Finley: New face of anti-Semitism is black

From The Detroit News:

Jan. 2, 2019

The new face of anti-Semitism in America is increasingly black, liberal and famous.

Last weekend, LeBron James, the biggest name in basketball, posted on Instagram the lyrics to a song by the rapper 21 Savage.

The line James typed out to his followers feeds off the ancient libel against Jews, that they control the world’s money supply: “We been getting that Jewish money, everything is Kosher.”

James quickly apologized, saying he didn’t understand the historical context of the slur, or even that it was offensive.

The NBA and James’ Los Angeles Lakers accepted that lame excuse, and now want to move on. No mandatory sensitivity training for James, no scrutiny of pro basketball for evidence of a broader problem. Starbucks should cry foul.

James is in good company. Alice Walker, African-American novelist (“The Color Purple”), is being called out for her embrace of the notorious British Jew hater David Ickes, and for a poem she penned condemning Israel.

It’s a fair argument that criticizing Israeli policies in regards to the Palestinians, as Walker does in her poem, doesn’t automatically equate to anti-Semitism. But the author  confirms her bigotry by rambling on about the evils of the Talmud, the Jewish holy book.

Leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement have shunned Jews, who played such a critical role in the struggle for civil rights, and produced a manifesto declaring Israel guilty of genocide and apartheid.

Tamika Mallory, co-chairman of Women’s March Inc., is accused of marginalizing Jewish women. A women’s march scheduled for next month in Chicago blew up over charges of anti-semitism. Mallory has publicly praised Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, who is vying with white nationalist David Duke for the title of Most Hateful Man in America.

Farrakhan is still welcome on the public stage even though he now describes Jews as “termites” and argues they are the embodiment of Satan.

How does someone who spouts that venom get hugs and handshakes from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Maxine Waters of California, who attended one of his rallies?

I know nothing of the rapper 21 Savage. But he also apologized for the lyrics of his song and, like James, expressed amazement they were deemed offensive. Would he be as nonchalant if a white singer threw around such trite stereotypes about blacks?

As for James, it’s hard to fathom the NBA superstar, who earns a $35.5 million salary and has recently likened himself to a slave, could be that clueless, particularly since he is so acutely attuned to any slight against his own people.

Years ago I wrote a column asking when Jews got moved to the back of the bus of victimhood. I questioned then why folks can say hideous things about Jews and not be driven from the spotlight (the Rev. Jesse Jackson). The question persists today.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Finley: New face of anti-Semitism is black

A Conversation with Andrew Vachss, author of Pain Management

When I started putting energy into this Blog after having let it slide I began to look at issues where I took a contrary position.  It seemed as though the left has veered off into the same sort of bigotry that drove me from participation in it as early as the 1970s.

The last few years I have found myself having a hard time reading “non-fiction”.  It seems as though politics have turned into a publishing cottage industry for Social Justice Warriors and “Conservatives”.  A place where they all earnestly polish their personal brand by essentially publishing the same book over and over again.

Lately I have watched progressive SJWs get suckered by “The Opioid Crisis”.  Something has to be done!!!  Maybe I’m just old.  I was a hippie and laughed at the anti-marijuana campaigns of the 1930s.  I remember Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs”.  I also remember the “Crack Cocaine Crisis”.

Seems like they all had one thing in common.  They all feed poor white people as well as black and brown people into the Jaws of the Police State/Criminal Justice/Prison/Industrial Complex.

There is a writer I think more people should read.  He writes fiction that has more truth in it than most of the aforementioned non-fiction authors.

His name is Andrew Vachss and the following piece is from Random House:

Q: Prior to becoming a practicing attorney you worked in public health, juvenile detention centers, prisons, and other social service facilities. What led you to the justice system and specifically to juvenile defense and child abuse law?
What led me to the criminal “justice” system, originally, was too many friends of mine doing time who spelled it “just us.” What eventually drove me to child protection was the inescapable truth that, despite the pious “It Takes A Village” rhetoric of politicians and pontificators, the family is still the primary incubator of terror in America. And, when the family fails, the few safety nets we provide are meshed so loosely that most kids fall straight into one hell or another.
After years on the front lines, I realized that my refusal to accept the “go along to get along” mentality of “helping” agencies made working for others impossible. I spent much of my “professional” life at odds with the bosses. After a long string of “disciplinary actions,” suspensions, and firings, I finally accepted that, if I wanted to stand up in my chosen field, I’d have to stand alone, then pick my own comrades.

Q: You practiced law roughly ten years before your first novel, Flood, was published in 1985. What inspired you to write?
I have awesome respect for the power of language. The difference between “child prostitutes” and “prostituted children” is cosmic. Books such as Scottsboro Boy and Cell 2455 Death Row hit me like a sledgehammer when I was a kid. The child protective movement is a war, and I saw writing as a powerful weapon. My first book was actually a textbook. It received wonderful reviews, but its impact was confined to professional circles. I wanted a much larger jury, and finally figured out that fiction was the way to do it. I never imagined how well it would work out, and I intend to ride this train as long as folks keep buying tickets.

Q: What sort of research do you do for your novels?
I live my life, listen well, and report accurately. The combination of being a federal investigator in sexually transmitted diseases, a caseworker in New York, my experiences during the (failed) war of liberation in Biafra (now Nigeria), my work as a professional organizer, stints as everything from juvenile probation officer to directing a re-entry center for urban migrants in Chicago and another for ex-cons in Boston, to running a maximum-security prison for violent juvenile offenders—all before I went near a law school—followed by a practice which initially combined criminal defense with child protection, and segued into the latter exclusively after the success of the books made it unnecessary for me to represent the collection of shooters, stompers, and stabbers who formed my first clientele, there has never been a shortage of material. The manual labor I did to support myself throughout acquiring an education—furniture mover, fruit picker, factory worker, cab driver, etc.—helped, too. As did my years as a drifter and a gambler. I don’t need reference books to write my novels. And if I were granted one wish, it would be that the material which forms their foundation was entirely fictitous.

Q: Pain Management makes a strong statement about the power of drug companies and the medical establishment in our country—especially when it comes to helping people with chronic pain. What inspired you to pursue this topic?
Rage. Personal experience. And the overwhelming, even shocking, reaction to a short story I wrote called Dope Fiend. So many people have watched their loved ones die in excruciating pain—pain that was ignored or trivialized by a medical establishment held hostage to the “Just Say No” morons-and-moralists who control our so-called “drug policies.” I wanted to respond with a deeper, harder look at the realities. To refuse a dying person more morphine because we don’t want him to die a “drug addict” isn’t just stupid, it’s absolutely evil—and that evil is a fact of life for millions of Americans. This has to change. I’m always told that my books make people very angry. For this one, I damn sure hope that proves to be the case.

Q: Your ex-con protagonist, Burke, has been described as, among other things: private investigator, mercenary, vigilante, con man, anti-hero, survivor, cynic, and even romantic. How would you describe him?
As the prototypical abused child: hyper-vigilant, distrustful, and homicidally dangerous when his loved ones are threatened. As a patriot, whose country is whatever space is currently occupied by himself and his family-of-choice. As a scar-carrying member of a vast tribe I call “Children of The Secret.” As a career criminal, who hates the State that raised him in orphanages, foster homes, mental health facilities, and juvenile prisons. As a man with a pathological hatred of humans who prey on children. And as a man whose entire sense of self is defined by the family he helped create. Burke is also something of a “psychiatric mirror,” in that readers tend to see themselves in him—the good, the bad, or both. What Burke isn’t is a Chandleresque “white knight” PI. He’s a man for hire, and there aren’t too many things you can’t hire him to do.

Q: Burke’s surrogate family is comprised of many colorful and dangerous characters—Max the Silent, The Mole, Mama, the Prof. What binds them together, and why is Burke without most of them in this novel?
What binds them together, tighter and deeper than biology ever could, is that they chose each other. For them, “family” is an operational concept—a series of behaviors driven by love, not by DNA. Every member has to “prove in,” and they all know that love isn’t an emotion; it’s a behavior. They’re not a surrogate family in any way; they are a family, in the truest meaning of the word.
But this isn’t Doc Savage or the A-Team. Burke’s family isn’t exportable. They are rooted in New York, where they have survival down to a science, and crime down to an art. In fact, one of the overpowering stressors in Burke’s life in Portland is his disconnection from his family.

Q: So then why choose to take Burke out of New York City for this novel? Why Portland?
I’ve taken Burke out of New York before—to Indiana, for example. Because the series has a true chronology—the characters age throughout the books—and because the books are presented sequentially, what drives each plot is the truth of the impelling events. Burke had to be out of New York to cement the rumor that he was dead. I picked Portland for the same reason I’ve picked other areas; I can write about them from personal knowledge, not library research.

Q: Has your writing changed over the course of the past two decades? Has crime in America changed? Has Burke?
I don’t know if my writing has changed. Crime never does. That is, same crimes, different methods. The Internet has opened new vistas for predators, but it didn’t create them. The breakup of the Soviet empire has spawned new opportunities for large-scale arms dealing, but it didn’t turn otherwise good citizens into gun runners. People come to Times Square now to take pictures, not to buy them—but you can still buy those same pictures elsewhere. Every new contraband creates a new criminal opportunity.
Burke changes all the time. In this new book, and for the ones following, he has a new face, courtesy of a failed assassination attempt. Because Burke is, above all else, a survivalist, the one constant in his life is change.

Q: What is next for you? For Burke?
For me, nothing will change. I enlisted in this one for the duration. Writing books is an organic extension of my front-line work—the propaganda arm of that same war. And for Burke, it’s time to go back to the only home he’s ever known. I’m working on a new one now, set back where Burke belongs. If it works, readers will learn something. And it will make them angry.

Jewish Dems Denounce Anti-Semitism within the Women’s March Leadership

From The Jewish Democratic Council:

Press Release
December 20, 2018

Washington, DC – Today, the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) issued the following statement denouncing anti-Semitism within the leadership of Women’s March, Inc. and calling for its leaders to step down in order to preserve the March’s original mission:

“JDCA strongly supports the broad goals of the Women’s March, which include key elements of JDCA’s platform, such as gender and racial equality, economic justice, civil rights, religious tolerance, and LGBTQ rights. In 2017 and 2018, many JDCA members marched with Women’s March, Inc. to demonstrate support for these common values. But the clear bias and anti-Semitic views espoused by some of its leaders has unfortunately tainted the effectiveness and inclusivity of the March. The views expressed by the leadership of Women’s March Inc. are diametrically opposed to JDCA’s unequivocal rejection of anti-Semitism, hatred, and bigotry in all its forms.

Leaders of the Women’s March, Inc. continue to associate with Louis Farrakhan, a known anti-Semite, homophobe, and misogynist whom JDCA has denounced for hate speech. In addition, these same women continue to make statements that call into question their commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. In no uncertain terms, JDCA denounces all forms of anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hatred. We therefore join with other organizations in calling on the leaders of Women’s March Inc. to step down in order to preserve the original mission of the March.

JDCA respects and understands the decision that some have made to participate in the March going forward regardless of its leadership. We have a different view, however, and strongly encourage JDCA members to join in solidarity with other organizations sponsoring women’s marches across the country that have no affiliation with or ties to Women’s March, Inc.”

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Jewish Dems Denounce Anti-Semitism within the Women’s March Leadership

As national Women’s March leaders face claims of anti-Semitism, Chicago group says it won’t host January march, citing costs

From Chicago Tribune:

by Angie Leventis Lourgos<
Chicago Tribune
Dec. 26, 2018

As controversy swells around national Women’s March organizers, the local group has decided not to host a march in January — an event that for the past two years drew hundreds of thousands of supporters to Grant Park in concert with similar marches across the globe.

While Women’s March Chicago organizers cited high costs and limited volunteer hours as the main reasons for nixing the annual rally and march, the break comes amid splintering within the national Women’s March leadership following accusations of anti-Semitism and scrutiny of its ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Marches and rallies are still planned for Jan. 19 in Washington, D.C., and dozens of cities nationwide and internationally, as well as other parts of Illinois like Rockford, southwest suburban New Lenox and northwest suburban Woodstock.

Women’s March Chicago leaders say they’ll commemorate the anniversary of the original march with another activity but haven’t released any details on the location or nature of the event.

“This is disappointing,” one member wrote. “Women continue fighting to be heard in this patronizing patriarchal society. We are not done.”

Some made plans to join marches in other cities instead.

Others expressed support for the choice to forgo a January march.

“A lot has come to light about national in the last year,” one member wrote. “I support not marching with them.”

Leaders of the national group Women’s March Inc. have come under fire for their slowness to condemn the rhetoric of Farrakhan, whose Chicago-based Nation of Islam is considered an anti-Semitic hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In a February speech, Farrakhan praised Women’s March Inc. co-President Tamika Mallory and in the same address declared “the powerful Jews are my enemy.” The national organization denounced Farrakhan’s comments in March, but many criticized leaders for not speaking up sooner. Mallory has also praised Farrakhan on social media.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on As national Women’s March leaders face claims of anti-Semitism, Chicago group says it won’t host January march, citing costs