He was defended by hundreds of academics and Jews as being merely "anti-Zionist." But Miller keeps on proving them wrong with episode after episode of undeniable antisemitism.
This week, he did it again.
Miller got very upset over a tweet by Hen Mazzig,. Mazzig wrote:
If you are not Jewish, just because you don’t understand why something is antisemitic doesn’t mean its not. It means you need to educate yourself of the tropes, conspiracies, and hate Jews face.
Miller responded:
If you are not Jewish, do not be cowed by racial supremacists who want to hector you into political subservience.Judeophobia barely exists these days.Educate yourself about Zionism and the tactics used by its adherents.Zionist propagandists like Hen Mazzig rely on 'standpoint theory' to fool naïve liberals and leftists into buying their lies.They say only Jews can define Judeophobia, based on their 'lived experience'.This is a denial of reality.Standpoint theory relies on the bizarre notion that people are magically qualified to speak about things via accident of birth, rather than observing material realities.Real anti-racism is rooted in looking at the facts.The facts:1. Jews are not discriminated against.2. They are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power.3. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.
Miller easily slides between "Jews aren't discriminated against" to "Jews are a monolithic group that oppresses others."
Amazingly, he is still being defended.
He then followed up with a thread to defend his position where he showed that Jews are not discriminated against in the workplace, and in fact make more money (for example) than other groups, so therefore there is no antisemitism. He also bizarrely distinguishes between "discrimination" and "hate crimes," defining "discrimination" strictly within the context of the workplace and ignoring that attacking Jews directly as Jews is the worst form of discrimination there is.
Like all Jew-haters, Miller relies on redefining his terms. In short, he is saying that there cannot be antisemitism since Jews control the world!
The ADL's global survey of antisemitism asks a number of questions whose answers indicate that the respondent has antisemitic attitudes. So, for example, 29% of French people agree that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust" and 45% of Spanish people agree that "Jews have too much power in the business world."
David Miller would certainly agree with many of those survey questions - he pretty much says it in his social media.. There is no doubt that Miller agrees with more than half of the ADL's list of antisemitic statements:
Jews are more loyal to Israel than to [this country/to the countries they live in]Jews have too much power in the business worldJews have too much power in international financial marketsJews still talk too much about what happened to them in the HolocaustJews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kindJews have too much control over global affairsJews have too much control over the United States governmentJews think they are better than other peopleJews have too much control over the global mediaJews are responsible for most of the world's warsPeople hate Jews because of the way Jews behave
Since Miller's opinions are classically antisemitic, mirroring what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion say, and he also claims to be against all forms of racism, he simply redefines "Judeophobia" in ways that disqualifies his own antisemitism.
Now that he has outed himself even more, I wonder whether his defenders from 2021 are feeling a bit squeamish about signing letters that say he is a "highly regarded scholar" or that insist that he is not antisemitic.
Given the amount of self-deception that people are capable of, I doubt it.
I created my own Miller-style power map:
______________________________
I just want to add a bit about standpoint theory.
In theory, it should be possible to detect and analyze racism and bigotry without being a member of the victimized group. But in reality, many attacks on groups rely on the same sort of "facts" that Miller uses to defend his own hate.
It is possible that the Confederate flag can be displayed without it being intended to be a racist symbol, just as a swastika can be displayed purely because someone admires its iconography. One can find evidence that some slaves were treated well. Bigots like Miller defend these kinds of things because, objectively, they are not offensive.
That is because offense is inherently subjective.
Miller cannot know how offensive it is for someone to say that Jews have no rights to Jerusalem without knowing how central Jerusalem is to Jews. Objectively, it is simply a piece of real estate no different than any other. Subjectively, it is the heart of every Jew.
In fact, this is how bigots always justify their hate. They simply claim they are "asking questions" or "making observations" and there is not a bigoted bone in their bodies, nosiree. They are just asking about whether the Holocaust happened or whether Black people are inherently less intelligent than whites. They are simply observing whether there are more Jews in banking and the media than other groups. Surely, bigots like Miller claim, no one can be offended by objective investigations into these matters, can they?
In reality, studying racism, bigotry, misogyny and antisemitism must rely on the feelings of the victims, because the attacks are often targeted to hurt those feelings. There is only one reason to compare today's Jews to Nazis - to deliberately hurt Jews.
To be sure, the ones defining what is offensive must be reasonable members of the group, and the majority of members of the group, not the outliers who find offense under every rock. Most Jews understand that attacking Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is just a new twist on antisemitism, as are dog-whistles about "rootless cosmopolitans" or "New York bankers" or "powerful Zionist media." Non-Jews might not recognize these for what they are, which is why the plurality of victims must be the ones who define what is an attack.
Insisting that bigotry can be observed objectively is simply a way justify that bigotry.
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
