Monday, May 21, 2018

Is the British Monarchy Over?


Time stood still on Saturday when an American divorcee named Megan Markle married Prince Harry. You know Harry, the sixth in line to the British throne, the man who some people believe is not his father’s son.

Alas, all of that is forgotten. True love and multicultural diversity were on display in Windsor last Saturday. It was an orgy of celebrity tabloidism. The world thrilled to it… unless you found it all a crashing bore and yearned for some real news.

It’s one of those moments when you ask where Tom Wolfe is when we need him. The event was a set up for withering satire… and yet, precious few scribes dared cross into that territory. The exception was Roger Kimball, writing in the Spectator USA (via Instapundit).

So, hats off to Kimball for speaking truth to… well, not power, because the British monarchy has no power… but to pretense and celebrity. It was a sorry spectacle.

Kimball echoeds my own sentiments when he praised Queen Elizabeth for being a model of decorum and propriety… throughout her reign:

I like the Queen. I think she understands perfectly what Walter Bagehot meant when he distinguished between the “dignified” and the “efficient” aspects of government. “We must not,” Bagehot famously wrote, “let in daylight upon magic.” The Queen has done her bit to preserve the magic and dignified reserve of monarchy. She is a good thing.

And then there are her children. One notes, and one gains no special pleasure from noting it, that the Queen’s marriage was a role reversal marriage, one where she outranked her husband. You will say that Queen Victoria’s marriage was also a role reversal. But then, ask  yourself about her first son, the decadent King Edward VII and his grandson King Edward VIII—the one who abdicated for love of an American divorcee.

Not to be excessively snide about it all, but Kimball remarks correctly that Prince Charles—until recently the last remaining Jungian in the Western world—is not exactly a prize.

The same cannot be said of her children. It used to be rumoured that Prince Charles intended to declare himself “defender of the faiths,” plural, when (hope nudges me to say “if”) he is crowned. Not dignified, that.

And then, of course, we suffered through the time of Britain’s first celebrity princess, Diana herself:

Nor of course was his first wife, Princess Diana, the mother of his children, shy about letting daylight in upon magic. Henry VIII had Anne Boleyn beheaded on trumped up charges of adultery. Diana swanned around in a bubble of celebrity and nauseating sentimentality on account, partly, of her patent adulteries.

Let us stipulate that it is evidence of enlightenment that Princess Diana was not beheaded (not, anyway, by an executioner). Still, what does it tell us about the moral state of the Church of England that the whole Charles-Camilla-Diana-James Hewitt-Dodi Fayed matrix could transpire in public?

I have occasionally mentioned this point, but I am happy that Kimball expresses it so well. Diana set a poor example of monarchal decorum. She washed her dirty linen in public and seems to have craved the chance to dirty it in public too. Kimball calls it nauseating sentimentality and looks askance on her willingness to pal around with celebrities. After all, Saturday’s royal wedding was chockablock with celebrities… the better to show what the monarchy has become.

Is it all the end of the monarchy? We all understand that Prince Harry, being sixth in line to the throne, has reached peak celebrity. He will be quickly eclipsed. As for the monarchy, Kimball echoes Julian Barnes, who was anything but optimistic:

 In his novel England, England, Julian Barnes imagines a future in which the Isle of Wight is transformed into a gigantic theme park in which all that is most picturesque about England is recreated. Eventually, the Royal Family is induced to leave London to live in a half-sized but “fully modernized Buck House,” where they wave at tourists from 11:00 to 11:15 every morning but are free from the salacious curiosity of journalists, “the Privy Purse . . . replaced by a profit-sharing scheme.”

We’re not there yet, not quite. But we’re on the way. Is it a good thing, all this down-home, latitudinarian, aw-shucks, pomo attitude towards tradition and morality?

We await the arrival of King Charles and King William. We might feel somewhat optimistic over the ascent of Wills and Kate, but Charles seems to be a calamity in the making:

Institutions become decadent not when they become depraved, necessarily. The key thing is their existential hollowing out, so that the fa├žade persists but without the vital element of conviction and belief.

I suspect that, whatever personal happiness Harry and Meghan will now enjoy (and here’s wishing them luck), their wedding was another stage in the emptying out of the British monarchy.

In 1881, the Chinese ambassador to England, endeavoring to convey the sense of “Protestant Episcopal Chruch,” came up with “Society of Contradictory Overseers.” I wonder what he would say today?

Women Networking in Business

In the midst of the current #MeToo moment many people have noticed that weaponizing women in the workplace is not going to help them to get ahead. Why would any senior male executive risk his career and his family in order to mentor a young woman? Especially if she is an attractive young woman? Most people will not say it out loud, but #MeToo will in time damage women’s career prospects.

Before addressing the advice offered by British professor Herminia Ibarra we must also address another assumption, one that we mostly take for granted. Why do we assume that women want to have careers just like men? Why do we imagine that women have the same competitive ambition to rise to the top of the corporate hierarchy? We know, don’t we, that an ambitious woman who achieves corporate fame and glory will become less attractive to men. And we also know that an ambitious man who achieves a high status position will become more attractive to women. We are dealing with likelihoods here, but if a woman has to choose between family and corporate success, she might well choose the former. No one can be all things to all people at all times in all places.

Ibarra says nothing at all about these aspects of the question. Thus, we find her analysis lacking in basic essentials.

Of course, she begins by saying that there are fewer women in power, and thus that there are fewer chances for women to be mentored by other woman. She does not seem to know that many women do not want to be mentored by other women, for reasons that may or may not be evident. 

Women mentors can be decidedly nasty to younger woman, perhaps because the younger women are attracting different types of looks. When a woman reaches a certain age she will find that she will become invisible to men. A woman who has reached this age—it depends almost entirely on hormones—will not feel good to be surrounded by young women who are oozing pheromones and who are monopolizing male gazes.

You might say that mature women should be above it. You would be assuming that the dynamic has nothing to do with biology. If it does, your argument will crumble like a stale cookie.

Besides, how many women in positions of corporate power are assumed to be diversity hires, figureheads who owe their jobs to a quota system? Why be mentored by someone who is not respected within the organization? As long as there are diversity quotas women in positions of authority will be assumed to have parlayed their gender into promotions. This will not make them great mentors. Young women who attach themselves to such senior executives will bear the same stigma.

At a time when the woman who is most honored in American academia owes her lofty jobs to her husband’s name and to her ability to cover up his sexual predations, who failed miserably in the jobs she held, the sense that women are being promoted beyond their abilities hangs over the culture like a shroud.

Ibarra suggests that men and women do not bond because they are not sufficiently alike. Strangely, I had been led to believe that gender is a social construct, thus, that men and women are fundamentally the same. Duh? Now I am told that men and women have divergent interests. And that they choose freely not to participate in the same extracurricular events. Women do not much like to play golf or to hang out in sports bars. Men do not much like going to the ballet.

You might say that women are excluded from social activities where men bounce ideas off of each other, but you might also say that women have better things to do with their time than to hang out in the bar discussing Giancarlo Stanton’s batting average. Discussing sports gins up one's competitive juices. Discussing diaper changes gins them down.

And, of course, as soon as children enter the picture, the answer to this conundrum blares out at us. Women feel obligated and duty bound to spend more time with their children. They want their children to have a home and to have dinner in a timely and organized fashion. That women freely make this choice on a regular basis should be respected, not derided.

Dare we mention that men might be spending more time with their buddies, the better to bond on male terms, because they are deprived of such bonding rituals in today’s new gender neutered workplace. And they might choose to spend more time with their friends after work because they do not want to have to go home and be harassed about doing the dishes or chopping the carrots. Besides, if, as some recent research has suggested, being more at home more of the time tends to ramp up their oxytocin levels—that being the famous cuddle hormone that women possess in greater degree than men—it will make them into weaker competitors.

And Ibarra adds that women have a second circle of friends, mothers of their children’s friends, women from the neighborhood who have nothing to do with work. One notes that these women’s groups, apparently a way for women to bond, tend to exclude men. When a man who had elected to become lead parent went to the playground with his young children, the mothers shunned him. Whatever they wanted to discuss they did not want to discuss it  around him.They have a constitutional right to do so. You might imagine that a group of men hanging out in a bar might not want to discuss certain matters with women around.

We should be talking about opportunity, not outcomes. And we should begin any discussion about women in business with the observation that many women simply do not want to make the sacrifices necessary to produce business success.

As we know, when a woman ascends to lofty heights in business, her husband will often choose to become a stay-at-home parent. This role reversal sounds perfectly reasonable until you consider that the man who adopts this role will be demeaned and condescended to by most other men, especially by the men his wife works with. And he will be humiliated by females who are primary parents.

Children sense this. Male children especially sense when their fathers are diminished. And they might resent it. They might feel angry about it. One thing for sure is that they do not want to show the world that their father has been humiliated. So, they might go out and join a gang in order to become the kind of tough guy that their fathers aren't.

Out in the schoolyard when boys exchange information about what their fathers do, it does not sound very good to say that your father is a housewife. And, it does not count if your mother is a corporate president.

Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Case of the Abusive Wife


We are all on the lookout for the least smidgen of toxic masculinity. We are hard at work ridding the nation and its culture of any reference to manly virtue. After all, there is no such thing as manly virtue. We are all surrounded by manly vice.

And naturally, if men are devils, then women must be angels. Any time a man and women get into a fight or an argument, we know that the man is at fault. It’s the default position. If you do not agree you are in serious trouble.

Today, Carolyn Hax offers a slightly different perspective in the Washington Post. True enough, this is one among a multitude of marriages, but I suspect that it is not as rare as we would like. It’s yet another example of a wife who appears to be an untamed shrew. One sympathizes with the man who married this woman. And we can ask ourselves what he was thinking when he married her and why he stays married to her. And we can also ask why, if she harbors such raw hostility to him, she stays in the marriage.

From what we can tell the couple is childless, but has an egalitarian marriage, with both spouses having good jobs. As often happens in these letters, we do not know who does what for a living, who supports the family lifestyle, whose job has more prestige than the other’s. We would want to have some idea about what the woman is complaining about before dooming the marriage. And yet, we will go with what we have.

It shows, as Hax wants us to see, that women can be abusive too. I am sure it comes as news. So here is the letter:

My wife and I have what looks on paper like a great relationship, with good jobs and a good house and similar interests. My problem is I hate the way my wife treats me.

I say something she disagrees with, and she rolls her eyes. I ask her to please just tell me what she's thinking instead of eye-rolling and she says if I'm "too stupid" to figure out what she's upset about, that's my fault. We go out with friends and she acts like she's having a good time, then she spends the ride home berating me about how I embarrassed her with some social faux pas that only she seemed to notice. I suggested marriage counseling so we could talk about what it is that I'm doing to cause her eye-rolling and embarrassment, and she said she thinks it's "hilarious" that I'm "not man enough" to stand up to her without a counselor present.

I'm closing in on the conclusion that divorce is the only option. Can you think of a better option?

Doesn’t this sound like nonstop contempt? It sounds like it to me and it sounds like it to Hax. She advises this sad sack to divorce his harridan of a wife, as soon as is humanly possible.

One understands that prefers in all situations to try to save marriages, not to cause their termination. And yet, all rules have exceptions, and in extreme cases, like that one, divorce seems to be the only way that this man can regain his sanity and his dignity.

Hax replies:

No. Divorce sounds like bliss.

What you describe is emotional abuse. Inexcusable.

Some think the word “abuse” is thrown around too lightly, so I’ll cross my T’s: Your wife also sounds like a terrible person.

But I’m only getting one side of the story here, so I’ll dot my I’s, too: Living with her sounds like misery.

The last one is really all you need, and you know it better than I ever could: You’re unhappy in this marriage, and your efforts to change it have failed. Please talk to an excellent divorce attorney and a family therapist — solo. Just given what you’ve shared, this is not a divorce you want to initiate unprepared.

Fair and balanced, it seems to me. True, the wife is a horror. True, he should exit the situation post haste. True, he should find an excellent divorce attorney—because divorcing a shrew is not going to be fun. Forewarned is forearmed.

Andrew Sullivan's Obamaphilia


Surely, Andrew Sullivan is one of the more talented writers out there today. At times, he offers sober and sage commentary on the passing scene. At times, he becomes overwhelmed by emotion and whines all over the page.

Friday was one of the latter occasions. In order to defend Obama against Trump he distorted Obama's record beyond recognition. He was writing like a flack, or perhaps a fanatic. Or even a man who is in love with an idol. It’s a sad moment, a moment where a capable writer embarrasses himself… all for love of Obama.

Sullivan’s distortions are so rank that they take one’s breath away. As for his basic core concept: he argues that President Trump has undone Obama’s legacy in seventeenth months.

It is a fair point. Yet, Sullivan, believing that Trump is a mere autocrat who governs by his pen and his telephone, forgets that much of the Obama legacy was enacted by extraconstitutional means. Obama could have submitted his Iran deal to the senate as a treaty. He called it a deal and said that he did not have to. The same applies to the Paris Climate Accord. At that point both deals are vulnerable to cancellation by another president.

Sullivan is so caught up in his complaints that he ignores the simple fact that the American people elected Donald Trump on an agenda to roll back Obama’s overreach. Not only did the American people elect Trump, they elected a Republican Congress, Republican governors and Republican state legislatures. 2016 was an electoral bloodbath for Democrats. President Trump is doing what people elected him to do. With the exception of the 2012 presidential election, all national elections since 2008 have repudiated Obama. It does not make Sullivan love Obama any less, but still, presenting Trump as an imperious autocrat is dishonest.

Sullivan pictures Obama as a master of fiscal discipline:

In economic policy, Obama’s slow winnowing of the deficit even in times of sluggish growth has been completely reversed. We too easily forget that the biggest accomplishment of Trump’s term in office so far — a massive increase in debt in a time of robust economic growth — is the inverse of Obama’s studied sense of fiscal responsibility. 

This is absurd to the point of being an outright lie. Barack Obama doubled the national debt in eight years. He larded on around $9 billion in debt… debt that hangs like a sword of Damocles over the American and the world economies. Denouncing Trump for unexampled “recklessness” distorts the record. After all, Trump has been in office for around a year and a half.

Sullivan then accuses Trump of “fiscal vandalism:”

The fiscal vandalism is also a massive U-turn in terms of redistribution. If Obama managed to shift resources, ever so incrementally, toward the middle class and the poor (by allowing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, by bringing millions of the working poor into health insurance), Trump has done the opposite, by doubling down on unprecedented economic inequality, and borrowing unimaginable sums to disproportionately benefit the unimaginably wealthy.

He is charging Trump with failing to redistribute income. Sullivan often calls himself a conservative. Here he is bemoaning Trump’s failure to be as socialistic as Obama. He says nothing about the stock market and the unemployment numbers over the past seventeen months. Those numbers would show that the stock markets and the job markets are not as wedded to income redistribution as is Sullivan. If more people are working, isn't that a sign of a successful economic policy?

Naturally, Sullivan presents Obama as an intrepid warrior against climate change. He hates Trump for walking away from the Paris Climate Accord. Dare we say that the whole anti-climate crusade is far from being settled science? And that much of the Paris Accord punished America and redistributed massive amounts of American wealth to underdeveloped countries—the better to signify that America was the problem and that American needed to be punished.

If said accord was so important, and if Sullivan cares so much for the constitution, why did he not criticize Obama for not submitting it to the senate for ratification. Obama did not do so. Apparently, he did not believe in the balance of powers.

As for Obama’s foreign policy, Sullivan only sees goodness. Clearly, he has been blinded by the sunlight:

In less than two years, he has wrecked an Atlantic alliance that every president has defended and advanced since the Second World War, and that Obama nurtured. No European government can or should trust America from now on: They know they’re on their own. And then there is the volte-face in the Middle East. Obama’s core achievement in foreign policy was to shift America from embattled enmeshment in the region to a more offshore balancing role. By getting out of Iraq, and reaching out to Tehran, as well as maintaining our links to Jerusalem and the Saudi theocracy, the U.S. increased its options and leverage, while bringing Europe into the mix through the Iran deal. There was even, believe it or not, an attempt at first to restrain the Greater Israel lobby, to use what leverage the American president has to restrain the settlements project.

Trump has asserted America’s traditional role as leader of the Atlantic alliance. He rejected the weak-kneed open borders policy of Angela Merkel and has worked to establish better relations with France. Obama manifested craven submission to the demands of the Western European intelligentsia, people who have created a massive problem with Muslim refugees. People voted for Trump because they did not want what they were seeing in Germany happen here. About all of that Sullivan has nothing to say.

Obama betrayed our allies in Israel, in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia. In truth, they all despised him. Sullivan’s rant against the Israel lobby shows us that the Obamaphile left seems inexorably drawn to anti-Semitic tropes. Sullivan sympathizes with Palestinian terrorists and fails to notice that Trump’s turn toward Israel has been supported by many Sunni Arab states.

Apparently, Sullivan did not notice. Siding with Iran was cowardice and appeasement. Siding with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is not an act of courage. Appeasing a nation that considers homosexuality a capital offense, punishable by hanging, does not deter gay activist Sullivan from thinking that we should submit to them.

Giving Iran eventually legitimate access to nuclear weapons was not outreach. It was folly. Iran has used the money to further destabilize the region, to finance terrorism against Israel… while starving its own people. True, Obama walked out of Iraq and abandoned Syria. The result was the advent of ISIS and the destruction of Syria. Sullivan fails to mention that the Trump administration got rid of the ISIS caliphate in nine months. It was part of the Obama legacy. Somehow Sullivan did not notice.

Sullivan’s notion that Obama could “quarantine barbarism” is laughable. If you don’t believe me, ask the people who were living under ISIS during the Obama years.

Naturally, Sullivan denounces Trump for being a racist:

What drives Trump is racial essentialism, a rage at the post-racial, integrative center that the mixed-race Obama represented.

Is it not possible that Trump’s supporters were driven by the their belief that the Obama administration had failed? Racial essentialism has so completely taken over Sullivan’s mind that he sees only goodness in Obama… on racial grounds? He shows no judgment, no rational evaluation of the good and bad of Obama. He sounds like Paul Krugman, a brilliant mind that has been infested with zealotry to the point where his views boil down to: Obama all good; Trump all bad.

That is the picture of racial essentialism that Sullivan pretends to denounce.

Sullivan believes that Obama, who spend twenty years lapping up the swill coming from race-baiting America-hating preacher Jeremiah Wright, disposed of the indoctrination in a twenty minute speech. The human minds does not change its habits with a single speech. The speech was simply a lie. Sullivan does not see it because he does not care to see it.

Sullivan is dismayed to see that America has become more divided by race. He is appalled at the descent into tribalism. And yet, he cannot connect the dots and see that this all took place during and as a direct consequence of the Obama presidency.

Such is blindness, and perhaps even love. The only thing Sullivan forgot to mention was that Trig Palin is the love child of Britol Palin and Donald Trump.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

What is a Girlfriend Experience?


In everyday conversation, men are said to have sex. They get laid. Men even fuck. Women, on the other hand, have intimacy.

At least, those are the most commonly used expressions. Men speak of scoring. Unless they are speaking about their wives. In that case they use more genteel expressions. If they speak of it at all... which is more common.

Women are more modest. They do not normally talk about scoring. They do not count the notches on their bedposts. They seek intimacy. Yes, I do know that some women speak of men as fuck buddies-- they are identifying as ersatz men.

These thoughts arrived in the forefront of my consciousness while reading Allison Schrager’s analysis of prostitution. Schrager is an economist. She has spent time in Nevadan brothels… for research purposes. She interviewed the girls. She interviewed the owners. She wanted to understand how the flesh market functions. You see, Schrager studies markets. Why not study the oldest market of them all—the market in female flesh?

OK, Schrager does not exactly say that the market in female flesh is the oldest of them all. That honor undoubtedly belongs to marriage—an exchange and alliance between families. And yet, she is curious about prostitution and, after studying it more intently than I have, she concludes that you can buy sex but you cannot buy intimacy. It feels like a Beatles’s song: Can’t buy me love. Remember it.

Anyway, as soon as Schrager introduces the notion of intimacy bells go off. Women think in terms of intimacy. As a general rule, men do not. Yes, I do understand that some very woke men use the term, as a sop to feminism, but, in the last analysis, men are not looking for intimacy when they go to brothels.

You will be thinking that men are just looking for carnal delights. To which Schrager would counter that the most popular and often the most expensive of the services brothels offer is what is called the Girlfriend Experience. As the old saying goes: time is money. And a girlfriend experience requires more time than a quickie.

For those who are not up on the latest lingo, this is another way of saying: going out on a date. Now, it’s a strange sort of date when a man is having dinner and a movie with an anonymous woman. Prostitutes do not use their real names. They rarely divulge personal information about their lives. 

This suggests that there is no real intimacy. Then again, it suggests that these men are not looking for intimacy. Women who sell a girlfriend experience make men feel important and make them feel clever and witty… roughly as they do in Japanese hostess clubs. These latter, for those who care, are not to be confused with brothels. Hostesses entertain. They do not sell intimacy. They do not even pretend to be selling intimacy. The man who frequent them, often in groups, do not expect anything more than a fun and entertaining evening with a woman who knows how to sustain a conversation, who laughs at his jokes, who tells him how great he is and who never treats a man with derision or contempt.

A few notes: if prostitutes are selling their bodies—perish the thought—but do not identify themselves by name, are they selling their bodies or are they selling a body? Do they engage in the experience or do they go through the motions? Just a thought.

So, let’s accept that the Girlfriend Experience is theatre. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Schrager exposes her own contempt for the men who frequent prostitutes by saying that they are all lonely, sad losers. She thinks that they are looking for a human connection. And yet, they cannot have a real connection with a prostitute, so perhaps they are finding something else.

Schrager fails to notice that men who can spend thousands of dollars to get laid are likely to be fairly successful in life. And if they are fairly successful in life they are likely to have a network of social contacts. Many of them have wives and families. 

This means that the men are not looking for a hookup, but are looking for a conversation with a woman who will treat them with respect. In exchange they are happy to treat the woman with respect. It shows more respect to take a woman out on a date than to hook up with her a half an hour after you met her in a bar. Not that there is anything wrong with drunken hookups with sexually liberated women.

This tells us, if you did not see this coming, that in a world where women are prone to hook up, to give it away for free, to have sex with random anonymous men, the Girlfriend Experience has become popular because fewer and fewer women in the real world are offering it. As Schrager notes, if something is in short supply people create a market for it.

Modern women want to be equals. But this seems to lead them to show contempt for men. They are independent and autonomous. They do not need anything from men, except for an occasional donation of bodily fluid.

Modern women are all attitude. And that attitude is not very attractive. I hate to say it but women who lean in, assert themselves, are straightforward and upfront about what they want are a turnoff. If they are not a turnoff they are a chore.

Women do not understand that these attitudes, whether promoted in the workplace or at the rave, are not what men want. Of perhaps they do. Perhaps they lean in because they know that men do not want women who threaten their face. At times these attitudes provoke pushback, but in truth most men are not looking to get into a shoving match with a woman on a date. And they do not want to argue about who is going to pay for what.

There you have the solution: after spending enough time dealing with today’s liberated women, men want to go out with women who will not berate them for picking up the tab. Who will show some respect for what they do and who will not be competing against them. It’s not so much that modern women do not put out— as I said, they often give it away for free—but when someone is giving something away for free a man might feel that he has not earned what he is receiving. If she is giving it to him for free she is probably giving it to other men for free. Where's the fun in that?

If the Girlfriend Experience harkens back to Japanese hostess bars, and undoubtedly to the Geisha experience, a more recent version was practiced by a famed French procuress named Madame Claude. During the 1960s and 70s she ran a brothel, or better, a service whereby she provided wealthy and famous men lovely young Frenchwomen for sexual and other services. Her women were not ordinary prostitutes. They were what is best called demi-mondaines.

Her clientele included John Kennedy and the Shah of Iran. It included many politicians and royals. The important point was not merely that Claude’s girls would go out on dates, for dinner and a movie. They were more likely hired to accompany or to escort men to social functions. They were well-dressed, well-mannered, well-groomed and presentable. They had been well brought up and were comfortable in opulent surroundings. They grew up in good neighborhoods and went to the best schools. They were articulate and intelligent, could carry a conversation and, most importantly, would not in any way embarrass the man they were with.

As the story goes, some of Claude’s girls ended up marrying the men they escorted. Were the men looking for intimacy? Not really. Men do not look for intimacy. They look for women who make them look good and who make them feel like men, like men who have accomplished things in the world and who have attained to a certain stature and prestige.

It’s not about loneliness.  These men were anything but pathetic losers. They were extraordinarily successful and were looking for women who appreciated their success. In the end it's not that much of a mystery.

Friday, May 18, 2018

Ted Cruz Attacks Media Bias about Hamas

You know and I know that if Ted Cruz were the president, the armies of the night would rise up to say that he is worse than Hitler. For that reason, we are especially interested in the Senate speech Cruz delivered yesterday about his trip to Jerusalem celebrating the opening of the new American embassy. And we note, with interest, Cruz's analysis of the way the mainstream media slanted the news of the Hamas uprising to make Israelis look like criminals and terrorists look like victims.



Black Anti-Semitism


2018 saw a rising tide of black anti-Semitism. James Kirchick explains it well in a Commentary article, and the subject deserves the serious attention he gives it.

Both blacks and Jews are important parts of the Democratic Party coalition. Barack Obama could not have been elected president without Jewish support, not so much in terms of ballots cast, but in terms of financial and intellectual support.

Liberal Jews happily overlooked Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright and even Louis Farrakhan because… well, just because. They had always supported civil rights and had bought the narrative that we needed to have more social justice. Liberal idealism trumps all. Besides, supporting the civil rights movement made them feel especially virtuous and principled. Precisely why they were willing to support a president who sold out Israeli and even American interests is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

They turned a blind eye toward Obama's association with notable anti-Semites... for reasons that defy reason. And they allowed it to fester for eight years. Not, it's showing its ugly face and making Obama's Jewish supporters look like enablers.

One awaits the uproar over white Jewish privilege. The point is not facetious. If Jews count among the more successful ethnic groups in America, other, less successful groups ought to emulate their example. Nowadays less successful groups ought to emulate the example of Asian Americans—the new Jews, if you will.

The choice is between emulating and deconstructing. If you do not emulate those who do better, you will be following the failed policy adopted by Palestinian terrorists: if you can’t build anything yourself, tear down what others have built. Terrorize them so much that they become so guilt ridden that they can no longer function. The success of Israel is an active and ongoing repudiation of this absurd and appalling policy.

As happens in the Middle East, Jews are the solution, not the problem. But, of course, the Obama administration acted as though Jews, especially Israeli Jews, were the problem in the Middle East. For that gesture of overt anti-Semitism Obama received the vast majority of Jewish votes.

Kirchick explains at length that it makes no difference if blacks support Louis Farrakhan because Louis Farrakhan is a nobody, with no power or consequences. If anyone were to say of blacks or Muslims what Farrakhan says about Jews, he will instantly be shunned from the media and polite society. But blacks and Jews alike tend to give Farrakhan a pass.

Kirchick opens his essay:

The year 2018 has thus far been toxic for black-Jewish relations. In February, Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory attended the Nation of Islam’s (NOI) annual “Saviours’ Day” gathering, where sect leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a characteristic anti-Semitic tirade. “When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door,” Farrakhan declared. “White folks are going down, and Satan is going down, and Farrakhan by God’s grace has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew—and I’m here to say, your time is up.” For good measure, Farrakhan also claimed that Jews control the FBI as well as Mexico, and he repeated a relatively new conspiracy theory, the “Pot Plot,” alleging that Jews promote homosexuality among black men through the distribution of a special form of marijuana.

As he continues, I was struck by this note:

While some black leaders and writers criticized Mallory, her stubbornness found support in high places. “Now you work with people all the time with whom you disagree,” said Valerie Jarrett, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, to the ladies of The View. Jarrett spoke as if America’s foremost anti-Semite were just some recalcitrant House Republican in need of a stern, Oval Office arm-twist. To this day, Mallory (along with her Women’s March sisters-in-arms Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez) proudly considers Farrakhan an ally, and there is no indication that she or the organization she leads has suffered serious reputational damage because of her association with him. 

Now Valerie Jarrett is not just anyone. She was a close adviser to President Obama. That she can rationalize supporting Louis Farrakhan tells us more than we wanted to know about the Obama administration’s attitude toward Jews. It tells us that it was not an accident that Obama was willing to fund Iranian terrorism, terrorism that would primarily be directed against the state of Israel. It was not an accident that Obama was willing to submit to Iran and to give it eventual access to nuclear weapons… when Iran wanted to use such weapons to annihilate Jews.

And yet, American Jews supported the Obama presidency to the death. They have been up in arms at the Trump presidency for overturning the Obama legacy, for walking away from the Iran nuclear deal. They hate Trump with a white hot rage, even though half his family is Jewish, even though he has just moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and even though he actively supports Israel. (Witness Nikki Haley at the UN.) There is no effective comparison between the Obama and Trump administrations when it comes to Israel… and yet American Jews despise Donald Trump.

Kirchick continues:

Even among those conservatives and Republicans opposed to Trump, Jewish writers, intellectuals, and philanthropists are vastly overrepresented, a point that has not gone unnoticed by the president’s white-supremacist backers.**Prior to the rise of Trump, Jewish voters overwhelmingly gave their money and support to Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president, in both of his campaigns. While his administration’s policies toward Israel and his Iranian nuclear agreement may have divided the Jewish community internally, opposition to the latter waged by much of organized Jewry did not result in serious conflict with American blacks.

So, blacks despise Donald Trump. And yet, they ought to be asking themselves how well their communities were doing during the Obama presidency and how well they have been doing—in terms of unemployment—under the Trump presidency. Jews have noted that some of Trump’s support comes from white nationalists, but compared to the Obama record… what terrible things have white nationalists done lately. True enough, some anti-Semitic  groups have arisen in Western Europe of late, but they are a reaction to the immigration policies promoted by Angela Merkel and other bien pensant elites.

Jews are joining in a crusade against white people, and especially against white privilege, while the most important promoters of anti-Semitism, most actively and most fervently, especially in Western Europe are Muslims. Whereas Donald Trump has dared to speak ill of Muslim anti-Semitism, Barack Obama wanted to fight the good fight against Islamophobia. If you do not see that he was thereby accepting anti-Semitism you need to have your vision checked.

As we have often noted, Donald Trump has far better relations with Israel than did Barack Obama. But he also has far better relations with Sunni Arab states… states that despised Obama’s tilt toward Shia Islam. Obama was projecting weakness and nations to not respect weak leaders.

It is fascinating to see liberal American Jews embracing anti-Semites or, at best, ignoring their bigotry. They seem to be willing to join the march against white privilege, even though they are among the most privileged white people. It would be comic if it were not appalling. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?