Elias Rodriguez published a manifesto in his X account before embarking on his murderous rampage.
I see no daylight between his logic and that of the Marxist and other socialist organizations (like Within Our Lifetime, Samidoun, Students for Justice in Palestine) that have dominated the anti-Israel protests.
In other words, all he did was to put their words - like "globalize the intifada" and "by any means necessary" - into action.
An armed action is not necessarily a military action. It usually is not. Usually it is theater and spectacle, a quality it shares with many unarmed actions. ...
A word about the morality of armed demonstration. ...Humanity doesn't exempt one from accountability. The action would have been morally justified taken 11 years ago during Protective Edge, around the time I personally became acutely aware of our brutal conduct in Palestine. But I think to most Americans such an action would have been illegible, would seem insane. I am glad that today at least there are many Americans for which the action will be highly legible and, in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.
There is no daylight between his words and those that are blared out and mindlessly repeated by thousands of people at anti-Israel demonstrations. Most of them don't decide to pick up guns and shoot their ideological enemies, but the constant tsunami of antisemitic incitement had to, inevitably, push some over the edge.
This is not a mentally ill person. This is a sane person who consumed a diet of hate, believed the most absurd anti-Israel accusations (like doubling the death count in Gaza, "tens of thousands now at risk of imminent famine," and that there are 10,000 bodies under the rubble), and acted exactly as the antisemites who promote the propaganda prompted him to act. If all the lies about Israel are true, then acting on them is hardly insane. And in the universe that Rodriguez and thousands of others inhabit, all they can see and believe are the lies.
People who mindlessly repeat the rhyming mantras of "There is only one solution, Intifada revolution!" and "Hey hey, ho ho, Zionists have got to go!" are being taught that killing Zionists/Jews is the moral thing to do. This is how brainwashing works.
And brainwashing works.
This had to happen. And it unfortunately happen again, in no small part due to the performative nature of Rodriguez's act.
While the "progressives" claim to be against murder, they are secretly happy at the prospect of one of their own being given an international forum to spout hate in court.
This was what the leading anti-Israel organizers have been dreaming of. One of their puppets performed their script.
Last night, two Jewish employees of the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram, were murdered by a far-Left activist at an American Jewish Committee reception.
The man who killed two Israeli embassy staff outside the Capitol Jewish Museum in Washington, DC on Wednesday night is an active member of a far-left Marxist, pro-Palestine group called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
30-year-old Chicago native Elias Rodriguez held a red keffiyeh and shouted “Free, free Palestine!” as he was being taken into custody, after shooting Sarah Milgrim and her fiance Yaron Lischinsky.
Rodriguez has been reported in the past as a member of PSL, which just this morning posted an "anti genocide pledge" on its social media.
He holds a BA in English from the University of Illinois, Chicago.
And they support the idea of glorifying the "intifada" and characterized October 7 as "resistance."
One main talking point by the "progressive" Left to has been that the only physical threat to Jews comes from the Right because only right-wing antisemites tend to shoot Jews.
The events last night prove otherwise.
The "progressive Left" claims that there is no relationship between their slogans like "resistance by any means necessary" and violence.
The events last night prove otherwise.
The progressives claim that the slogan "free, free Palestine" is merely a call for liberation and not for violence.
The events last night prove otherwise.
They can try to distance themselves from the cold blooded murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram, but it is their rhetoric and their incitement that directly caused a man to choose to go to a Jewish event and murder Jews in America in the name of Palestine.
Elias Rodriguez was just doing what he has been brainwashed to do by the very Left that now is scrambling to deny any responsibility for murdering Jews.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
Black lives matter. Of course they do. Everyone’s lives
matter. But you don’t just go and support a group with an agreeable name
without some due diligence. Or do you?
My progressive Jewish friends don’t seem to think any due
diligence is necessary when it comes to being gung-ho for organizations like
Black Lives Matter, or the Women’s March. If Black Lives Matter says it’s against
racism then gulldarnit, my progressive Jewish friends are going to put a
clenched fist BLM badge on their Facebook profile pic. If they think the Women’s
March is for women, they’re going to put on a pink hat with a name that inwardly
makes them feel thrillingly naughty as they outwardly express their righteous
indignation.
These same progressive friends at some point take down the
badges from their profile pics as the truth outs, as truth so inconveniently
tends to do. Now they know: BLM is inherently antisemitic and anti-Israel—really
the same thing. Were they sheepish when the Women’s March and the Chicago Dyke March
excluded women and dykes if they happened to be Jews or Zionists? Or did they
just quietly take down the badges on their profile pics and find something
hopefully innocuous to support—something that doesn’t hate Jews or Zionists?
(Good luck with that.)
But why didn’t they give these groups a thorough vetting
before throwing their support behind them? The answer is pathetic: they didn’t
believe that someone protesting racism could hate Jews. They didn’t believe
that someone speaking up for women’s rights didn’t believe in Jewish women’s
rights.
Even very, very intelligent Jewish women—women like Bari
Weiss—were surprised when all the groups fighting against sexual violence,
looked the other way when the victims of sexual violence were Jews. In her
introduction to a podcast with Sheryl Sandberg to discuss the documentary Screams
Before Silence, Weiss said, “Sheryl Sandberg watched the horrors of
October 7th unfold and assumed that everyone she knew would rally against these
unspeakable atrocities—particularly after reports of sexual violence and rape
committed by Hamas started pouring in. But when she saw that many people
didn't, or worse, that they denied it was even happening, she was stunned. She
was particularly shocked that many of her would-be allies—prominent feminists
and progressives in this country and around the world—stayed silent.”
During that same podcast, Sandberg described when drove her
to make the documentary. “I never thought I would do this, and I wish this
didn't have to be made. When October 7th happened, I was shocked. I think
everyone was shocked. I was even more shocked afterward. The single most
surprising thing I found was that in the weeks following, people started coming
out with what I thought was clear evidence that this wasn't just mass murder;
there was rape. Women were found naked and bloodied. Over and over, the stories
were coming out, and what I then expected to happen is for people to say, ‘Oh
my God, rape is never supposed to be used as part of war. No sexual violence is
part of conflict.’ But that just wasn't happening.”
Sandberg made the video to convince the rape deniers who
only deny rape when Jews are involved. But it didn’t much help. People who hate
Jews hate them whether or not they are gang raped, tortured, kidnapped, and
abused. They hate Jews whether or not they are Zionists, hate them whether or
not they live in Israel.
“We made a video,” said Sandberg, “and that video went very
viral. I tried to make that video really carefully. I mean, I have strong views
on what's going on, but there were no views in this video. This video said, ‘No
matter what flag you're flying,’ carefully including half Palestinian flags and
half Israeli flags, ‘No matter what you believe, we have to stand united
against the clear use of sexual violence.’
“Yet people were still not believing it. So, I helped
organize a conference at the UN where we brought witnesses who stood there and
cried and said, ‘Here's what I saw with my own eyes.’ Then I took those same
witnesses to parliaments in Europe, where I felt they needed to speak out, but
we still encountered some denial and significant silence.”
Bari Weiss details the various denials of October 7 rape
even in the face of the rape videos that the terrorists proudly shared. “Max
Blumenthal, a commentator and journalist, said that a woman’s body found naked
from the waist down was simply because women at festivals like to dress in
skimpy attire. Another example is the prominent British commentator Owen Jones,
who said there's no evidence of rape. This is a guy with a million Twitter
followers.
“Then there’s Briahna Joy Gray, who was Bernie Sanders’s
press secretary in 2020. She said Zionists are asking that we believe the
uncorroborated eyewitness accounts of men who describe alleged rape victims in
odd fetishistic terms. She said, ‘Shame on Israel for not seriously
investigating claims of rape and collecting rape kits.’ How do you understand
the logic or the worldview that leads people to say things like that?
“Before this conversation,” said Weiss, “I checked in with
some of the top feminist organizations in the country. Since October 7th, the
National Organization for Women made a statement two months after the fact,
which didn’t mention Hamas. UN Women, a group whose mission is to create an
environment where all women can exercise their human rights, waited 55 days
before saying anything. The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued
nothing. I could go on for hours detailing the silence—or worse, weaselly
statements where they fail to mention the perpetrators of evil actions.”
So much for “Believe all women.” (Perhaps they should change
that to “Believe all shiksas.”)
As for Black Lives Matter, their adherents thought they were
invincible. Probably because they saw how all my progressive Jewish friends
were using that clenched fist badge on their Facebook pics. They saw how easy
it was to pull the wool over our eyes under the guise of a fight against
racism. But now we all know about the corruption of those at the top of the BLM
food chain.
Take Black Lives Matter cofounder Patrisse Cullors, for
example. Cullors resigned from the “charity” in 2021 after getting caught with
her hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Back in June, the Washington
Free Beacon reported that BLM is still reeling from Cullors’ abuse of
power:
Black Lives Matter cofounder Patrisse Cullors resigned from the embattled
charity in 2021, but the charity suffered from the excesses of her tenure well
into 2023, according to a copy of its latest tax return obtained by the Washington
Free Beacon.
Under Cullors’s leadership, Black Lives Matter Global
Network Foundation doled out massive contracts to her friends and family,
purchased a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles in 2020, and financed the
purchase of an $8 million mansion in Canada in 2021. By the end of its 2023
fiscal year, the tax forms show, Black Lives Matter saw the $80 million
windfall it raked in during the George Floyd riots of 2020 diminish to under
$29 million as it hemorrhaged cash fulfilling lingering contractual obligations
to Cullors’s associates.
Those individuals include Damon Turner, the father of
Cullors’s only child, whose art firm Trap Heals received $778,000 from Black
Lives Matter in 2023 despite performing no work for the charity that year.
But hey, Black Lives Matter, gulldurnit, so all those progressive Jewish women
rushed to put up that clenched fist badge on their Facebooks. It made them feel
good, like they were making a statement about their own goodness, I suppose.
Because those badges certainly didn’t do a THING for black people or against
racism. And neither did Black Lives Matter.
The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), under whose umbrella Black
Lives Matter falls (or at least did, originally), is drenched in Jew hatred. In
its original
2016 platform, M4BL stated that “[the] US justifies and advances the global
war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide
taking place against the Palestinian people,” that “Israel is an apartheid
state,” and that “[the] US [has funded an] apartheid wall.”
The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with
Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.
The US requires Israel to use 75 percent of all the military aid it receives to
buy US-made arms. Consequently, every year billions of dollars are funneled
from US taxpayers to hundreds of arms corporations, who then wage lobbying
campaigns pushing for even more foreign military aid. The results of this
policy are twofold: it not only diverts much needed funding from domestic
education and social programs, but it makes US citizens complicit in the abuses
committed by the Israeli government. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50
laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.
Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal
Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain
Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday [sic],
Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the
US-funded apartheid wall.
Cullors, back in 2015, while speaking as a guest lecturer at
Harvard Law School's 'Globalizing Ferguson: Radicalized Policing and
International Violence' forum, opined that people must "end the
imperialist project that's called Israel." “Palestine is our generation's
South Africa. If we don't step up boldly and courageously to end the
imperialist project that's called Israel, we're doomed.”
Is this really what my progressive Jewish friends,
relatives, and acquaintances wanted to support as they watched BLM gain
momentum? Did my fellow Jews support an end to Israel? Probably not. But they
hadn’t bothered to check what BLM actually stands for. Black Lives Matter was a
sentiment that brooked no criticisms or doubts about the respectability of the
group going under the mantle of that oh-so-progressive-sounding name.
BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors calls to "end the imperialist project that's called Israel." pic.twitter.com/0PgEtPMpVx
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 28, 2021
That same year, Cullors and her friends organized a
solidarity trip to Nazareth called “Ferguson to Palestine.” To liven things up,
they did a flash mob “specifically calling for the boycott, divestment, and
sanctions of the state of Israel. We who believe in freedom cannot rest until
it’s won.”
Here’s some of the other Jew-hating bullpucky they spouted:
We came here to Palestine to stand in love and revolutionary
struggle with our brothers and sisters. We come to a land that has been stolen
by greed and destroyed by hate. We learn of laws that have been co-signed in
ink but written in the blood of the innocent. We stand next to people who
continue to courageously struggle and resist the occupation. People continue to
dream and fight for freedom. From Ferguson to Palestine, the struggle for
freedom continues.
We who believe in freedom cannot rest. We who believe in
freedom cannot rest until it’s won. We who believe in freedom cannot rest.
We sit in a sea of settlements while the sound of suffering
is lost in the listening, as the voices of heartache hail the power of
presence. People are portals, passports to heaven. Here is a protest in the
form of a prayer. God is in the holy water lining the lower lids of a child’s
eyes, a tear running against a cheek in Old Jerusalem. The lonely storyteller
sits on a leaning chair in the market.
God is a woman holding a crying baby in her arms at a
checkpoint, waiting at the gates like cattle. God is in the rubble, with
gnarled hands rinsing in an open fire. A journey of dreamers sings through
empty streets in Bethlehem. We survive in the telling, unafraid. We survive in
the telling.
What if the occupations drain the Palestinians who had
thrills underneath their teeth, and they suddenly awoke to see the ships at the
Bay of the West Bank shore, discovering that the occupation existed no more?
What if Zionism is the second coming of Christ? Destruction is the matriarch of
sight, for if we are the Messiah, then God is not white. What if life is the
afterlife, and we are already dead? The footage of the moment loops in your
head, replaying until you die for the second time.
What a power influence your intelligence and mind, and those
with lesser means—the oppressors. Would you still steal this land under that
pressure?
Free Palestine! Palestine and Ferguson in the occupation.
Ferguson and Palestine, we fight to free our nations.
Black lives matter! Black lives matter!
I believe! I believe!
They know that we know. They know that we win. We are all
right.
Group hug! Come on!
Black lives matter! Black lives matter!
See? As long as you say it under the rubric of “Black Lives
Matter!” you can say any gulldurned hateful lie you can think of. It’s all
good. Good enough for my progressive Jewish friends to not bother to even do a
rudimentary check of what these people are plugging—and they ain’t plugging DEI—they’re
plugging antisemitism.
There really was such a wealth of material out there, attesting to the disingenuousness
and horrifically hateful views of BLM. If only my progressive Jewish friends
had been interested in examining even a modicum of the evidence. In 2016, for
example, several horrible people made a film comparing anti-black racism, to “Palestinian”
suffering under the supposed thumb of Israel.
Stragglers arrive; extra seats are formed into rows, and
even more latecomers will be forced to stand. The lights dim, and a video
recently released on YouTube begins to play on the projection screen. Entitled When
I See Them, I See Us, it features activist-scholars Angela Davis and Cornel
West, musician Lauryn Hill, actor Danny Glover, writer Alice Walker and dozens
of other prominent activists, Palestinian and black. Narrators recite the title
in rhythmic repetition as the activists hold up a series of slogan-bearing
signs: “Racism is systemic. Its outbursts are not isolated incidents.” “Your
walls will never cage our freedom.” “End state racism.” “Gaza stands with
Baltimore.” Photos of dead Palestinian children alternate with photos of black
victims of police shootings and scenes of Gaza rubble.
When the three-minute video ends—directing viewers to the
website blackpalestiniansolidarity.com—the room bursts into applause. Dajani
introduces the guest speaker for the evening, Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler,
the senior minister of the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in
Washington, DC. From his temporary pulpit, Hagler weaves a web of parallels—the
walls of a maximum-security prison in Massachusetts to Israel’s separation
barrier in the West Bank; property destruction in Baltimore in the wake of the
death of Freddie Gray to the first and second intifadas. His voice frequently
reaches sermon pitch, his audience full of nodding heads, murmurs of approval,
snapping fingers, and calls of “Yes.”
For all my progressive Jewish friends who so proudly displayed BLM FB badges
until they didn’t, here’s a taste of that film script:
When I see them, I see us.
Every 28 hours, a Black life is stolen by police or
vigilantes in the U.S. Every two hours, a Palestinian child is killed in
Israel's attacks on Gaza.
Eric Garner, 43 years old, father of six, grandfather,
friend. Seven-year-old killed when an Israeli missile struck her home. Hashem
Abu Maria, 45 years old, father of four, human rights worker. Ayanna Jones,
seven years old, killed in her sleep by Detroit police.
I see us—harassed, beaten, tortured, dehumanized, stopped
and frisked, searched at checkpoints, victims of administrative detention,
youth incarceration. When I see them, I see us—from Rikers Island to Ophir
Prison, from Raeford to Chicago, lives are being stolen.
Remember them. We are not statistics. We are not collateral
damage. We have names and faces: Sakia Nadeem Kimani, Renisha Muhammad. They
burned me alive in Jerusalem. They gunned me down in Chicago. They shot out our
water tanks in Hebron. They cut off our water in Detroit. They demolished our
homes in New Orleans. When I see them, I see us.
They see our rooms as dangerous, label us as demographic
threats. They sterilize us without our knowledge and mark our children as
criminals. We say no to all forms of oppression in U.S. cities and on the
streets of Palestine. We respect the uniqueness of our struggles and our varied
histories. When I see them, I see us—resilient, steadfast, determined.
I see who we were meant to be: alive, free, liberated,
mapping out our destiny. I see hope, strength, love—a place where our children
can dream. I see a road, a partner, a family, a world where we can rise and be
seen.
Now, with Cullors out of the picture, it has become clear that the BLM
people need a new Jew-hater in charge. Which is why they just hired Yonasda
Lonewolf!
Black Lives Matter Grassroots announced in a New Year's message to its
supporters on Thursday that it hired Yonasda Lonewolf, a rapper and activist
with close ties to Farrakhan, as a "special projects specialist" to
help the group as it works to "claim victory over the white-supremacist
systems designed to kill our people." Black Lives Matter Grassroots said
in the message it would enter 2025 with "the revolutionary spirit of our
Haitian forebears" and featured an image of Haitian revolutionaries in the
early 1800s lynching French military officers.
Lonewolf doesn’t shy from her devotion to Farrakhan, who has
praised Adolf Hitler as a "very great man" and casts Jews as "termites"
and "enemies"
who control black people. She professed her love for Farrakhan in a 2016 Facebook post and later, in a
2020 Instagram
post, described the minister as "my grandfather Min. Farrakhan who
also eased my spirit." In 2023, Lonewolf attended Farrakhan’s annual
keynote address, where she told the ministry’s propaganda website that she felt
"rejuvenated" by his message.
"We are all under attack right now, and it’s the fight
against good and evil, at the end of the day," Lonewolf told the Final
Call, the Nation of Islam's official publication. "The fact that
we still have a great leader amongst us is a testament that he’s standing, that
we need to be able to continue." Other Farrakhan devotees interviewed in
that article praised the Nation of Islam leader's stand against "the
Satanic Jews" and "the Jewish powers that be."
As to the pink pussy hats, they were all the rage with
progressive Jewish women. But that didn’t go very well, either.
It should be obvious to progressive Jewish women by now that
the Women’s March, an allegedly feminist movement, which allegedly supports the
rights of all women, just isn’t into Jewish women. To progressive ideologues,
Jews are burdened by the original sin of Zionism, whether they are pro-Israel or
not.
This was made very clear in June 2017, at the Chicago Dyke
March, when three Jewish LGBT Pride marchers carrying flags adorned with a Star
of David (similar to, but not the flag of Israel) were ousted from the parade.
This was an act of pure anti-Semitism by radical feminists.
In fact, at the event in question, the 21st
annual Chicago Dyke March, a member of the group said that the
women were told to leave because the flags “made people feel unsafe” and
that the March was both “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.”
Two years later, things had not much (read “not at all”) improved.
But at least the rules of the 2019 DC Dyke March were clear.
The DC Dyke March, returning to Washington, D.C. on Friday
after a 12-year absence, will prohibit Jewish and pro-Israel pride symbols,
including flags.
“Jewish stars and other identifications and celebrations of
Jewishness (yarmulkes, talit, other expressions of Judaism or Jewishness) are
welcome and encouraged. We do ask that participants not bring pro-Israel
paraphernalia in solidarity with our queer Palestinian friends,” Yael Horowitz,
a Jewish organizer of the D.C. march, told A.J. Campbell, who wanted to bring a
Jewish Pride flag to the march, in a Facebook message, reportedThe
Washington Post.
The progressive Jews I know are on the whole, accomplished
professionals with Ivy League educations. Why then, do they completely lack the
ability to see when they’re being taken for a ride? How is it that they’re so
quick to support what isn’t? BLM isn’t about equal rights for black people. It’s
about misusing funds and hating Jews. The Women’s March and Dyke Marches aren’t
about women or dykes. If it were, Jews and their symbols showing up in
solidarity would be welcomed. After all, what does Israel have to do with the
women’s rights movement in the United States?
Answer: not a thing. It’s not even intersectional. The
marches are a pretext to hate whatever floats their hate boat. Straights,
whites, Jews, Donald J. Trump . . . whatever they hate most at the moment. None
of it hangs together in any cohesive form whatsoever.
In the run up to the election, a friend explained to me that
she could not vote for Trump because she feared her elementary school-aged granddaughter
would someday not be able to get an abortion as a result. But Trump didn’t do anything with abortion in his first term, and has no intention of having much to do with it now.
It’s not even a thing. He’s leaving it up to the states to decide these things
for themselves.
And guess what, they already have. There is no place in
America where a woman cannot get an abortion where there is a risk to the life
of the mother. In fact, there are very few places in America where the usual exceptions are not in place.
But you know, Kamala Harris told them otherwise, so they
believe her. And voted for her. Because they are Jewish progressives, so they
embrace whatever cause they are told is progressive without even the smallest effort
made at verifying the facts.
Are they aware that Kamala Harris supports student
protests against “Israel’s genocide in Gaza” and tells them they have a right
to “their truth?”
Probably not. Again, because they don’t care. What they care about is the
appearance of being consonant with progressive values. They want to belong, so
when others scream BLACK LIVES MATTER, they put those badges up on their
Facebook pages. And when Kamala tells them that Donald J. Trump wants to
control their bodies, they vote for her, despite her hatred of their homeland
and the people who live there. They comfort themselves by saying, there's no way she hates Jews. Her husband is Jewish!
Will Jewish progressives wake up in time to save themselves?
Probably not. They are too intellectually lazy to perpetuate their own species. That expensive education their Yiddisher parents paid for is basically a framed diploma on a wall. They graduated a long time ago, and no longer have to use their brain cells to
dig deep and critically think about anything much at all.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. Vivek Ramaswamy gave
an interview to an antisemite and then got angry when the Washington
Free Beacon reported that fact. No, wait. That’s not quite right.
Ramaswamy didn’t know that Albert
Faleski, aka An0maly, was an antisemite at the time of the interview, so it
wasn’t nice that the Washington Free Beacon made it look like he did it
on purpose. But actually, even if he HAD known Faleski was an antisemite,
Ramaswamy might have still done the interview because of his amazing
tolerance for all views and because of this presidential hopeful’s belief
in free speech.
But no. That can’t be right either. Because if Ramaswamy
really cared about freedom of speech, he wouldn’t have blocked the Washington
Free Beacon’s access to his campaign for bringing up Faleski’s very public and
virulent antisemitism in the context of the Ramaswamy interview.
Why isn’t the Washington Free Beacon free to talk
about this? Why isn’t Ramaswamy tolerant of the media outlet’s sensitivity to
and dedication to raising the issue of antisemitism—especially when the topic,
by association, concerns a presidential candidate—I mean, first Ramaswamy goes on Russell
Brand’s show and now this. In light of these facts, why does Ramaswamy’s
campaign describe the Washington Free Beacon as acting in “bad faith?”
Have you ever read the State Department’s “Defining Anti-Semitism” page?
They say it’s hate speech to say Jews killed Jesus, have more loyalty to Israel than other countries & saying they control large sectors of society.
On September 5, the Washington Free Beacon published
a report by Alana Goodman on the aforementioned Faleski-Ramaswamy podcast. One
day later, on September 6, Goodman reported that the Ramaswamy
campaign had cut off free access to the Free Beacon, as a result:
Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign said it would no longer
facilitate access between the Washington Free Beacon and the candidate
after the Free Beacon reported that Ramaswamy appeared on a podcast hosted by
an anti-Semitic YouTuber on Tuesday.
The campaign’s decision comes after the Free Beacon reported
on anti-Semitic comments, including the assertion that both the left and right
push for "speech censorship on behalf of big Jewish power," made by
social media influencer Albert Faleski, also known as "An0maly," who
interviewed Ramaswamy this week.
In other words, despite his declared commitment to the
concept of freedom of speech Ramaswamy, did not at all like the Free Beacon
mentioning Faleski’s extensive history of Jew-hating comments and tweets in its
report of the podcast. The 38-year-old presidential candidate thinks that Goodman
added unnecessary context designed to smear his reputation. But isn’t that also
free speech? Instead, this is described by the Ramaswamy campaign as acting in “bad
faith” (emphasis added):
Ramaswamy spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said on Tuesday that
the Free Beacon acted in "bad faith" by highlighting Faleski’s
comments in the context of Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show, adding that the
campaign plans to cut off the Free Beacon’s access.
Are we all getting this? Because I’m finding it hard to take it in. Vivek goes on an antisemite’s youtube show in the name of free
speech and tolerance, then denies all media access to the outlet that writes it
up.
If ever there were an exemplar of free speech for me and not
for thee, this is it.
Which begs the question: If doing an interview with a virulent
and quite public antisemite is acceptable in the name of free speech, why isn’t
a factual report of the event acceptable as free speech?
Now, I’m not a Harvard graduate, or a 38-year-old,
wet-behind-the-ears presidential candidate, but if I were, I sure as shooting
would have my people research the background of those asking for interviews. If
my people were to then find something suspicious, like the fact that the guy’s
an antisemite, they would either turn down the interview, or pass that
information along to me. This leaves us with a number of possibilities to
consider regarding Vivek Ramaswamy’s appearance on the show of a known antisemite:
1.Vivek Ramaswamy or his
staff failed to do basic research before accepting the interview, then lied
about it
2.Ramaswamy didn’t care that Faleski
is an antisemite, or agrees with and chose to amplify Faleski’s antisemitic conspiracy
theories, and then lied about it
3.Ramaswamy thought he could get
away with appearing on an antisemite’s youtube show and got angry when he got
caught
4.Ramaswamy doesn’t really
believe in free speech. He doesn’t even know what it is. When he says he is
tolerant of other views, he is LYING. He punishes the media when they publish
unpleasant truths about him.
In piecing together the facts, we must also consider the timeline. First Ramaswamy told antisemite Russell Brand he’d cut aid to Israel, and then he did a show with
antisemitic conspiracy theorist. When he is subsequently criticized for communing
with Jew-haters, Vivek Ramaswamy lets it be known that he believes in free
speech for all. All, that is, except for the Washington
Free Beacon.
What do Epstein, Weinstein & 85% of the writers, producers & media execs making the most subversive programming have in common?
I’ll give you a hint, Trump & Republicans pass speech orders trying to stop you from saying the truth about it.
The Republican Party & the Rep. Media Establishment are Zionist > 🇺🇸. That means they will sacrifice America, Americans, their values, free speech & everything they claim to stand for to blacklist people who know they back hate speech laws & anti-boycott laws for Jewish donors.
McLaughlin’s statement goes on to speak of Ramaswamy’s open
media policy—his willingness to speak with even hostile media outlets (emphasis
added):
Ramaswamy appeared on Faleski’s show because he will talk
to any media outlet, even controversial ones, she said, adding that Ramaswamy
wasn’t aware of Faleski’s anti-Semitic comments before the interview, but
might have appeared on the show even if he was aware because of the
campaign’s open media policy.
Once more, I have to ask, especially to those who say I have no proof that Ramaswamy is an antisemite--are you getting all this? This wet-behind-the-ears
presidential candidate is saying he didn’t know Faleski was an
antisemite, but even if he had, he still might have gone on the show. Vivek Ramaswamy doesn’t rule out talking to antisemites, only to those
who point it out.
Not that it much matters. At this point, no one serious
believes that Vivek Ramaswamy has a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming
president. Definitely not this time around, and almost certainly not ever.
Wishing all my readers שָׁנָה טוֹבָה תִּכָּתֵבוּ וְתֵחָתֵמוּ!
*Updated for accuracy
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Back in April, I asked a question: Is
Tucker Carlson a Covert Antisemite? To my mind, there is no question that he
is, but people understand things in different ways. Some want proof rather than
this author’s interpretation of Carlson’s words and deeds.
In a way, that is the point. There likely will never be proof.
This is why I refer to Carlson’s brand of antisemitism as “covert.” It’s slippery
and slimy. It’s about pushing the boundaries as far as he can go without going
over the line. Carlson goes just far enough in what he says, the words just shy
of, “I hate Jews.”
Some Jews are unfortunately too nice. They are not
interested in believing the worst of a person. So, short of Carlson shouting
into a megaphone, “I hate Jews,” the benefit-of-the doubter Jews will doggedly insist
on proof. “Can you prove it?” and since Carlson neverleaves much of a
trail, you’ve got no way to do so. Not that I make much effort to persuade
them. Either they do or don’t believe that Tucker Carlson is an antisemite.
Aside from requiring proof of Tucker’s antisemitism, there’s
another factor in play for those who just don’t buy it. Some Jews don’t want to
believe that Tucker is an antisemite because they otherwise agree with his
Conservative politics. Since they agree with Tucker on so many other things,
they pooh-pooh any suggestion that Carlson, at heart, hates Jews.
I noted the same phenomenon when I wrote about RFK
Jr.’s antisemitism. Some readers were upset. They said to me, “Can you
prove it?” and they aren’t even Democrats.
There is irony in the sudden request for proof of
antisemitism in the case of RFK Jr. The same readers challenging me to bring them
cold, hard evidence that Tucker is a Jew-hater, are like me, generally
hypersensitive to antisemitic undertones and nuances. What made them look the
other way from the empirical evidence this time, and hold their nose at the
stench, was RFK Jr.’s stance on vaccination, with which they agree.
To all of these naysayers, I will, unlike Tucker Carlson,
declare myself out and out: Of course I can’t prove it. But that doesn’t mean I
don’t know it.
Tucker Carlson will not be coming out of the Jew-hate closet
any time soon, at least not on purpose. He’ll never say the words out loud. And
some Jews will always insist on his innocence. Even after much proof, such
as a recent Tucker Carlson interview with Douglas Macgregor, a
retired US colonel, about the war in Ukraine, as captured by the Israel
Advocacy Movement.
Macgregor, like Tucker Carlson, understands how to say just
enough to escape any overt accusations of antisemitism. His words hint at hatred
without actually saying the J word out loud. Like here, where all the people Macgregor
references are Jewish:
Tucker Carlson: How would you characterize Zelenskyy?
Douglas Macgregor: He was picked and then blessed by
Victoria Nuland and the State Department as their man. Now, when he originally
ran for office, he ran on a peace platform. Ukrainians didn't want to go to war
with Russia. Of course, once he was in there, he took a different road, and I
can't help but think that that road was defined for him by us.
Tucker Carlson: Who is Victoria Nuland?
Douglas Macgregor: Ah, goodness gracious, all these hard
questions, Tucker! I do not know Victoria Nuland, personally. I know Fred Kagan,
and his brother Bob is married to her and she's a long-term committed neocon. No,
I don't think she understands the gravity of the situation. These are the same
people. Tony Blinken is in this.
These are people with this agenda and the agenda says until
the entire world is garrisoned by US forces and is converted forcibly to some
form of democracy that we approve of, uh, the world will not be safe, and we
must continue to fight, and I think in in the case of Russia, Russia has special
appeal, because I think these people have ancestors who come from that region
in the world, and have a permanent ax to grind with the Russians. Now of
course, which I don't, and I don't think most Americans do, and nor do I think
anybody in the government should shape policy based on whatever unhappiness
their ancestors, you know, experienced in a place like Russia.
Tucker then asks Macgregor why both Democrats and
Republicans support Ukraine.
Douglas Macgregor: Well, first of all you've got to go through
and identify the donors. What's their background; where did they come from; and
why do they feel the way they do? I think there're more personal issues there
than we realize with many of them.
Macgregor, this whole time, is talking about Jews. And Tucker
never once calls him out for airing antisemitic conspiracy theories. Tucker
Carlson is quite happy to interview this man and air his views for his
listeners. Why? Is it about freedom of speech?
No. It’s about antisemitism. And no I don’t have proof. You
either see it and believe it or you don’t.
We shouldn’t mind the people who don’t want to admit Carlson
is an antisemite because they like his politics. They’re just fooling
themselves. It’s the benefit-of-the-doubter Jews who are worrisome. They are
like the Jews who waited too long to leave Europe, because Hitler and his goose-stepping
fans were not to be taken seriously. They thought that Hitler and his Nazis were just a flash in the pan. Germany
wouldn’t let a Holocaust happen.
By the time these Jews understood that Hitler was not some
temporary nuisance but manifestly evil, the gates had already closed and they could not leave. Which is a common
theme in Jewish history. Jews don’t want to believe someone can be evil. They won’t believe it until it is absolutely proven—like when they see smoke coming
out of an Auschwitz crematorium, or watch people walk into a shower and never come out.
That is far too late.
For Jews, in particular, it is crucial to recognize that some people really are bad. And the last thing you want from them is proof.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
The New York Times has an op-ed by Ilan Stavans about the resilience of Yiddish, supposedly by an expert in the field. It includes some antisemitic tropes, oversimplifications, self-contradictions, outright falsehoods and ultimately reflects anti-Zionist politics more than it represents the state of Yiddish today.
For a language without a physical address that has come frighteningly close to extinction, Yiddish’s will to live seems inexhaustible. The lesson is simple and straightforward: Survival is an act of stubbornness.
Yiddish has been experiencing something of a revival. Online courses mean that anyone from Buenos Aires to Melbourne might learn to speak it. There are new translations of long-forgotten works and literary classics. A Broadway staging of “Fiddler on the Roof” was performed in Yiddish. And streaming platforms like Netflix have released series, including “Shtisel,” “Unorthodox” and “Rough Diamonds,” fully or partially in Yiddish.
Before World War II, approximately 13 million Jews, both secular and religious, spoke Yiddish. Today it is estimated that there are about a quarter of a million speakers in the United States, about the same number in Israel and roughly another 100,000 in the rest of the world. Nowadays the vast majority of those who speak the language are ultra-Orthodox. They aren’t multilingual, as secular Yiddish speakers always were.
Here is the problem with this article in a nutshell: it is written from the perspective of the relatively tiny number of secular Yiddish speakers today, and it all but ignores the real use of the language among religious Jews, which is the core of how the language is used - and more importantly, how it is evolving.
The Yiddish of the secular Jew today is an adaptation of the Yiddish of the heyday of socialist secular Yiddish newspapers in America in the early 20th century. But the vast majority of Yiddish speakers today use it in their everyday speech and as such the language continues to evolve as needed to accommodate modern life. The religious Jews speaking Yiddish are the ones who are not only keeping it alive but they are the ones who are the ones who change it. As a result, Yiddish speakers who learn the language in university courses in the US have a difficult time understanding the many dialects of Yiddish spoken in Boro Park, Mea Shearim or Bnei Brak, which includes healthy amounts of modern English or Hebrew just as local Yiddish dialects have always assimilated elements of the majority population's language.
To the secular Jew studying Yiddish, the language is a romantic throwback to the good old days of unionization of sweatshops in the Lower East Side. To the actual speakers of the language today, it is what is used in everyday life. That is where the dynamism of the language comes from - but the current class of secular Yiddishists tend to be anti-religious, and it shows.
Here are two religious Yiddish magazines published today. This is where the "interesant" things are happening to the language, not in academia or with today's secular Yiddish speakers.
The writer dismisses the "ultra-Orthodox" (itself a demeaning term) as not being multilingual as the secular Yiddish speakers were. Where does he get that from? How many American haredi or chassidic Jews do not speak English? How many Israeli chassidim cannot speak Hebrew? They might not be as fluent in their national languages as they are in Yiddish, but the vast majority can speak and understand more than one language; they couldn't survive in society otherwise. This is just one example of how Stavans subtly disparages the people who are the ones that really keep the language alive - not as a museum piece but as a living language.
It’s worth noting that Yiddish has been maligned by gentiles and Jews alike. Antisemites considered it the parlance of vermin, while the rabbinical elite deemed it unworthy of serious Talmudic discussion.
Really? The "rabbinical elite" were anti-Yiddish? What planet does he live on? Yiddish was the lingua franca of all the major European yeshivas, even after they were transplanted to America or Israel after the Holocaust. The roshei Yeshiva (yeshiva heads) from Europe gave their lessons in Yiddish as long as their students understood it, well into the 1960s and 1970s. Today's American "yeshivish" language includes biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and plenty of Yiddish along with English. And some of the "yeshivish" Yiddish has become part of modern Israeli Hebrew - such as "shkoyach" meaning "good job, itself a Yiddishization of a Hebrew term.
But the article really descends into modern antisemitism/anti-Zionism here:
Another enemy of Yiddish was Zionism. In the late 19th century, as the hope for a Jewish state found its ground, it was portrayed as jargon spoken by the diaspora — the language of homelessness, without a true national voice. To combat this deficit, Hebrew needed to be revived. Soon the myth sprung of the Hebrew pioneer, in sharp contrast with the large-nosed, hunchbacked Jew that Zionists themselves vilified.
Hebrew, which officially became the national language of the state of Israel in 1948, is spoken by about nine million people around the world. For some, the language symbolizes far-right Israeli militarism.
So according to Stavans, Zionists are antisemites who regard diaspora Jews the same way that neo-Nazis do, while modern Hebrew is the language of oppression.
This is a sick slander.
In fact, the people who initially embraced Hebrew as a modern language outside the religious context, and who rejected Yiddish, were the exact type of people that have embraced Yiddish today: the anti-religious, supposedly enlightened Jews.
Before Eliezer Ben Yehuda revived Hebrew as a modern language in Israel, there were lots of Hebrew language secular newspapers in eastern Europe. They were created by the Maskilim, the self-described "enlightened" ones, who considered Yiddish vulgar and common and tried to make Hebrew a secular language. Here's a list from the National Library of Israel of the Hebrew periodicals in their collection that existed before 1885, nearly all of them from Eastern Europe and nearly all of them secular:
And the first cover of one famous Haskalah newspaper from 1860, trying to attract the Yiddish speaking public to Hebrew:
These secular European Jews abandoned Hebrew for Yiddish at the same time that Zionists embraced and modernized Hebrew, around the 1890s. As described by the American Israelite in a requiem for Hebrew secular literature in 1906:
And while the current secular Yiddishists are often anti-Israel, the Israeli government is doing more to preserve Yiddish than they are, having created a National Authority on Yiddish Culture in 1996.
Another point about at least some of the secular Jews in Israel at the turn of the 20th century. Many of them opposed the idea of Hebrew being the official language of a Jewish state, and instead lobbied for the official language to be - German.
In contrast, Yiddish represents exile — a longing for home.
This is the problem of the modern, anti-Zionist Yiddishists in a nutshell. Stavans cannot even understand how this sentence is self-contradictory. Exile is by definition being away from home. To people like Stavans, Yiddish is Jewishness - but it is as transient as symbol of Jewishness as cuisine or dance. Yiddish is something that should be studied and remembered. but it is a tiny slice of the richness of Judaism throughout the millennia and throughout the world.
In Israel, the choice to standardize Hebrew as the language of the state was partially prompted, and later vindicated, by the Mizrahi Jews in the land who did not know Yiddish and who eventually became the majority. The only thing that Jews throughout the world have in common is Hebrew, not Yiddish.
The history of Yiddish among secular Jews is much more complex and ambivalent than is described here. This article promotes a myth of secular Jews having always used Yiddish as their preferred language when in fact they used it for political purposes - as they continue to do today. It is the despised religious Jews who keep the language relevant, alive and vibrant today, while the author of this article keeps Yiddish in a romanticized amber of a century ago.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
This article from JTA, published in September 1939, sounds like it could have been written today in regard to "anti-Zionists."
DISCUSSES ANTI-JEWISH ATTITUDE
Priest Assails Those Who Say They Are Not. Opposed to "Good Jews."
PITTSBURGH—Those who mask their anti-Semitism with the assertion that they are not opposed to "good Jews" were assailed by the Rev. Charles Owen Rice in an address he delivered yesterday at St. Joseph House of Hospitality here.
"One of the features connected with the present wave of anti-Semitism that is being stirred up is that some of the leading purveyors of anti-Semitism hotly deny that they are anti-Semites," he said. "They employ a clever sophistry in their attempts to escape the stigma. They define anti-Semitism in a certain restricted sense and then they claim that their teachings and utterances -do not bring them under the term. "
"For instance, these enemies of the Jew will define anti-Semitism as persecution of the Jew because he is a Jew. They will hold that because, to their anti-Jewish attacks, they affix a rider saying that they exempt good Jews, therefore, they are automatically absolved of anti-Semitism. "
"As a matter of fact the unctuous employment of the 'good Jews' qualifier generally intensifies that anti-Semitism of the statements as whole. Also we can have attacks upon Jews, as Jews, without direct statements. The brutal crude, direct anti-Semitic utterances, are far less harmful than the subtle ones.
"Off hand I can give a partial list of some of the more commonly used anti-Semitic statements and inferences.
"It is anti-Semitism to exaggerate the power of Jews, whether it be power in finance, in industry, in newspaper publishing, in radio or anything else.
"It is anti-Semitism to say or hint there is a mysterious central controlling Jewish, national or international. leadership.
"It is anti-Semitism to exaggerate the clannishness of Jews.
"It is anti-Semitism to speak of deliberate controlled Jewish campaigns against Christianity.
"It is anti-Semitic to exaggerate Jewish participation in Communism and similar movements.
"It is anti-Semitism to hint at, or charge, a tie-up between 'International Jewry' and International Masonry. The very term 'International Jewry' has definite ant-Semitic implications.
"You will note that these effective types of anti-Semitism consist of lies. and exaggerations. Their harmfulness consists in their engendering a feeling of mixed fear and anger in the breasts of non-Jews. All of them have been proved false. They are damnably un-American, un -Christian and anti-social."
Then, like now, antisemites denied being antisemitic.
Then, like now, antisemites attempt to re-define "antisemitism" to exclude themselves.
Then, like now, antisemites defend themselves by saying that there are some "good Jews" who agree with them.
Then, like now, the subtle antisemitism that hides as social justice is often more dangerous than the explicit kind.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Jordan's Al Ghad has an op-ed by Youssef Abdullah Mahmoud that quotes a variant of a Nazi-era libel claiming that "president" Benjamin Franklin gave a speech to the American people warning them about the dangers of Jews.
There is a great danger for the United States of America. This great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen, in every land the Jews have settled, they have depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have remained apart and unassimilated; oppressed, they attempt to strangle the nation financially, as in the case of Portugal and Spain.
If they are not expelled from the United States by the Constitution, they will stream into this country in such numbers that they will rule and destroy us and change our form of Government for which we Americans shed our blood and sacrificed our life, property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded within two hundred years, our children will be working in the field to feed Jews while they remain in the counting houses, gleefully rubbing their hands.
I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jews forever, your children and your children’s children will curse you in their graves. Their ideas are not those of Americans, even when they lived among us for ten generations. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter, they will imperil our institutions. They should be excluded by the Constitution.
This lie was first published in 1934 by an American fascist publication and quickly reproduced in Nazi Germany. Here's a Nazi poster with the lie, complete with a picture of someone who is definitely not Franklin.
The supposed speech was debunked fairly quickly - there is no record of any such speech, it uses language that was not used in the 18th century, and Franklin was a philosemite.
But that hasn't stopped this supposed "Franklin prophecy" from being resurrected every couple of years in Arab media. Usually, the articles claim Franklin was the President.
Mahmoud expands on the forgery, claiming that "Zionists" stopped early Americans from implementing Franklin's plan of ethnic cleansing Jews from the United States.
Why recycle old, provable lies? Because most people don't know they are lies, and it is easier to re-use old ones than to make up new ones.
Interestingly, as I was writing this, I found articles that give a strong indication that a 19th century Mussar work, Sefer Cheshbon ha-Nefesh based its self-improvement program on Benjamin Franklin's own program described in his autobiography. The author, Menachem Mendel Lefin, didn't credit Franklin but he didn't claim to have created the method either, and other writings of his show he was familiar with Franklin's writings. So in a way, Benjamin Franklin has influenced modern Jewish thought.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Fighting Iran
-
Dry Bones Blog Golden Oldies, now coming to you by Sali, the LSW (Long
Suffering Wife)
Israel continues to fight Iran!
Praying that our soldiers be pro...
Iranian Jews stay at home, fear vigilante violence
-
Iranian Jews have gone to ground, staying off the streets. They fear mob
violence – angry citizens taking revenge on them, Ynet News reports:
Homayoun Sa...
Israel is Killing Gaza With Obesity
-
In 2015, a decade after Israel had withdrawn from Gaza leaving it, as
terrorist apologists in the media insisted, an “open-air concentration
camp”, we...
Israel’s enemies drink their own Kool-Aid
-
Israel’s enemies, on the other hand, see self-criticism as a weakness – it
is a source of shame to have anyone publicly contradict what the government
says...
Steve Kramer: The inevitable war against Iran
-
[image: Steve Kramer: The inevitable war against Iran] Steve Kramer: The
inevitable war against Iran Preface: We’re among the hundreds of thousands
of Isra...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, May 22, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
Buy 
.png)
.png)
.png)
