; it should be easy.
    Apart from border policy, your party just has a lot of trouble avoiding the Nazi side of things in your elected officials and opinion writers these days.

  • damikesc||

    You complain that I'm lumping people in a particular protest together, and yet Trump lumps disparate populations together in order to target them.

    I'm not complaining. Just noting that you're a fucking moron.

    Apart from border policy, your party just has a lot of trouble avoiding the Nazi side of things in your elected officials and opinion writers these days.

    My party didn't send Jews back to get gassed nor did we put Americans in concentration camps.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Most people can distinguish people at a protest from a general population.

    Your new habit of reaching back generations to find Democratic sins as though those relate to the current situation is not a great sign for how you feel your argument is going.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Some of the more sentient Republicans and conservatives recognize that their cause is being branded by bigotry and backwardness for at least a generation.

    Rather that address the cause of this problem, they dredge up one-liners about Robert Byrd or the number of Democrats in Alabama toward the end of its vicious racism period. Maybe they believe this will work. Maybe they are like first-year law students, who have learned the outlines of how to argue but have not developed the ability to persuade. Maybe they are just going through the motions to joust on message boards. I don't care about that. I am interested in how this will influence voting throughout the next 30 to 40 years.

  • damikesc||

    And lets say you did not ATTEND the torch parade. You know, the only one explicitly Nazi...

  • Sarcastr0||

    The Nazis were there at the original parade as well, all dressed up and with signs. Do you want me to post screencaps?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "I'd get the hell out of there."

    Right through the line of Antifa ready to kick your ass, no doubt.

    No, the hell with that. I don't accept guilt by association, I no more think people should flee a right-wing event if neo-Nazis show up, than I think Democrats should flee a Bernie rally if BLM shows up.

    Treat people as individuals, drop this guilt by association nonsense.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Brett, protests aren't some small room. It's mostly a stroll with costumes and signs. I've never been at one where I couldn't leave very easily.

    I do accept guilt by association - if my body is adding to the crowd count for a protest whose agenda has become one I don't agree with then what am I doing there?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Protests are specifically not about people as individuals, they are about the people united. I'm all for judging people as individuals, but a protest specifically gets it's power from collective action.

    As for your paean to the individual, what about immigration, Brett. And haven't you compared Muslims to Nazis? For that matter, what about Nazis? Your consistency is slipping, unless you find a way to distinguish.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you walk with torch-waving white supremacists, Confederate flag-fondling bigots, and the "Jews will not replace us" choir, guilt by association seems the only sensible consequence.

    If those guys continue to show up at "right-wing free speech" events, a bit of introspection is indicated.

  • bernard11||

    "They" chant... There wasn't any "They". There were a bunch of individuals, with varied motives for being there!

    Varied motives for their anti-Semitic chanting? You mean some only hate Jews a little, and some hate them a lot.

    Varied. Sure. Makes sense. To you.

  • great Unknown||

    I was a Jewish pulpit Rabbi for years, as well as a teacher of Talmud at post-graduate levels in a Yeshiva, and in my experience, Soros was universally reviled and hated. Indeed, I gave several sermons using Soros as an example of a so-called Jew who actively fights against everything Judaism stands for, including the State of Israel.

    Does that make hundreds of Orthodox Jews including myself anti-Semites? Or does is mean that at least those communities separated the actions of the person from his alleged background?

  • Eddy||

    If this is true, Rabbi, then it doesn't fit the narrative - it sounds like an excellent subject for its own article.

  • bernard11||

    Well, Eddy, to me it sounds like a load of BS.

  • damikesc||

    Are you Jewish?

    You seem to believe opposition to Nazi collaborators like Soros is anti Semitism. Its odd.

  • Eddy||

    I said *if* it's true.

  • Milhouse||

    Someone's funding the caravan, and the odds are very good that whoever it is gets money from Soros.

    And there's nothing at all antisemitic about hating Soros. Almost nobody hates him because he happens to be a Jew, and nobody would hate him any less if he weren't. In fact one of the main offences of which his haters (falsely in this instance) accuse him is collaborating with the Nazis; antisemites would see that as a virtue, not a fault.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Rebbe, I have no fondness for Soros myself. But did you or your congregants make up lies about him funding an "invasion" or paying fake protestors? Did you get your information about him from websites claiming Jewish conspiracies? Do you believe the torch carrying folks chanting "Jews will not replace us" had "many fine people" among them? And really, who likes bankers? Just because someone rails against "international finance" and puts a six -pointed star in front of a piles of money should crate no cause for concern, even if it started with avowed anti-Semites--it was something you or one of your congregants could have easily done by mistake. Doubtless, it is this type of wisdom that you gleaned from the Pirkei Avot. I, however, must have missed that day. I bow to your superior learning and your cogent and not at all simple-minded reasoning that takes all the available facts into account.

  • great Unknown||

    Repeating a lie endlessly does not make it true - nor does calling someone else's opinion a lie make it a lie. Recall how the claims that Soros was involved in J Street were put down as lies, until :

    politico.com/ blogs/ben-smith/2010/09/soros-and-j-street-029509

    I actually get much of my information from pro-Israel, Jewish sources.

    Regarding Soros paying fake protestors, I don't think anybody claims that he did this directly. However, the groups he helped found, and currently funds, certainly did: snopes.com/fact-check/riot-act/

    Another lie about a not-lie debunked.

  • bernard11||

    What the hell is wrong with J-Street?

    Here's a clue. Forget the "He supports Israel" argument. He supports Netanyahu. Whether that is "supporting Israel" or not is open to debate, and even if it is, that has nothing to do with whether his words and actions provoke anti-Semitism.

  • damikesc||

    Here's a clue. Forget the "He supports Israel" argument. He supports Netanyahu. Whether that is "supporting Israel" or not is open to debate, and even if it is, that has nothing to do with whether his words and actions provoke anti-Semitism.

    Him saying literally nothing anti-Semitic is evidence he does not.

    If you see somebody discussing how evil the Jews are, 95% chance that person votes Democrat.

  • DStraws||

    "If you see somebody discussing how evil the Jews are, 95% chance that person votes Democrat."

    I know there is a legal term for an unsubstantiated claim, but I don't know what it is. When you come up with the data supporting this assertion we may have something to talk about, but until then I will take it in the vein it was stated "bull****".

  • DStraws||

    "If you see somebody discussing how evil the Jews are, 95% chance that person votes Democrat."

    I know there is a legal term for an unsubstantiated claim, but I don't know what it is. When you come up with the data supporting this assertion we may have something to talk about, but until then I will take it in the vein it was stated "bull****".

  • great Unknown||

    Supporting the democratically elected leader of a country is equivalent to supporting that country and its citizens. But you're right. Supporting Israel - e.g., moving the US Embassy to the Israeli capital - certainly engenders anti-semitism. Primarily among anti-semites.

    BTW, opposing the democratically elected leader of a country is equivalent to opposing that country and its citizens.

  • NToJ||

    "BTW, opposing the democratically elected leader of a country is equivalent to opposing that country and its citizens."

    *rolls eyes*

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Umm, Trump specifically claimed that the women at the Kavanaugh hearing were "paid protestors." All snopes says is yes, Soros gives to progressive groups. A paid protestor is someone who does not believe what they are saying, not a group using donations to make signs and solicits volunteers. How much per hour were the protestors paid? The claim is nonsense and thematically similar to claims that the Sandyhook parents were "crisis actors."

    Another lie defended with red herrings and answering a different question. Tell me again how "wire tap" and "unmasking" are synonyms, and explain again the source for Trump having the largest crowd at his inauguration, ever. In the meantime, give the link to the protestors' pay stubs.

  • damikesc||

    And whether there has been a "surge" or not is really less important than whether Trump, along with various right-wingers, has encouraged anti-Semitism. He, and they, have. Soros funding the caravan? Really?

    BDS is a far more prevalent issue.

    Soros funding a lot of shitty groups that hate Jews is not news.

  • Sarcastr0||

    BDS is a far more prevalent issue

    Not when the other side is shooting people and stockpiling guns waiting for the day when the Jew-led Marxists at last rise up.

    Once side wages (wrongheaded) economic warfare. The other contemplates actual warfare.
    Those might be in equipoise when one is deed and the other thought. That's not been the case this week, but I very much hope that's not a trend.

  • damikesc||

    Except the guy doing the shooting hated Trump, meaning he was a Democrat most likely.

    But tell me more. I find your justifications for progressive bigotry endlessly enlightening.

  • Leo Marvin||

    The shooter's motives included support for Trump's opposed-by-Democrats immigration policy but more so. How that makes him a likely Democrat outside the florid imaginations of Trump apologists eludes me.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You're dealing with poorly educated, desperate, gullible, seething right-wingers. Expect the silly, such as 'Democrats are the real racists.'

  • damikesc||

    He, you know, said he hated Trump. The belief that Dems are all open borders is laughable.

    He was a Dem. Just own it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He criticized Trump because he believed Trump was weak on the Jew-hating part, but he was in line with the 'traditional values right' on immigrants, blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, and Muslims. A relatively standard-issue Trump base member and Republican 'traditional values' voter.

  • JesseAz||

    You've gone full on retarded sarcastro. My god your ignorance is growing by the post.

  • KevinP||

    Speaking of shooting people...

    The 9 Minutes that almost changed America: Congressional Baseball Shooting


    Quotes:
    Many lawmakers are mad, or frustrated, or saddened, at how quickly the story disappeared from the headlines given that the shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, targeted Republicans. The FBI concluded the shooting wasn't politically motivated — suicide by cop, they told members after an investigation.

    But Hodgkinson carried a list of names of lawmakers in his pocket: Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, Trent Franks, Scott DesJarlais, Jeff Duncan, and Morgan Griffith. The list included their office numbers and short physical descriptions. He'd recorded video of the field in April of of that year — a sign, the prosecutor wrote in his official report, that Hodgkinson "had already selected Simpson field as a potential target as early as April 2017."

    His social media posts show that he hated Trump, and supported Bernie Sanders, for whose 2016 campaign he even volunteered. He once routinely wrote letters to the local paper, criticizing Republicans.

  • JesseAz||

    God you liberals are insufferable. What has been on the increase the last 5 years or so? The liberally pushed divest movement on college campuses along with a growing pro Palestine movement by the left. These are very anti semetic movements that ignore the terror pushed by the elected Palestine government and numerous stabbings by those groups, including payments to the attackers families. But let's blame trump... There is dumb, and then there is modern liberal dumb.

  • Rossami||

    Per the ADL's own statement that "more people are reporting incidents to ADL than ever before", we can be sure that they are not consistent. Methodologies that depend on self-reporting are by definition not trustworthy for longitudinal surveys.

    If the ADL conducted any statistical validation and correction for biases in self-reporting, it is possible that consistency in the data could be achieved - but if they did any statistical validation and correction, their disclaimer about reporting bias would have been unnecessary.

  • DrCoke||

    Soros is Jewish?
    Who knew.

    I just know he's a leftist billionaire.

    Leftists see everything through the lens of identity politics, it seems.

  • NToJ||

    "...he's a leftist billionaire."

    "...see everything through the lens of identity politics..."

    Anyway, from what perspective to neo-nazis see things, if not identity politics?

  • DrCoke||

    A billionaire is something you choose to become, as is a leftist.
    This is different than ascribing stereotypes to someone's ethnic heritage, which is not a choice.

    People do have identities, but apparently leftists are unable to make the above distinction,
    or understand what "identity politics" means. In other words, leftists are, by definition,
    people who have chosen to be racist morons. (I suppose you could argue that leftists
    were simply born morons, which could arguably be unfair to blame them for. However,
    your choice to be a racist was definitely a choice you made.)

  • Incredulous||

    What? "Encouraged anti-Semitism?" How? By denouncing it? By having his daughter marry a Jewish man?

    Trump is jerk for many reasons but this crap about him being anti-Semitic and racist is nonsense.

  • Kazinski||

    I would say that any statistical analysis of trends using bad data is bad analysis.

    Especially when ONE Isreali teenager was found responsible for making over 2000 bomb threats in a 3 year period.

    And Trump was blamed for him too, by all the same people blaming him for the Pittsburgh shooting. There should be a special place in hell for people that try to capitalize on a tradgedy like this to blame their political enemies. It's like you shot everyone in the synagogue all over again (James Byrd reference intentional).

  • Jummy||

    The entire increase claimed in the ADL report is attributable to the 200 hoax bomb threats for which an Israeli Jewish man is in jail. They are expressly cited in the ADL report. The hoax bomb threats occurred in February and the perpetrator was identified in early April. The ADL published their report thirteen months later. The only reasonable explanation for the inclusion is that the ADL is deliberate and intentional.

    I'm not prepossessed by whether a few more or a few less people "hate" jews. Why should I be? The attempt to shield George Soros from criticism behind a bad faith accusation of "antisemitism" is remarkably obtuse. It's also a popular demagogic trope. I bet the Koch brothers wish they could benefit from that trick.

  • Eddy||

    The alleged killer thought Trump was philo-Semitic (not the gunman's exact words, but the gist).

  • ||

    The left's new argument is that, even if Trump isn't anti-Jewish himself (I refuse to use the stupid term anti-Semitic, as Arabs are also Semitic people), neo-Nazis feel emboldened by him. This is of course ridiculous on its face. You can't control who supports you or even more generally, "feels emboldened by you."

  • bernard11||

    I thought you had some magnificent IQ. I would have thought a genius like you would know the origin of the term "anti-Semitism."

    I guess not, and I guess you're just as stupid as I thought you were.

  • Toranth||

    Don't post drunk, bernie - you're both losing coherence and letting your inside voice out.
    You aren't supposed to reveal your bigotry and prejudicial hatred here; that's what HuffPo and Slate are for.

  • JesseAz||

    He's not posting drunk, he's always this stupid.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Is your tribalism really so intractible that rather than agree with an icky liberal (who happens to be right, by the way), you'll defend and make common cause with an unabashed racist and mysogonist -- I don't use those terms lightly; he claims Mexicans are genetically inferior, and argues that women shouldn't be allowed to vote -- who also routinely calls for shedding liberal blood? If so, you're a sad, sad man.

  • ||

    I didn't say Mexicans were genetically inferior. I said mestizos have a lower average IQ, which is a fact.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Same question I just asked Jesse.

  • ||

    First, IQ has no relationship to knowledge, especially knowledge of obscure facts. Second, regardless of the origin, it's stupid. Semitic people include people who are not Jews. Many "anti-Semites" today are Semites themselves. The term makes no sense.

  • Dan S.||

    You're right, the term makes no sense. But it will persist because it exists in the powerful noun form. You can't call someone "an anti-Jew", that doesn't make sense as a noun, but you can call them "an anti-Semite". That is a little more powerful emotionally than saying they are anti-Jewish or even anti-Semitic, even though the meaning is the same.

  • ||

    That's probably true.

  • Milhouse||

    Antisemitism does not mean "opposed to semites", it means "Jew-hatred".

  • ||

    You're begging the question.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Of course you can control who supports you and who is emboldened by you. Trump could have, like many candidates before him, said "I don't want your support." He could have said "Racists and antisemites are the opposite of MAGA." But he does want the support, and racism and antisemitism are fully compatible with his MAGA vision. He could have said white nationalists are "horrible, horrible people" and "enemies of the people" instead of bending over backwards not to alienate them by suggesting that many of them were "very fine people" notwithstanding chants of "Jews will not replace us."

    Just wondering what you would have said if Obama had said the same after a torch-bearing demonstration by Blank Panthers chanting "Cops are Racist Killers" during which one of their number had killed an innocent white woman. Appropriate response calculated to prevent future incidents or encouragement? Make sure you say nothing that is "rediculous on its face."

  • ||

    He denounced those people many many times. I don't know what more you can expect him to do.

  • damikesc||

    Condemning them consistently simply keeps them in the news consistently.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Having to be dragged, kicking and screaming to those denunciations, after repeated equivocation, don't impeach their credibility at all.

  • damikesc||

    Hes condemned them for decades.

    ...meanwhile, Obama attends a virulently racist church for 20 yrs but didnt notice the racism.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Trump could have, like many candidates before him, said "I don't want your support." "

    No, that's a trap, a deliberate, calculated trap.

    Sure, some white supremacist supports you, because you're opposed to racial discrimination, and the Democrats favor discrimination against whites, which makes you the lesser evil so far as he's concerned. So you denounce him, because he's a creep.

    And then the next demand comes along for a denunciation, and you go ahead, it's somebody else obnoxious.

    And then the next demand comes along, and it's somebody who's not quite as obnoxious, and you're spending all your time denouncing supporters, and if you ever stop, it's "You denounced that guy, but you won't this guy... Aha! You DO like Disco!"

    No, you don't let yourself get sucked into the denunciation cycle in the first place. It just distracts you from getting your message out, and aids your foes in promoting the prominence of the disreputable supporters EVERY candidate has.

    I mean, do Democrats spend their time denouncing THEIR hideous supporters? Did Hillary denounce the CPUSA for telling communists to vote for her? Does she go on national TV telling Sharpton and Farakan to take a hike?

    No, she does not. And neither should Trump spend his time doing that sort of thing.

  • ||

    Bingo.

  • damikesc||

    The Know-Nothings supported Lincoln.

    Did Lincoln support them? Nope.

    He needed every vote he could get to defeat the Democrats and abolish slavery.

    Even from people he disagreed with.

    Even Reagan, when asked about a donation he received, noted "They are endorsing me. I am not endorsing them"

  • NToJ||

    "Even Reagan, when asked about a donation he received, noted "They are endorsing me. I am not endorsing them.""

    Even assuming this is a real quote, the KKK did endorse Reagan. Do you think he responded the way President Trump responded? Do you think he agreed with Brett's approach? Or do you want to know what he actually did and said?

  • NToJ||

    "I mean, do Democrats spend their time denouncing THEIR hideous supporters?"

    Yea. Headline: Dems denounce Farrakhan rhetoric amid pressure from GOP.

    "Does she go on national TV telling Sharpton and Farakan to take a hike?"

    Well, she went on national television to tell President Obama to denounce Farrakhan during the 2008 election. Was that not good enough for you? And he did.

    The CPUSA never endorsed Hillary Clinton so I'm not sure what there was to denounce. You either think Hillary is a communist or else she isn't. If she is a communist, why would she discourage communists from voting for her? If she isn't a communist... why would she tell communists not to vote for her? You're confusing votes and endorsements.

  • Jummy||

    The context of your "Dems denounce Farrakhan..." link is the resurfacing earlier this year of a photo of then-Senator Barrack Obama and Farrakhan holding hands and enjoying one another's company with other Democrat CBC members. The photo had been withheld from publication by an editor for some serious news outfit who believed that it was journalism's role to keep such a thing from disrupting Obama's ascent to the Oval Office.

    When Clinton put it to Obama to denounce Farrakhan, it was probably with awareness of this particular photo in mind. The fact that she asked the question only demonstrates that Democrats will pull the same crap on one another in a primary contest that they pull on Republicans year in, year out, ad tedium.

    And, in fact Clinton did receive the endorsement of the National Chairperson of the CPUSA.
    http://www.peoplesworld.org/ar.....-strategy/

    In any case, the gold standard you must meet for a Democrat facing "when did you stop beating your wife" pseudojournalism is Donald Trump, who was asked seventeen times to denounce David Duke by various "journalists", obliging without equivocation each time, only to be recorded as having "refused to denounce David Duke" when he responded on the eighteenth occasion, "I don't recognize the name".

  • Naaman Brown||

    If Democrats would try bending over backwards not to alienate people perhaps they would have more support.

    Not everyone at Charlottesville were chanting "Jews will not replace us" either. There were fine people on both sides, multiple groups wanting either to preserve the statutes or take them down. Then there were the extremists who came to town looking for a fight.

    There are more people in this country than the You and Anti-You.

  • Incredulous||

    Hmm, at least Trump denounced these racists. Obama never denounced the Black Panthers, BLM or Al Sharpton. He even defended BLM and invited Sharpton to the White House.

  • Toranth||

    What's wrong with inviting Al Sharpton to the White House?
    Good ol' Reverend Al hadn't caused a riot or a pogrom in at least 10 years!

  • Jummy||

    I have never heard a Democrat official issue such a proclamation as you condition Trump's exoneration of hatethought upon. Not for antisemitism, not for communists. But then, I've never seen the professional press pose the question to a Democrat. And this is remarkable, because, intersecting both the news media and the Democrat party, you have people like Al Sharpton and the late Hellen Thomas. The Women's March is helmed by Linda Sarsour who actually trades anti-Zionist barbs with David Duke on Twitter from time to time.

    My guess is that President Trump is wise enough not to respond to cheap, "when did you stop beating your wife" attacks from yellow journalists.

  • KevinP||

    Speaking of Obama:

    The Photo That Never Saw The Light of Day: Obama With [racist and anti-semite Louis] Farrakhan in 2005


    Quote:
    A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have "made a difference" to Obama's political future.

    The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he "gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy."
  • JoeGoins||

    Is anyone else disappointed that Eugene hasn't blogged about Ireland voting away its blasphemy law?

  • Dan S.||

    If I understand correctly, the law hasn't technically been voted away yet. But the legislature is now authorized to vote it away, which they will doubtless do shortly, whereas previously they could not, because the Irish Constitution required that there be such a law.

  • I Callahan||

    Thanks, Professor Bernstein, for being a light of reason to counter the inanity of the responses to this event.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The killer is a right-wing bigot who hates gays, blacks, women, Jews, and immigrants, for starters, apparently blaming them for his lousy, unaccomplished life. He figured Trump wasn't sufficiently intolerant. He seemed to target the particular Jews he killed because he believed they were helping the immigrants Pres. Trump demonizes.

    Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit, anyway.

  • JoeBlow123||

    How is the anime watching going Rev? Any suggestions for us?

  • Milhouse||

    He seemed to target the particular Jews he killed because he believed they were helping the immigrants Pres. Trump demonizes.

    Bulls**t. He had no such belief. He didn't target those Jews in particular, out of all Jews. On the contrary, he had no idea who they were, other than Jewish, and didn't care.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You are wrong. He targeted that building because he associated it with an organization that helped refugees. He seethed with right-wing hatred toward gays, blacks, women, and immigrants, as well as toward Jews. He expressly identified the refugee-assisting organization as the reason for his violent rampage.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The group is HAIS, originally the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

    The great white killer of 97-year-old women to preserve his people was enraged by the Jewish group's perceived assistance of brown refugees in general and of the 'caravan' Trump keeps yapping about in particular.

  • J. C. Salomon||

    Of course this was Trump's fault.

    The press has been reporting on what a hateful racist sexist homophobic antisemite Trump is, and we know only hateful racist sexist homophobic antisemitic Trumptards accuse the press of spreading "fake news". So it's only reasonable—and all Trump's fault—that the hateful fringe was emboldened by his presidency. At long last, the news media assured these folks, they had a sympathetic ear in the White House.

    And then it turns out that Donald Trump is entirely supportive of his daughter who converted to Judaism, and gives his Jewish son-in-law positions of power and prestige, and is close with other Jews, and moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, etc., etc.—in short, Trump has been the worst, most disappointing, antisemite ever.

    No wonder Saturday's shooter went on his rampage.

  • J. C. Salomon||

    (Do I need to explicitly call out my sarcasm? It's the internet, so yes; and this comment is me doing so.)

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    No you dion't. "Trumptard" was lame and gave away your milieu. (Tard is traditionally paired with lib, and a lefty would never use a variation of "retard" because it is derogatory to the "differently-abled". Even Sarah Palin says so.) To be more authentic, try "Trumpkin" and never ever use Trump's name. Drumph (the family name changed to Trump in this country) is common, but I find it dreary. Comrade Trumpsky has a ring to it, but this would not be the right context for it. Your best play would have been "fat orange [insert epithet of choice]." Good luck with the sarcasm in the future, as I assume you are a very fine person.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Sorry for typo.

  • DrCoke||

    Nobody seems to have picked up "Trumpeter", my favorite.

    (If you want to be insulting, there could also be "Trumpster", but that would refer to T.D. hisself.)

  • LiborCon||

    I'm 60% more anti-Semitic because of Trump, but I'm also 60% more pro-Israel. So I guess it all evens out.

  • Leo Marvin||

    I realize you're kidding, but no, it doesn't even out. It's common for right wing bigots like Richard Spencer to be pro-Israel antisemites. They want American Jews to get out of this country and practice their own nationalism in Israel.

  • ||

    No, it's not common. Richard Spencer is virulently anti-Israel, as are the rest of the neo-Nazis.

  • Leo Marvin||

    This is the last time I'll do your googling for you.

  • JesseAz||

    Spencer... The democrat?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, he switches between parties from election to election. Back in 2004, he stated that he'd voted for Kerry. 2016, Trump,

    I wouldn't say he's a Democrat or Republican, he has areas of agreement with both parties. For instance, he's pro-choice and in favor of single payer.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Spencer... The democrat?

    Why, because he used to vote for Democrats? By that measure Reagan was and Trump is a Democrat. By that measure David Horowitz is a Marxist.

    Richard Spencer leads well-publicized neo-nazi salutes to Donald Trump.

    Cut out the partisan hackery. It's really tiresome.

  • damikesc||

    Spencer trolls a media desperate to claim that Trump is a racist. Shocking revelation.

    Only the media would take a gathering of less than 200 and claim it is a national movement.

  • Jummy||

    You're saying that the party divide is between self-loathing whites and proud whites?

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Of course Trump is not responsible for this specific act. But that does not let Trump off the hook for emboldening, encouraging, pandering to and seeking the support of anti-Semites. I have commented here enough, professor, for you to know that I have applauded and supported your criticism of the anti-Semitic left. But, at minimum, the same standards should apply to what I see happening on the right, whether it is the "Soros occupied State Department," retweeting white nationalists, resuscitating America First, "forgetting" to mention Jews in relation to the holocaust, bad earpiece/"forgetting" who David Duke was, anti-Semitic threats against journalists critical of Trump, identifying Blankein, Yellen and Soros as "the global power structure" stealing "your jobs"--not to mention charging Soros with financing the caravan and paying demonstrators. The left uses "neocons" and the right "globalists" to the same purpose. And, seriously(?), you are using the "some of his best friends" defense? Guess you have to let BDS off the hook because some Jews participate. More to the point, you might refresh your memory of the politician Karl Leuger.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Being pro-Israel is no more an excuse for this stuff than being anti-Israel. (Many white nationalists are "pro-Israel" because it is good place to put the Jews they want purged from the U.S., based on their theory that all states should be ethnic states; see also William Jennings Bryan, alleging Jewish financial control, while supporting a Jewish homeland.) Sure, Trump has condemned antisemitism in the strongest terms, just like the ant-Zionists, even as both pedal blood-libels, whether it is Israel harvesting Palestinian organs or "globalist" desire to import MS-13, drugs, Chavez-style socialism and "replace" American workers and voters.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Indeed, if there is a direct line between Trump and the shooting, it is Trump's willingness to promote fever-swamp theories, such as a caravan of mostly families currently 3 thousand miles away being an imminent national security threat. The shooter, and the conspiratorial sites from which Trump gets his talking points, focused on HIAS, the 130 year old Jewish refugee assistance organization (along with Soros) as the culprit for this imminent "invasion." The shooter was pretty far gone and didn't like Trump because he hadn't gone full anti-Semite, so I suspect that, like the Pizzagate gunman, the swamp was enough. The next one though, maybe not.

    And, whether, there is an increase in reportable violent incidents or not, there has clearly been a change in the post-Trump atmosphere, from threats to journalists, to Charlottesville, to "Hail Trump" to the comments I started seeing on this blog in 2015.

  • Formerly Known as Stash||

    Finally, all you apologists for left-wing "excesses" and "overstatements" either need to cut Trump the same slack or clean your own house. See, e.g., http://www.tabletmag.com/jewis.....sh-erasure But it goes doubly for those who find antisemitism in every anti-Israel (or worse, every anti-Netanyahu statement). You would have been laughing for weeks over "it's a sheriff's star!" The notion that you could somehow find Obama to be "anti-Semitic" while claiming "nothing to see here" with the Trump administration boggles the mind. Both sides need to stop treating it like a PR problem or opportunity, and start treating it as a real issue. Until then you are just blathering.

    As a P.S., I note that the professor's non-defense-defense of Trump was apparently intentionally narrow, limiting itself to the question of whether violent incidents had increased, as opposed to the more prominent presence of antisemitic tropes, discourse and conspiracy theories. Nice way to thread the needle. But maybe this is a case where the charges should be taken "seriously but not literally." By those standards they are at worst "mere hyperbole."

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As a P.S., I note that the professor's non-defense-defense of Trump was apparently intentionally narrow,

    The Conspirators are doing the best they can after being dealt a weak hand. There is only so much a movement conservative (who wishes to maintain a place in legitimate academia) can do with respect to promoting movement conservatism in the Age of Trump. Mostly, they seem to be ducking and looking for the occasional lame swipe at liberals, libertarians, moderates, or RINOs, or the odd offhand observation about a minor curiosity, hoping that no one notices their silence with respect to important events of the day.

  • ||

    The caravan IS an imminent national security threat. Only a fool could argue otherwise.

  • DStraws||

    So clearly we cannot depend on you to discriminate a real threat from a perceived threat. Since all events are NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS!!!!

  • ||

    7,000 people trying to breach our border for welfare payments is a security threat

  • damikesc||

    Yeah, I'm curious how a mob of over 7000 illegally demanding entry to your country is NOT a national security issue.

  • Sarcastr0||

    They are hoping to get asylum. Which is a legal process. Also there are well less than 7000 now.

  • damikesc||

    No, theyve already been OFFERED asylum.

    By Mexico.

    They declined it.

    Legally, you arent permitted to asylum shop.

    So, no, theyre demand is not legal. At all.

  • Sarcastr0||

    1) Mexico has offered work permits, not asylum. They, too, have a process.
    2) You're wrong about not being allowed to asylum shop. As I pointed out last week. Did you forget?
    3) What's your invasion scenario? They follow their clever plan to be eyecatching and obvious by overwhelming the border patrol and smash through our boarder?

    You're wrong on the law and the facts and the risk. And yet you post your uncited postulates with great confidence. It's kind of incredible.

  • wreckinball||

    The risk is we set a precedent that you just walk across the border and cry asylum and voila , you are released.

    We can't be the welfare sponge of the world.

  • damikesc||

    1) No, Mexico ALSO offered asylum. They said no.
    2) By international law, no, you accept amnesty by the first signatory country you come to. You not knowing what youre talking about does not alter this. You may NOT asylum shop. If you do, youre not seeking asylum.
    3) we cordon them on Mexican soil and they do not enter.

    That you are ignorant on this has already been proven. You dont need to constantly verify it.

  • Sarcastr0||

    International law that I can't seem to find nor is adopted by American law. Your definition of illegal is spurious.
    I also can't find anything about Mexico offering actual asylum. Especially because I don't think you even can do that in a blanket way.

    I generally believe good faith, but I'm beginning to thing you just lie.

  • damikesc||

    International law that I can't seem to find nor is adopted by American law. Your definition of illegal is spurious.
    I also can't find anything about Mexico offering actual asylum. Especially because I don't think you even can do that in a blanket way.

    Look up the "Estas en Tu Casa" program, fucking moron. Try and educate yourself for a change as others have noted that you are either unable to read or be honest.

    See, I'd assume you were just mistaken. because, well, you usually are. But you decided to insult me. When I had the facts and you had, as usual, jack shit.

    Fucking moron.

  • Sarcastr0||

    That's not an asylum program, dude. I Googled it. For a second time. It's the work permit program; no sign of asylum even in local sources.

    I can't tell if you're trying to lie to me or just so blinded by your confirmation bias.

    Once again, asylum eligibility is an individualized determination - it is a literal impossibility to grant it to a group of people all at once, sight unseen.

    I have nothing but pointing out how nothing you say is supported in law or reality.

  • damikesc||

    No, it is an offer of asylum, you fucking moron. I do not wonder any longer if you're either a moron or a liar. I know you're both.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Find me a source.
    I've provided links and quotes contradicting your bare assertions. You come back with name calling.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If you think a few thousand impoverished, yearning people are a threat to the United States, you don't think much of or understand the United States; are an easily frightened and gullible person; and are a character-deprived, intolerant loser.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You're trying to reason with rage-blinded, authoritarian, half-educated bigots, Sarcastro.

  • ||

    After which point, they'll demand free education for their children, free health care, food stamps, free housing, and so forth. Do you think these are proud people?

  • JesseAz||

    They quiet fact the media doesn't tell is that asylum grantees can get green cards and welfare after only 1 year after being granted asylum.

  • ||

    Or the fact that they'll get pregnant and produce "citizen" children.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Jesse, asylum is hard to get. And once you get it, you're definitionally not an illegal immigrant. So why are you treating them like they are?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Because if they enter the country illegally, they're illegal immigrants. And, see above: They're already precluded from being real refugees, on the basis of their not stopping in Mexico.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Brett, I couldn't find anything saying America has any law like this. And last week I had lunch with an immigration attorney that thought they would all be able to apply to assylum in the US (though he wasn't sanguine about their chances.)

    But even if that were not true, coming to the US to try and get asylum isn't illegal, regardless of whether you can or not.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's the first country of asylum principle; It's not legally mandatory, but it is customary.

    IOW, sure, they could apply. But, as they've already been offered asylum in Mexico, we're under no obligation to approve the application, or even admit them to the US.

    And, yeah, "coming to" the US isn't a violation of US law, (Though the caravan IS violating Mexican law right now.) but if they actually attempt to enter the US, that would be illegal.

  • Sarcastr0||

    IOW nothing they are doing or plan to do is illegal.

    And yet you guys seem very committed to insisting they are. Almost as though something is coloring your perception.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    One of my former partners, an immigration lawyer, opines that you are full of shit on this point, Brett.

    Are your assertions anything other than can't-keep-up backwater illusory law-talking?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Are they as proud as the average street-pill-gobbling, half-educated, grievance-consumed, disaffected, handout-demanding Trump voter?

  • DStraws||

    Let's see 7000 divided by 350,000,000 is 0.00002. That many people sure are going to disrupt our lives and republic! And that's the worst case scenario. You are being played my man.

  • DrCoke||

    "Blankein, Yellen and Soros ..."

    So, you're saying that the Left identifies those men primarily as Jewish.

    Is this because when someone disagrees with your ideas, your analysis always proceeds from the idea that ideological opponents must be "racist monsters", and you just have to figure out the race? Have you ever wondered whether that thought pattern might indicate that you are projecting?

    Because that's how it looks from here.

  • Kazinski||

    It's ridiculous to claim anti-Soros rhetoric is anti-Semetic, it's the mirror image of anti-Koch rhetoric.

    Sometimes people take umbrage at billionaires pushing agendas they disagree with.

  • Jummy||

    Reading through your litany, I'm wondering what it is that makes you think any of this stuff is genuinely outrageous.

  • JaiJensen||

    Thanks for information. I hope that USA will be a great country. So i really like to read articles on the same topic. More information here Truowl. I recommend.

  • Martinned||

    Have you not heard of spoilers? Here I was, excited to find out whether prof. Bernstein would come out in favour of Trump or against, and he puts the answer in the sub-heading. Way to spoil the surprise...

  • David Bernstein||

    I'd be very interested in your reasoning how ascertaining the facts is pro or anti, as opposed to being "facts." Now, if you want to dispute my critique of the methodological flaws in the ADL study, that could be useful.

  • apedad||

    It would have been nice for Prof. Bernstein to discuss the actual causes/reasons for this (and other) atrocious acts instead of feeding the media fluff.

  • David Bernstein||

    The cause of this incident is easy: anti-Semitism.

  • apedad||

    Hmmm...

    Are Robert Bowers or this fellow (https://www.foxnews.com/us/ kentucky-father-sparks- controversy-after- dressing-5-year-old -son-in- adolf-hitler-costume) part of the intellectual, anti-Semitic crowd?

    Where does today's anti-Semitism come from?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'm not clear how a Hitler Halloween costume implies antisemitism. Does a Jason Halloween costume imply approval of psychopathic killers?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It is not all that easy, Prof. Bernstein. An important trigger appears to have been right-wing-inspired hatred toward brown immigrants, particularly the 'caravan' that Trump, Fox, and Republicans have been wailing about. The killer concluded that certain Jews (Hebrew Immigrant Relief Society, or something similar), operating at Tree Of Life, were aided refugees. So, as he stated: 'I'm going in.'

    It was a mixture of hatred toward Jews and hatred toward brown immigrants, part of a broad-based, familiar bigotry that covered women, diversity, blacks, gays, foreigners, Muslims, modernity, and everything else that is keeping the shambling, disaffected white man down.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "Trump's hardcore supporters are ever-alert for "fake news."

    It's not hard to find. I saw Trump give a speech the other day in Ohio praising General Grant, followed by headlines in several MSM outlets saying, "Trump praises Robert E Lee". I mean, it really is that bad.

  • damikesc||

    I'd give them the benefit of the doubt of errors --- if the errors EVER were in Trump's favor. But they never are.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trying to keep up with the frequency and nature of Trump's lies -- when did the stock market open after the September 11 attack? -- makes the occasional stumble inevitable.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Meh. ISTM that Trump and the MSM are running about neck and neck when it comes to lying.

  • Sarcastr0||

    An entire varied institution posting millions of words a day to cherry pick versus one man, who happens to theoretically be the leader of our country.

    Sick burn on Trump, dude.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "Sick burn on Trump, dude."

    lol.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I don't get this. Correlation isn't causation (in fact, as I recall the uptick in antisemitism somewhat predates Trump's election). Which would be enough to debunk if the ADL is making that connection without additional evidence.

    And yet the OP chooses a much harder lift of attacking the study itself. And in this his methods are not equal to the task - attacking stats as not buttoned up by pointing to anecdotes that would be overcounted doesn't actually address the study unless you show that the anecdotes create a systematic bias. Statistical studies aren't about everything unanimously following the trend they support. The power of sampling is that if a trend is strong enough it swamps individual countervailing anecdotes.

  • damikesc||

    If SOME of the data used is wrong, it calls into question ALL of the data.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The plural of anecdote isn't data.

  • damikesc||

    Bad data in, but info out.

    But I wouldn't expect a fucking moron to notice that.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Are you arguing a single countervailing anecdote is a counterexample to a data set? A lot of science will have to be redone!

  • damikesc||

    Are you arguing a single countervailing anecdote is a counterexample to a data set? A lot of science will have to be redone!

    Fucking moron, using known incorrect data to bolster your point brings ALL of your data into question.

    It is basic fucking science.

    "This proves this.
    "Uh, it proves the opposite"
    "THAT DOES NOT MATTER. SCIENCE!!!"

  • Sarcastr0||

    using known incorrect data...

    except an anecdote isn't data.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    An anecdote is a datum, though.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Not so far as statistics are concerned.

    I'm not any great shakes at statistics, but this is undergrad stuff.

  • Kazinski||

    One Isreali teenager made 2000 bomb threats, I'd say that was enough to skew any study that included any of them to the point of uselessness.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If SOME of the data used is wrong, it calls into question ALL of the data.


    How reliable, in your judgment, are statements made by Donald J. Trump?
  • wreckinball||

    Just because some behavior increases or decreases is not necessarily correlated to who is president.

    It seems incredibly obvious I guess except those that politicize everything.

  • damikesc||

    Durham city council in April banned all police exchanges with Israel.

    Even though there was not one. For a decade. And it was on dealing with a mass casualty situation. None were planned.

    And Israel is the ONLY country listed. Much like BDS ONLY targets Israel. No other country is problematic.

    But, yeah, its the Right that hates Jews.

  • wreckinball||

    So very pro-Israel, and father and grand father to Jews is anti-semetic. Dana Milbank is a moron.
    Which just means he will soon have a column at Reason. The ADL are morons.

    And what exactly has Trump done domestically that wold be considered anti-Semitic? Crickets.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He's a bigot. He inspires other bigots. Sometimes the monster, once created, goes a little too far.

  • KevinP||

    President Obama's go-to man on race relations: The Reverend Al Sharpton, a respected member of the Democratic coalition.

    Al Sharpton Defends Anti-Jewish Remarks


    Quote:
    Sharpton had sided with a black record store owner against the Jewish owner of Freddie's Fashion Mart. The owner of the fashion store was a landlord to the record store owner.

    "We will not stand by," warned Sharpton, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business."

    Shortly after Sharpton's protest of the store, one of the protesters set fire to it before committing suicide. Seven store employees died from smoke inhalation from the fire.

  • dwb68||

    Well, its possible that the Trump administration is to blame, but not in the way you might think: The Trump administration is strongly pro-Israel, perhaps the strongest in decades. This no doubt brings out the crazies who feel the need to take up the fight. When Iran was winning and Israel was losing under Obama, there was not a big need to take up a fight since the Obama administration was doing the work.

    As an aside, I am personally glad that the crazies self-identify on social media. I dont think people have an expectation of privacy on social media, and I wish Twitter and Facebook would do less censorship. I want to know who the crazies are and I wish law enforcement would give them a visit.

  • Mr. Hook||

    Qu'ell surprise, Bernstein writes about right-wing anti-Semitism so as to mitigate it. The ubiquitous Soros-as-Emmanuel Goldstein talking point? Meh. Charlottesville? Crickets and shrugs. Pittsburgh? Not good, but nothing overly worrisome. Now, if it were a junior at some podunk three-year college starting a BDS Facebook page, yes, that would be cause for great concern and proof that the moment of crisis is at hand—that'd require at least a couple separate posts and several updates. I'd be a lot more persuaded by Bernstein's writing about anti-Semitism if he weren't so transparent about his spectrum political interests in seeking to maximize outrage against liberals and reassure conservatives that they have no problems in their midst.

  • dwb68||

    Bernstein has been outspoken against Trump, so I highly doubt that there is a political agenda here.

    There is significant reporting bias in hate and sexual crimes. Before the 1970s for example, many crimes against blacks were simply not reported. Rape remains widely underreported. Many hate crimes in fact have mixed motives involving mental illness. Did the hate make him do it, or did the mental illness facilitate to the hate and propensity to violence?

    You post is a good illustration that when it comes to intent, people see and report what they want to see, even when the facts are debatable.

  • Mr. Hook||

    "Bernstein has been outspoken against Trump, so I highly doubt that there is a political agenda here."

    Before the election, when it seemed likely Clinton would win, yup, he was a loud-and-proud Never Trumper. After the election, if he's still proud, he's whispering it. Off-hand, to my memory, since the election he's written about Trump only a few times … to deny any connection to growing anti-Semitism on the right (hell, to deny a growing anti-Semitism on the right). That ain't a 2016 model Never Trumper. The subtext of any Bernstein post about anti-Semitism is: liberals, you have a serious anti-Semitism problem and it's threatening our existence; leftists, you have a serious anti-Semitism problem and it's threatening our existence; and/or conservatives, don't listen to the others, any anti-Semitism on the right is an unimportant fringe.

  • dwb68||

    Calling out left wing anti-semitism does not minimize right wing antisemitism. Right wing anti-semitism and Neo-Nazism has always been somewhat glaringly obvious to most people.

    I don't think its "growing." Do you have any facts to support numbers are actually growing on either side? Just because a few crazies take matters into their own hands to get attention does not mean numbers are growing. In fact, it ould be a sign of desperation and numbers are dwindling.

    Neo-Nazi marches through places like Skokie IL have been happening for decades. Since hate groups, as well as groups like Southern Poverty law center which track hate groups, both inflate their numbers to inflate their importance, its impossible to really know if these groups are growing or shrinking.

  • bernard11||

    Calling out left wing anti-semitism does not minimize right wing antisemitism.

    True. But when someone concerned about anti-Semitism calls out only the left-wing version, and minimizes anti-Semitism on the right, their motives are suspect.

    Bernstein has gone the way of many other NeverTrumpers, abandoning that group because Trump tossed him a policy bone.

  • dwb68||

    where exactly is Bernstein minimizing or apologizing for right wing anti-semitism?

    This is a blog, not a scientific statistical journal.

    Just because I take out some trash today, does not minimize the amount of trash I need to take out tomorrow, or what I took out yesterday. Sometimes the trash I take out today is just today's trash. If you have comments on right wing anti-semitism that have not been made already, maybe your should start your own blog about it.

  • bernard11||

    Bernstein largely ignores right-wing anti-Semitism. His screeds are partisan.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Right-wing antisemitism pretty much should be ignored, it's tiny in its scale compared to left-wing antisemitism. There's nothing on the right that even vaguely compares in scale to the BDS movement, for instance, and no antisemites on the right nearly as prominent and tolerated as Farrakhan.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Brett, some dude just killed some Jews, and was very into right wing rhetoric, if not the President specifically.

    I think maybe it shouldn't be ignored.

    Also your analogizing between Israel and Jews is facile. I agree BDS is sometimes a cover for antisemitism, but your jump is too far and too broad.

    Farrakhan isn't exactly a luminary of the Democratic Party.

  • bernard11||

    Here's the thing, Brett.

    I despise Farrakhan.

    I dislike BDS and Netanyahu equally. I agree that BDS attracts some anti-Semites, but it is not an anti-Semitic movement.

    You on the hand, can't even bring yourself to admit that people carrying torches and chanting "The Jews will not replace us" are not "fine people." Presumably you don't think they're anti-Semites, or you think it's another one of your treasured "false flag" operations.

    You'll excuse me if I say that you are not someone whose opinions on the relative amounts of anti-Semitism on the right and on the left has any value.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I dislike Netanyahu more, mostly because he precipitated BDS and his departure likely would diminish BDS.

    Plus, I generally dislike corrupt, superstition-laced, selfish right-wing belligerence.

    Plus, Netanyahu has joined his cause with that of America's movement conservatism, so the more bad things that happen to his political cause, and the quicker it occurs, the better.

  • Mr. Hook||

    Tell ya what, go into his Twitter feed and zip back to last summer and Charlottesville, then read his thoughts about the neo-Nazis marching. (Spoilers: Meh, ignore them, it's no big deal.) Then ask yourself if that's the stance of someone who takes seriously anti-Semitism on the right.

  • Kazinski||

    Well maybe you should set an example and condemn Keith Ellison and his long time association with Farrakhan, the UK Labor party and it's anti-Semetic leader Corbyn.

    If you are going to set a standard, better set an example too.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mr. Hook does not comment often, but he appears to have the Volokh Conspiracy pegged precisely.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Has There Been a Surge of Anti-Semitism Under and Because of Trump?

    Yeah, there has. There isn't any species of bigotry which hasn't increased under Trump. No-nothingism is up under Trump. That last is figurative, but this is not irony or sarcasm. I mean it. If there is one thing bigots have chafed under, and suffered through, it has been the virtual institutionalization of anti-bigotry.

    Trump's enthusiastic embrace and encouragement of bigoted expression has been taken by bigots everywhere as a salutary reversal, and as occasion for a festival of renewed bigotry—more bigoted expression, more bigoted organization, more bigoted action.

    Trump supporters who reject bigotry (almost all of them, by their own descriptions) ought to decide: either condemn that publicly, and condemn Trump for the support he gives it, or smirkishly welcome the bigots as political allies. And welcome the bigotry as a tool for mobilizing them.

    Experience suggests Trump supporters don't want to choose. I expect renewed subject changing instead. Something along the lines of, "No matter how bad the bigots are, Hillary would have been worse." So Bernstein, every time you hear that subject change, please make it a point to notice, and increment accordingly your ever-so-careful tally of upward trends in bigotry. Track it that way, and you won't fail to notice the increase.

  • David Bernstein||

    Data? Evidence? Something beyond Lathrop's mere assertion?

  • JesseAz||

    Lefties use feelz, not data . Don't talk again their truth or you'll get a Stern clap back.

  • ||

    Which is why they hate any talk of racial differences in IQ.

  • NToJ||

    This guy is a data point.

  • ||

    Which guy?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Data? Evidence? Something beyond Lathrop's mere assertion?

    Three days, three vicious bigots. Kentucky Kroger Killer. Florida Trump Vanner. Pittsburgh Purity Warrior.

    Looks like evidence to me.

  • damikesc||

    I think you missed the links to back up your points in this diatribe.

    Hey, since you are leftie and all, Lathrop can you explain why Israel ALONE needs to be ostracized so much? I don't see the BDS movement targeting any other country out there and, well, it is a progressive movement and all.

  • James Pollock||

    "can you explain why Israel ALONE needs to be ostracized so much?"

    This isn't as difficult as you seem to think.
    There have been many, many wrongs committed by both sides, over decades, generations, centuries. Both sides can point to things the other side did that are atrocious.

    But only one of the sides is currently running the place. They're in place NOW, so they get the pressure to change from third parties that would like to see things change. Of course, the government of Israel also gets pressure, and a lot of it, from its citizens who still have grievances they want pressed. The same thing applies, as well, of course, to the Palestinian government(s).
    And both sides also get pressure from outside influencers who WANT discord in the area.

  • Naaman Brown||

    No-nothingism? Did you mean Know-Nothingism?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Yeah, I did. Thanks. As you can see, I know nothing.

  • DrCoke||

    Something along the lines of, "No matter how bad the bigots are, Hillary would have been worse."

    Shit Sandwich versus Douchebag does not really address the question, as you note.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I wouldn't say "no matter" how bad, but they'd have to get a lot worse than they are now.

  • JesseAz||

    The media is pushing the meme of Pittsburgh Jewish leaders asking truno to stay away and blaming him for the tragedy. This is a liberal pac run by Alexander Soros. It's mission statement and is literally to resist trump. This is why the idiots in this thread like sarcastro, Kirkland, and Bernard all think trump is responsible. They have no objective minds of their own.

    link

  • Sarcastr0||

    Always cute when partisans on the other side say their opposition can't think for themselves.

  • apedad||

    Perhaps Jess, et al, would rather we follow the luminaries their side offers.

    People like:

    Cesar Sayac
    Robert Bowers
    Timothy McVeigh, etc.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    ADL is run by a former Clinton and Obama aide. They have made a choice to be openly supporting of every left wing cause.

    Of course their "study" shows that bad things have increased under Trump.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Of course you just go to ad hominem. Bob, that's a fallacy.

  • DrCoke||

    But he's just giving an explanation (based on facts) as to why the ADL asserted objectively incorrect/bogus/wrong data. Since you're an expert on this: what please is the name of the fallacy where you ignore the actual, factual issue (cooked/bogus data) and resort to name calling?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Step one should be proving the data is bogus then, no? Not even Prof. Bernstein did that.

    I agree there should be a fallacy-fallacy, but I think I'm clean this time.

  • James Pollock||

    "he's just giving an explanation (based on facts) as to why the ADL asserted objectively incorrect/bogus/wrong data."

    He's assuming maliciousness (unproved) based solely on the identity of the persons.

    It's possible he's correct to do so, but it's also possible he flatly incorrect to do so.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    A logical "fallacy" does not make the fact untrue.

  • Sarcastr0||

    No, it makes it irrelevant to the thesis at hand.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Not at all. Logical fallacies are merely not absolutely certain to be right. Many logical fallacies are none the less good heuristics, right more often than not.

    For instance, "Your accountant is a convicted embezzler, and has gone missing. Therefore your accounts are empty as a result of embezzlement." would be fallacious reasoning.

    But it would probably be true, none the less.

  • NToJ||

    "For instance, "Your accountant is a convicted embezzler, and has gone missing. Therefore your accounts are empty as a result of embezzlement." would be fallacious reasoning."

    This isn't an ad hominem fallacy.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You had to add in the 'your accounts are empty' bit as an axiom. That's because the rest of what you said doesn't prove anything about your accounts - you need to check them for yourself.

    The fallacy is when you don't bother to check your accounts, analogously to Bob above by saying ADL is wrong without any support other than ADL is bad.

  • James Pollock||

    "For instance, "Your accountant is a convicted embezzler, and has gone missing. Therefore your accounts are empty as a result of embezzlement." would be fallacious reasoning.

    But it would probably be true, none the less."

    YOUR accounts maybe.
    If MY accountant were a convicted embezzler, he wouldn't have the ability to withdraw funds from any of my accounts.

  • M.L.||

    Criticism of Soros' politics and methods is supposedly anti-Semitic. But remember all the hysteria over the Koch brothers? Somehow, we didn't see thousands of headlines likening the Democrat party to Nazis.

    That's because this is all a fabricated narrative by the relentless self-propelling propaganda outfit we call the media.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Didn't you post this above and have Bob correct you?

  • M.L.||

    Yes -- apparently the Kochs are not Jewish, and the media printed many misleading headlines claiming that Trump's criticism of the Koch brothers was anti-Semitic. Regardless, the point stands: the propagandist media never calls Democrats Nazis for merely criticizing right-wing Jews, not to mention much worse actual anti-Semitism that crops up on their side. That's because this is propaganda.

  • James Pollock||

    "That's because this is propaganda."

    Or, your parallel isn't very parallel.
    You are correct to note that being against one or more Jewish persons, for reasons other than their Jewishness, is not anti-Semitism in and of itself.
    However, anti-Semitism can and does find an outlet in criticism of individuals, in cases and environments where being perceived as anti-Semitic has actual and significant consequences. It's incorrect to assume this is true, but it often actually is objectively true.

    In other words, sometimes the label is applied correctly, for incorrect reasons.

  • NToJ||

    "...and the media printed many misleading headlines claiming that Trump's criticism of the Koch brothers was anti-Semitic."

    Which media? I found the Jerusalem Post story. Which other headlines did you have in mind?

  • bernard11||

    Criticism of Soros' politics and methods is supposedly anti-Semitic.

    No. Making up lies about his activities, and spreading innuendos, is, especially when they refer to him as some sort of shadowy paymaster of all sorts of bogus conspiracies. That kind of crap is a regular theme on the right, and has been a part of Trump's rhetoric.

    It's anti-Semitic whether you understand that or not.

    And as for Bernstein, despite his endless series of posts on Nancy Maclean's book and its false accusations, he has not a peep about the Soros stuff. #NeverTrumper, my ass.

  • bernard11||

    The first is that the study includes 193 incidents of bomb threats to Jewish institutions as anti-Semitic incidents, even though by the time the ADL published the study, it had been conclusively shown that the two perpetrators of the bomb threats were not motivated by anti-Semitism.

    Not 193, but 163, perpetrated by these individuals. Take them out and it's "only" a 44% increase. Trivial?

    One can only guess why the ADL chose to inflate its statistics in this way, but none of the explanations speak well of it.

    The ADL gives its reasons. You may not like them, but there is no need to guess at what they are. Your assumption that the purpose was to "inflate" the statistics does not speak well of you.

    Why assume a nefarious purpose?

    Continued.

  • bernard11||

    Continuation.

    Third, "college campuses saw a total of 204 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016." How many of those incidents emanating from traditional forms of anti-Semitism that one might associate with Trumpian populism, and how many from leftist/pro-Palestinian sources? The ADL doesn't say.

    Irrelevant. The issue is the increase, not the breakdown of incidents. As long as the tabulation methods are consistent from year to year this establishes nothing. IOW, if half the incidents in both years, say, were from anti-Israel sources, and half from "Trumpian populists," then the number from those "populists" still nearly doubled.

    ...the ADL counts ambiguous incidents as anti-Semitic incidents, so long as they were reported as such.

    Again, so long there is consistency this is weak. Counting these incidents may introduce some error into the total count, but there is no reason to think it introduces bias into the percentage increase.

    The argument about reporting has some validity, but whether the tendency to report incidents really changed that much in one year looks doubtful to me.

  • damikesc||

    Umm, if the issue is TRUMP causing anti Semitism, the incidents are key. Otherwise you will blame somebody that had nothing to do with him.

  • James Pollock||

    For quite a long time, polite society frowned on open displays of racism, bigotry, and the like. The people who harbored racist and bigoted thoughts hesitated to give them voice. This is derided as "political correctness", and accurately so in extreme cases, but that's not the issue here. The point is, racists and bigots who wanted to travel in polite society kept their biases largely to themselves.

    Trump's popularity rose in correlation with a decline in reservation about voicing racist and bigoted things. You can argue causation... it's pointless, but what's the Internet for? The point is that the people who harbor racist and bigoted thoughts are more willing to express them, in public, for whatever reason. This isn't an increase in racism, or bigotry, it's people of like mind finding each other, and feeling more open about their real feelings.

    I predict there will be excessive displays of racism and bigotry, which will eventually lead to a backlash, and people who are racist and bigoted starting to hide those aspects of their true selves away, and, eventually, another wave of release, and a backlash against the release, and so on, until water shortages created by climate change kills us all.

  • KevinP||

    You may be right:

    Eric Holder Took Photo With Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan At Aretha Franklin's Funeral


    Quote:
    Former Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday posed with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in a photo that went largely unnoticed over the holiday weekend.

    Farrakhan is a notorious racist and anti-Semite who has praised Hitler as a "very great man," claimed that interracial marriage "mongrelized" the black race and repeatedly espoused conspiracy theories about "satanic" Jews.

    The Nation of Islam published a photo on Twitter that shows Holder standing next to Farrakhan at Aretha Franklin's funeral on Friday.
  • DWB||

    There is a picture running around with Obama hanging with renowned anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and Barak even had Al Sharpton as an advisor -- with many meetings held in the White House.

    Trump, as much as I dislike him, employes divisive rhetoric no more than his predecessor -- a know friend to openly anti-Jewish leaders.

    Anti-semitism knows no party, race or skin color and to pretend differently does more to continue hate and division.

  • DWB||

    There is a picture running around with Obama hanging with renowned anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and Barak even had Al Sharpton as an advisor -- with many meetings held in the White House.

    Trump, as much as I dislike him, employes divisive rhetoric no more than his predecessor -- a know friend to openly anti-Jewish leaders.

    Anti-semitism knows no party, race or skin color and to pretend differently does more to continue hate and division.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Trump employs derisive rhetoric no more than Obama?!

  • DWB||

    He ended his presidency just a year or so ago -- you forget already?

    He persecuted friggin NUNS!!!!!

    Hell, the "bitter clingers" he criticized were Democrats!!!!!!

  • Sarcastr0||

    ...have you ever read Trump's twitter feed or seen one of his rallies?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Like, not even his conservative boosters here argue he's more civil than Obama.

  • DWB||

    Have you ever listened to a black radio station during election time?

    Listened to a Biden speech?

    It can't just be policy differences, every election is one step away from a return to Jim Crow, slavery, the subjugation of women and old folks eating Alpo in the streets!

    You are so used to the insults, lies and incivility from Democrat politicians it's background noise.

    When everyone's literally Hitler!!!, no one is.

    As Trump is in his heart a Democrat, I suspect y'all just can't handle Trump using the playbook against you. You are used to Republicans as jovial losers.

    I didn't vote for him, but I must say I enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Trump is calling the media and Democrats unamerican, and complemented people at his rallies beating up protestors. He just said maybe he'd up the rhetoric after the press got bombs mailed to them because they were so unfair!

    As Trump is in his heart a Democrat, I suspect y'all just can't handle Trump using the playbook against you.

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Trump is calling the media and Democrats unamerican, and complemented people at his rallies beating up protestors. He just said maybe he'd up the rhetoric after the press got bombs mailed to them because they were so unfair!

    As Trump is in his heart a Democrat, I suspect y'all just can't handle Trump using the playbook against you.

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

  • DWB||

    And for almost every Trump "outrage" you claim I can point similar things from Obama -- check your prejudices.

    The media has ALWAYS been mostly against what I hold dear -- cry me a river.

    Obama tried to persecute Fox -- I'm sure the next Dem President will do the same.

  • James Pollock||

    "Obama tried to persecute Fox"

    Fox successfully persecuted Obama

  • NToJ||

    "And for almost every Trump "outrage" you claim I can point similar things from Obama..."

    Ok, show your work.

  • NToJ||

    The quotation marks around bitter clingers is misleading, since that isn't the quote. Here is what the President said:

    So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work — don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

    Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by — it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

  • NToJ||

    But — so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is — so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

    But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

  • NToJ||

    Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

  • jello.beyonce||

    Wealth Concentration and Global GeoPolitical Tensions & Turmoil

    If one were to look at the WTID wealth inequality index, they would notice a possible trend between wealth concentration and global political turmoil & tensions.

    The WTID index rose sharply between 1915 to 1942 (or thereabouts). Just before, and during both WWI and WWII.
    It fell sharply after WWII.

    We're seeing the same rapid increase today.
    The WTID index is at it's highest levels in history, eclipsing even that of its former peak in 1939.

    It seems to me that the more the ultra-wealthy (in numerous countries) hoard wealth (capital), the less there is for everyone else (scarcity principle - which also affects capital), leading to global tensions.

    Nothing exists in infinite supply.
    Capital, that is wealth, as we know it (money supply) is the same.
    It exists in limited supplies.

    The more the few take & hoard for themselves, the less there is for others.
    The more people hoard wealth/capital, the less that circulates in economies, leading to economic stagnation.

    Yet these wealthy billionaires aren't from one single class or ethnic group, as many would have the public believe in the late 1920's to early 1940's (via anti-semitism).
    They exist in classes and groups that span numerous identities.

  • jello.beyonce||

    Even today, like in the 1920's to early 1940's, there is growing levels of anti-semitism (or other forms of racism or nationalism).

    Look at the attacks directed against George Soros, and while he is a billionaire as PART of the problem, he is only one small part of the problem, as there are hundreds of billionaires contributing to this wealth concentration.

    Yet those other billionaires escape blame.
    In fact, they are often praised for their massive accumulation & hoarding.

    One should also take note too of the growing influence those billionaires have on the media, the media responsible for the narratives presented as to the false causes of rising global tensions.

    More and more media companies (and most other corporations) are coming under control of the ultra-wealthy, either via direct ownership, or thru large investment firms.
    Over 90 percent of the media are ultimately controlled by the same largest institutional shareholders, which are controlled by the world's billionaires.

    As such, they can divert blame and/or cause distractions from their part in the global crises, via that media.
    This diversion and distraction is called "propaganda", and it is only effective when it isn't recognized as such.
    "Propaganda" is often presented as "news".

    Funny (ironic) thing is, those billionaires are also the largest shareholders of the largest defense contractors, those profiting most from global geopolitical crises, cause by THEIR OWN wealth hoarding and media narratives.

  • jello.beyonce||

    But even American "Libertarian"/"Laissez-faire" Economist Adam Smith warned of the effects of unfettered, unconstrained capitalism. He warned that for capitalism to be able to continue, sustainably, that capitalists must engage in responsible self-restraint, knowing when enough capital accumulation is enough.

    Before him, Historian and Philosopher Plutarch warned of the same, noting the problems of wealth inequalities as a cause of tensions, political strife, and wars in Ancient Rome & Greece in his work "Lycurgus".

    Yet again, we're seeing the effects of that unconstrained, unfettered wealth accumulation.

    Interestingly, this wealth accumulation and the rise in the WTID inequality index, isn't limited to the rule/control of just one political party.
    This WTID index has been growing under the leadership of both the Dems and the GOP.

  • apedad||

    Adam Smith was Scottish dumbass.

    Capital and money supply are independent factors with completely different elements and players.

    You're wasting everyone's time.

  • jello.beyonce||

    But even American "Libertarian"/"Laissez-faire" Economist Adam Smith warned of the effects of unfettered, unconstrained capitalism. He warned that for capitalism to be able to continue, sustainably, that capitalists must engage in responsible self-restraint, knowing when enough capital accumulation is enough.

    Before him, Historian and Philosopher Plutarch warned of the same, noting the problems of wealth inequalities as a cause of tensions, political strife, and wars in Ancient Rome & Greece in his work "Lycurgus".

    Yet again, we're seeing the effects of that unconstrained, unfettered wealth accumulation.

    Interestingly, this wealth accumulation and the rise in the WTID inequality index, isn't limited to the rule/control of just one political party.
    This WTID index has been growing under the leadership of both the Dems and the GOP.

  • Public Quest||

    "Trump's conspiratorial mindset inadvertently feeds anti-Semitism because the latter is a product of the same mindset, or that Trump should have unequivocally rejected support from white nationalists during his campaign"

    That's like complaining that someone's support for free speech supports antisemitism because anti-Semites benefit from it. I expected better from the VC.

  • M.L.||

    Someone sprayed bullets into the GOP campaign office in FL today.

    Silence from the mainstream media so far.

  • Sarcastr0||

    It's been an hour, dude. Your standards are pretty ridiculous if you want accurate reporting.

    The Hill

  • M.L.||

    Orlando Sentinel posted over 3 hrs ago, actually, and the incident occurred between yesterday afternoon and first thing this morning.

  • M.L.||

    Local news was reporting at 8am.

  • Sarcastr0||

    How'd your vigil work out for ya? I'm seeing it all over now.

    Turns out a story going with the theme of political violence will get some clicks, so everyone ran with it. Ah well, I'm sure the MSM will be super biased NEXT time!

  • M.L.||

    As expected, the front pages are not filled with this story and insinuations that the left's political rhetoric is to blame. But if Trump and the GOP are Nazis, shouldn't they be killed?

  • Sarcastr0||

    Look at those goal posts fly!

  • James Pollock||

    "Silence from the mainstream media so far."

    Let's see. If the "mainstream media" is newspapers, things that happen today go into TOMORROW's newspapers. (I don't know if there are any papers that are still printed for distribution in the evenings. If there are, they still won't have anything until the evening's papers are printed.

    If the "mainstream media" is broadcast network television news, the broadcast newscasts are in the evening. Again, something that happened today might make it into network newscasts this evening.

    If the "mainstream media" is broadcast local television news, then every place that isn't Florida probably won't cover it... not because it's partisan, but because it's not local.

    If this IS a partisan event (and not a shooting at someone who happened to be standing in front of the party's offices), it knocks a hole into the theory that Democrats are all anti-gun-rights "gun-grabbers". The popular theory that all left-wingers are afraid of guns will take a day or two off.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    M.L., Can you explain to me without using any assumptions why a mainstream media outlet ought to make a national story out of what looks like mysterious petty vandalism?

    I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of the newspaper editor I once was. All I know for sure is that there is a report that sometime—at a time when a political office was empty, and there were no witnesses present—someone unknown vandalized that office by shooting 4 bullets through a window. And the incident went unrecorded on any security camera. And it remained undiscovered for an unknown period of time, during an interval longer than 24 hours. That isn't much to make a national story out of.

    Of course, all sorts of lurid assumptions could pump that set of facts up, and turn it into more than one exciting, politically-tinged narrative—something indeed to satisfy partisan prejudices on either side of the political divide. But if I am an editor, until I learn more, should I really be indulging assumptions just to fire up prejudices?

  • James Pollock||

    I'm absolutely no expert on the subject, but that won't stop me from sharing my opinion on the Internet!

    I would think that "anti-Semitism" is something that manifests largely in private, rather than public, settings. A guy who hates the Jews (for whatever real or perceived reason) doesn't necessarily hate them enough to shoot up a synogogue or spray-paint hostile messages on the walls. I think measuring "anti-Semitism" by counting such incidents is like trying to measure "Republicanism" by how many people run for office as Republicans.

    Because so much of the thing is seen privately, rather than publicly, I certainly think that it would be possible for people in different circumstances to perceive wildly different degrees of "anti-Semitism".

    I think the real difference Trump's election made was not a net increase of anti-Semitism, but rather, and increased willingness of people to express it.

    Being pro-Israel (or anti- ) is an extremely poor proxy, as well.

  • librarian||

    "Yes, data, not anecdotes, not feelings."

    Compassion meditation will help you control your negative feelings, and help turn negative feelings into positive feelings. There is a time and place for anger, but uncontrolled anger is seldom useful to anyone. Be friends with your feelings. Never stop feeling your feelings.

  • librarian||

    And above all, be compassionate to yourself.

  • librarian||

    I sincerely apologize if anyone feels like I have bullied them with my comments on this website. If you would like to discuss, please send me an email and we can talk about it.

  • librarian||

    Leading by example, I just decided to have compassion for the people around me and quit my job.

  • ||

    Obama is a disgusting piece of anti-American garbage who spent 8 years villifying America, whites, Christians, and conservatives. For him to now say Trump is sowing discord is the height of arrogance and dishonesty. I can't wait until that piece of crap is finally viewed the way all real Americans know him to be.

  • librarian||

    All I can say is I'm sorry, and all I can do is to try and make it right for the rest of my life.

  • librarian||

    And how much hatred I have for antisemites.

  • captcrisis||

    If, as you argue, only men should be allowed to vote, then what you say will become more likely.

  • ||

    If only men could vote, we'd have a stable, productive, conservative nation. And we'd have almost no third world immigrants. Women have a need to be "compassionate." Men don't. Compassion doesn't belong in government.

  • James Pollock||

    "If only men could vote, we'd have a stable, productive, conservative nation."

    Longing for the good ol' days of 1861?

  • ||

    More like the mid 1920s.

  • James Pollock||

    Try again.

    Women could vote in 1920.

    You have to go back to 1869 to stay before any women could vote in the U.S.

    I figured you meant 1861, before the Great Unpleasantness Between the States.

  • ||

    Yes, I know, but society was conservative and stable (minus the women led prohibition). We had almost no nanny state laws regulating guns or the economy. We passed the National Origins Act to keep undesirables out of America. Blacks had to follow white moral standards.

  • James Pollock||

    (American) Society was conservative in the mid 1920's? That's... an opinion, I guess.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Ah yes, the 1920s. Great time to be alive. So long as you die before 1930.

  • captcrisis||

    Why do so many Jews — and particularly Jews literally in the line of fire — disagree with David?

  • Sarcastr0||

    I mean, I think Prof. Bernstein is wrong, but Jews having varying opinions isn't evidence of much.

  • Leo Marvin||

    The leading theories are: (1) we hate ourselves, and/or (2) we hate America.

    As for Sarcastro's sensible naive response, a healthy diversity of opinion is exactly what people who own the banks and Fake News Media would want you to think they have.

  • NToJ||

    I never thought I'd miss the broccoli mandate days. The discussion seemed hopelessly partisan and results-oriented at the time, but at least it was legal.

  • Leo Marvin||

    I used to learn things and have my mind changed. Now every excursion into one of these threads makes me dumber.

    It just occurred to me... I think the most cogent Trump apologist here is Brett Bellmore!

  • James Pollock||

    faint praise

  • Smith_FT_MI||

    After today reading an article in the Sunday New York Times (obviously a bit late in getting to it), it seems that the motivation may not have been Anti-Semitism per se, but rather hysteria about the Immigration policy disputes. Thus, the rancor and polarization in the country, instead of his own psychopathic aberration (though this obviously contributed to it), was the catalyst.

    Was it then the product of so much of the country being obsessed with the concept of government being the prime actor in our lives? If the national government had a more "skinny agenda", with less interference in the lives of its citizens, might some of these tragedies be avoided?

    Since it was too long to produce here, I today posted at my blog my thoughts, it being at http://philosophical-vistas.ne.....ervention/ in case anyone is interested.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online