Keeping your brain on its feet requires mental agility in this age of rhetorical Judo. The same editors bleating about “the weaponization of words” place op-eds on the front page. What is found “fit to print” often wears like an Arnold Schwarzenegger suit on Danny DeVito. Algorithms that dole out hits for internet inquiries can land even further from the mark.
It was back in 2009 that Ben Stein called Ron Paul “anti-Semitic.” The thought-crime was questioning the wisdom of US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere on the peninsula. It’s doubtful a poll would find a majority of Jews subscribing to this creative construction of “hate,” “phobia” or whatever it was Stein’s comment amounted to. Libertarian and non-interventionist organizations are not known for shortages of the chosen people. Just months later Michael Kinsley worried, in both Slate and The Atlantic, that criticism of Goldman Sachs could rouse the rabble in Jew-phobic directions.
The Gang of Three: Soc...
Best Price: $15.59
Buy New $17.09
(as of 08:02 UTC - Details)
The leftist, Kinsley, made the sounder case. It is absolutely hare-brained to bludgeon skeptics of far-flung American foreign policy with so opprobrious a label. Abraham’s progeny are well represented in factions wary of splaying US power wantonly abroad. Stein never came across with any sensible rationale that justified his slur. The words “Goldman Sachs,” on the other hand, don’t conjure up images of Wall Street players with antecedents that debarked in New England from one of the early boats.
Everyone should remember the faces of high finance at its most notorious moments. During the Great Depression they were those of J. P. Morgan jr. and Richard Whitney, both Protestants. Third on the list might have been Joe Kennedy, a Catholic. Former Goldman CEO Hank Paulson, a Christian Scientist, served as Treasury Secretary when the more recent mortgage crisis unfolded. His bailout policy kept insolvent security traders comfortably housed near the corner of Wall and Broad. It didn’t do a thing to keep roofs overhead across the rest of the country. Anti-Jewish stereotypes of the big business world are generally prevalent among folks who don’t know what the acronyms LBO, IPO or DJIA stand for.
Michael Milken, of course, is Jewish. Considerable controversy remains about whether he was really guilty of anything. Bernie Madoff, no doubt, was guilty as hell, but it was of manipulating people willing to believe, not financial securities.
Whatever the facts of various public crises might be an echo, ‘the Jews,’ resonates in certain circles. However ridiculous it gets, Jews and other concerned citizens have ample reason not to take such musings lightly. How far prickly sentiments should go in rooting out so-called ‘Jew-baiting’ is the central question evoked on the front page of the Sunday, May 12th New York Times. “The Antisemitic Tropes Echoed by Republicans,” takes up 6 paragraphs of page 1 and all of pages 14 and 15.
The Times was purchased by Adolph Ochs in 1896 using $50,000 borrowed from J. P. Morgan sr. In spite of his forebears, Mr. Ochs could be rather standoffish toward Jews himself. He didn’t want the Times dominated by members of his tribe or any other. The NYT entered the 20th century distinctly paler than the yellow journalism that era was known for.
David Halbertsam, possibly the best journalist from the other side of that century, was never one to exhibit much sensitivity about ancestral background. “The Powers That Be” includes a funny story about NYT writer Arthur Krock, whose column was widely known throughout the Depression and war eras.
Ochs’ son-in-law Arthur Hays Sulzberger, a reform Jew, took over daily operations in 1935 and did not change tribal course. Krock was well aware of ethnic priorities in the publisher’s office. He pled his case for an editor’s job citing Judaic law that failed to qualify his mother as “Jewish.” The boss shot this down with, “How would you know all that if you weren’t Jewish?” Krock never made it to editor.
In the meantime, the author of “In the Nation” was a practical mouthpiece for Joe Kennedy during his most disturbing, Nazi apologizing years. FDR found the journalist’s surname a handy homonym for what his columns contained.
Whatever you think of the NYT’s relative blindness for the fate of Jews, and Ukrainians, in the years of their most dire peril, the Sunday, May 12 article bears a bit of scrutiny. The point of it is that using the word “globalist,” and uncharitably eye-balling George Soros, constitute worse “anti-Semitism” than anything Democrats can be accused of. Applying the word “dog-whistle” has become license to subtract the literal meaning of an opponent’s statement whenever it’s convenient.
A Bing search of “anti-globalist Jews” turns up the opposite for the first 21 hits. Are they dealing off the top of the deck? Should that convince us that Jews none too keen on the UN, the WEF and various efforts to centralize power are some kind of rarity? Hit number 22 in that Bing search is “Globalism is not a Jewish concept” from The Jewish News Syndicate by Melanie Philips. Who doesn’t love a lady who pulls no punches?
Globalism is generally held to mean a broadly universalist approach. Stephens [Bret Stephens, former WSJ editor, Pulitzer Prize winner and present columnist for the NYT] interpreted it as support for free trade, immigration to America and U.S. military alliances abroad.
One line in particular leapt out at me. He wrote: “Oh, and I’m Jewish. Which, some say, is what happens to globalism after it’s been circumcised.”
This could not be more wrong. Judaism is anti-globalist. No people could be more particularist than the Jews. The word by which they are referred to in the Bible—ha’ivrim—means people who “dwell on the other side.”
Jews’ beliefs and moral principles derive from being a particular people with a particular code of laws and bound to a particular land. By contrast, liberal orthodoxy consists of universalizing ideologies such as cultural relativism, multiculturalism or trans-nationalism. Judaism gets in the way of all universalizing agendas.
Yet the argument by those who support globalism is that those who oppose it are anti-Jewish. This is because anti-globalists are held to be nationalists, and thus one step away from being white supremacists, fascists, and, of course, anti-Semites who liberal progressives so mistakenly believe are to be found only on the far-right.
Philips knows exactly what she means. In increasingly secular Western society, claiming religious affiliation of any kind can be a means of clinging to a boutique identity while losing any sense of its true meaning. When individual tenets must be paved over by corporatic, media or academic trends and fads to maintain enlightened bona fides, religion becomes as malleable and as rigid as high fashion. The new, improved definition of sin damns anyone daring to remain unhip.
For more than half of the 101 years he lived, David Rockefeller was the most prominent figure fronting “globalism.” At least, as far as those making in-depth studies of it were concerned. Number two in ranking remains a standing tie between Henry Kissinger and John Kenneth Galbraith. Next up is Klaus Schwab. George Soros, 8 years older than Schwab, arrived late to the party. The Hungarian compensates for tardiness buying rounds of woke elixir at a rate all the world’s sailors in port could never match.
Two out of five is only an undue percentage to people who think Kissinger and Soros represent DNA rather than Kissinger and Soros. Did any of Henry’s views align with George’s anyway?
A Bing search of “globalism defined,” gives “the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis,” as a first hit. Google delivers, “the belief that economic and foreign policy should be planned on a global basis, rather than serving the interests of individual countries.” What is it those deplorable anti-globalists’ are wary of? Decisions about their personal welfare coming from so high up and far away they may as well be rats in a lab? Is fearing such a development really supposed to be “anti-Semitism”? If it is, could you blame skeptics for saying, “let’s make the most of it”?
Identifying “globalism” with Jews is what, unmistakably, is anti-Semitic. How benign are the prerogatives of the Open Society Foundations? They’ve spent over $80 million dollars in recent years to suppress free speech. Where, do you suppose, that fits in? Is it even necessary to delve into their priorities on criminal justice? If pasting up an anti-Zionist Hungarian as the officially kosher poster boy is supposed to be Hebrew-philia, Wokespeak prevails at 620 Eighth Avenue.
Renowned economist Jeff Garten names Genghis Khan the world’s first “globalist.” The Mongolian’s methods of persuasion never relied on anything as bloodless as rational discourse. Why Garten left Xerxes, Julius Caesar and Mohamed out isn’t clear. Before we reach Mayer Amschel Rothschild, second on Garten’s list, shouldn’t it be asked why he comes before Osman I, Holy Roman Emperors and English monarchs? In any case, “globalism” and “consent of the governed” have never been kindred spirits.
Going by the definitions from Bing and Google, Milton Freidman and Ludwig von Mises were “anti-globalist.” Neither of them went through Stations of the Cross or attended Sunday school as kids. The anti-globalist lightning rod Ayn Rand, ethnically akin to Soros, remains the fairest of vituperative game. Some of the NYT’s May, 12 authors may be aware of this. There’s no guarantee in this literary era. Knowledge even less religiously erudite than Krock’s above is highly suspect in the present journalistic age.
Westphobic sentiments are hippest today among the most occidentally entrenched, culture wise, secularists on the planet. The “meritocracy” mill grinds tolerance for the system that brought them power, luxury and ease into loathing for it. If there is any trend of these haters casting off worldly goods and taking up simplicity, our trusty 4th Estate is not on it.
Advocacy for centralization in all things purports to stand on the principles of merit, credentialization, the dangers of common incompetence and restraint of mobs alurk everywhere. Should previous experience shake our faith in the best and brightest?
WWI was launched by elitists with little regard for popular volition. In Germany, England, France, Austria-Hungary and Russia policy was contrived out of minds that, combined, enjoyed centuries spent in the world’s most renowned classrooms. When it was “over, over there,” they were at it again. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 was the most impactful globalist venture so far. It is a long way from uncommon now, to view public reliance on the experts then, as the world’s most lethal blunder.
The general acceptance of that opinion was evinced on an episode of Doc Martin. When an elderly woman is being examined for dementia, Martin asks when WWII started? She answers, “In 1919, … at Versailles,” the Doc rules her of sound mind on that alone.
America’s Vatican of globalist faith, The Council on Foreign Relations, was founded by the brainiacs who advised US delegates to the conference and ginned up enthusiasm for entering the fray before that. Could things have turned out worse if a few populist voting mechanics and others plying ordinary trades were thrown into the mix?
There’s no evidence of Adolf Hitler, Henry Ford, Joseph Goebbels or Charles Lindbergh ever using the word “globalist.” What “globalism” is all about superseded the Bing and Google definitions long ago anyway. Getting money transferred from Zurich to Rio, ships arriving on time with vital goods, keeping Annexia inside its own borders and the like don’t even top the agenda. It is now bundled up with a litany of isms and ideologies that draw beads on all things roughly reminiscent of conventional, nurturing, down home lifestyles. Adam and Eve presently qualify as fascist for rearing their own brood. “Well,” an enlightened one might say, “Cain didn’t turn out so hot.” And who would represent woke progeny? Uncle Joe? Anyone who found Soviet ambitions less than “global” may have missed a few details.
As far as economics goes, globalism’s worst effect is placing more unaccountable bosses overhead. The proponents talk about freedom and democracy as though both are synonymous with lowly you being bossed around more than you are now. Anyone who objects aloud and becomes newsworthy gets “far-right,” or worse, preceding their name in the WP and the NYT. At the present rate of disparagement, toiling for a domestic venture with less than 1000 employees is suspect. David’s grandpa JD succeeded placing over 80% of domestic petroleum retailing and refining into one pot. The family has been at doing the same to business, religion and culture generally for roughly a century. That “more integrated world,” at the core of David Rockefeller’s homilies, is one where power is aloof and concentrated. Under such a rule of fiscal law, looking out for oneself and family, inevitably, becomes a matter of minding your masters.
The Ultimate Guide To ...
Best Price: $6.21
Buy New $14.59
(as of 10:02 UTC - Details)
Whatever Alexander Dubcek or Radovan Richta thought, socialism in full force, will never have a human face. It has always been the face of a bully standing in your way of accomplishment. The globalists become irate when impugned in print, but can’t quit doing the best imitation of Soviets they can muster.
Exactly how “anti-Semitic” did the NYT find criticism of Sheldon Adelson? Lots of people are criticized for flinging buckets of private cash at public policy. Is there any other case where the NYT finds something genetic about it? George Soros outspends nearly every other mogul attempting to influence governments. Why ancestry should exempt him from scrutiny isn’t a poser. The consensus in legacy media is practically monolithic. They are keen on his priorities. None find swinging the Jew-phobic club at all detractors a crude rhetorical tactic. It’s a good example of the limits that bind “meritocratic” imagination. People who find thinking burdensome prefer readers just as boxed in.
Whatever Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi had in mind with Paneuropa 100 years ago is no longer relevant. The distant, utopian vision one-worlders once had has morphed into neo-feudalism.
Finding “anti-Semitism” in the word “globalist” and Nazifying focus on George Soros’ agenda only stokes the very flames NYT writers Karen Yourish, Danielle Ivory, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries and Alex Lemonides claim to try to douse. Is it any accident they fail to note the general hostility toward Soros that is common in Israel? Does NYT management really want the most gullible readers choosing between Jew-phobia and rule by carbon-emission traders pontificating from Alpine resorts? The two things have no connection. The pretense that they do is a classic example of fake news at its most toxic.
