December 19, 2015
This week two Jew commenters came out and demanded that people acknowledge that Trump fans are being mean to them, even going so far as to call them names. These Jews claim that because they are being called names by his supporters, someone has to do something to stop him from becoming President.
The first Jew who had his feelings hurt was The Good Men Project’s Matthew Rozsa.
I wrote a response to his recent piece in Salon calling Trump an anti-Semite, and he felt the need to tell his own readers how much it hurt to be called mean names. He responded not by addressing any of my issues, but by calling me mean names and demanding the Donald be shut down.
I’d like to deconstruct an article from the popular white supremacist website The Daily Stormer written about… yours truly. Responding to a piece that I composed about Trump’s anti-Semitic comments (initially published here and then cross-posted by Salon), professional racist Andrew Anglin proceeded to refer to me as “Jew parasite Matthew Rozsa” and “a Jewish ethnic activist so twisted he actually believes he can stump the Trump” who “condemns the Donald as an enemy of his evil tribe.” According to Anglin, “the entire concept behind Jews’ obsessive shilling for non-Whites” is that they wish to maintain control over “all of our systems” by eliminating white pride movements, a point he attempts to reinforce with a weak parody of a scene from “The Dark Knight Rises” (which was co-written by David S. Goyer, who is Jewish) that juxtaposes Trump with Bane… the movie’s villain.
Setting aside Anglin’s woeful misunderstanding of “The Dark Knight” trilogy’s political message, this screed is plenty ridiculous because of what it reveals about the psychology of the racists themselves. When they employ epithets and insults clearly intended to offend – from shouting “Sieg heil” at a Trump rally to referring to a progressive columnist as a “Jew parasite” – they expose a telling lack of confidence in their own position.
It’s the argumentative equivalent of making fart noises in a classroom while serious students attempt to learn and debate: They may be drawing attention to themselves with their obnoxiousness, but they’re contributing nothing to the actual discussion, and there is something undeniably farcical about their inability to distinguish between shock-based attention whoring and substantive discourse. Similarly, by relying on a simplistic conspiracy theorist mindset for understanding world events, Anglin falls prey to the type of fallacy best summarized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1959:
Let me just stop you right there, Rozsa:
So you get called a “Jew parasite,” you respond by calling me a “white supremacist” and a “professional racist,” then claim I’m too stupid to understand that Bane is the bad guy in DKR. And I’m the one without confidence in my position.
But it doesn’t seem that you could be too confident in your position here, Jew, because you don’t actually have a position. All you are saying is “he’s bad because he’s bad.”
The “substantive discourse” would not be the fact I called you a parasite and that this made you feel hurt, but why it is people call Jews parasites and have for thousands of years. I explained this, but you did not acknowledging my having explained it, nor did you attempt to refute what I’d said.
Calling the outrageous level of control Jews hold in Western society a “simplistic conspiracy theory” is insane. But you Jews will say it’s a “conspiracy theory” that Jews run Hollywood, even while 5 out of 5 studios are headed by Jews. You’ll says it’s a “conspiracy theory” that Jews planned the neocon Middle East policy, even while 8 of 10 of Bush’s top advisors on foreign policy were Jews.
This isn’t really working anymore.
As far as Bane – yes, Jew, I understand he’s ostensibly the antagonist, and I understand Goyer is Jew. Think that one through for a second. It should really be self-explanatory why a fascist would relish in Jewish fears of fascism – which is what Bane represents – especially when the Jewish fears are presented so beautifully by a talented goy like Christopher Nolan.
The Jew then concludes that Trump and his supporters are bad because America was defined by the Black communist agitator Martin Luther King.
Although King’s words were heavily criticized by racial reactionaries and so-called moderates in 1963, the fact that most Americans take them for granted as eloquent and wise speaks volumes about our rate of progress. Less than half a century after they were spoken, we went to the polls and elected our first African American president. During the span of that man’s presidency, America has legalized same-sex marriage throughout the land, seen the first Hispanic ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and witnessed a wave of protests – from #BlackLivesMatter to the Third Wave feminism fueling Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – that indicate the social justice ethic is continuing to spread. In short, the ideals captured in King’s speech are the wave of the future, and when white supremacists respond to this with juvenile bawling instead of self-enlightenment, they only establish their own increasing obsolescence.
He does not address the fact that it is now brutally apparent that “social justice” is a Jewish codeword for “social chaos.”
But he claims he’s for “substantive discourse”?
The second Jew to have his feelings hurt by mean words was Dana Milbank of The Washington Post.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote: “Let’s not mince words: Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.”
I cited a long list of incidents in which he targeted women, Latinos, African Americans, Muslims, Asians and the disabled. Here’s what I heard from Trump’s defenders:
“Let’s not mince words,” somebody tweeted under the name Helios Megistos. “Milbank is an anti-white parasite and a bigoted kike supremacist.”
“[Trump] may well be a bigot and a racist,” one Michael Banfield wrote me via email. “But one thing is certain: The only thing missing from your photo is a [vulgar word for penis] in your mouth, gay bastard.”
Various Trump defenders derided Muslims as “Muzzies” and “Mo-slimes.” One reader informed me that “Muslims worship a man who f—– a 9-year-old.” They spoke of the “sociopath Hussein” — President Obama — and his “Islamic butt buddies.” But mostly they zeroed in on my Judaism, which they discovered from Internet searches. “You are a kike communist,” one informed me. Another called my girlfriend, who has a common Jewish surname, a “Gross Jewess.” Still another sent me a Nazi-style cartoon of a big-nosed Jewish man with a skull cap and bad teeth.
One of the Trump defenders declared that I am “loyal to a foreign state”; he linked to a column I wrote about a Jewish ritual I undertook with my infant daughter. Wrote still another: “Jews are 2 percent of the population, but 60 percent of the people calling whites ‘racist.’ Once you notice it, you can’t unsee it.”
Wow that’s a lot of mean things people said to you, Jew. No wonder your feelings were so hurt you had to write a column about it.
But what do you hope to accomplish?
I write this not out of any hope of changing the minds of Trump-backers, nor to reinforce the prevailing view among liberals that Trump has unleashed ugliness. I write this to conservatives of conscience: Is this what you want conservatism, the Republican Party and America to be?
It’s easy to mock the Trump-backers. They write “your a damn lier” and complain that I use “the words bigot and raciest” and am “striping the context out of every statement” in my “New York Times” column. One Keith Terry Diggs called me “Dana FAGGETT Milbank.”
Of more concern are the allegations that, because I’ve condemned Trump, I’m an “Israel first” believer with a “one-inch deep” loyalty to America; that I’m “a mentally ill anti-white pariah & American traitor”; and that as a Jew I think “Christians are to be destroyed as idolators” and that Jews want to “wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold.”
Yes, but don’t you actually believe all that stuff? If not, why not refute it? Surely, with the history we’ve had with you people, the amount of crimes you’ve committed against us, you must understand that it isn’t unreasonable to ask for an explanation?
Surely, “they are bad because they are bad” is not an actual argument?