Why isn’t anti-Semitism as reviled as “Islamophobia” or anti-black racism?

February 3, 2018 • 11:15 am

Everybody knows that, among the Left, “Islamophobia” is a cardinal sin, even when it refers not to bigotry against Muslims but criticism of Muslim beliefs. Certainly real bigotry against individuals, or invidious stereotypes against groups, should be decried, as it is for anti-black racism. In fact, one characteristic of the Left is its sympathy for groups perceived to be oppressed or the target of discrimination in history.

Except for the Jews, that is, despite the fact that their demonization and oppression are common knowledge.

Here are the latest FBI date on hate crimes from the last year they’ve been reported—2016:

Just taking incidents in that year, the most frequent hate crimes were against blacks (1,739), gays (799 including lesbians), whites (720), and Jews (684).  Muslims were victims of 307 incidents, fewer than Hispanics.  Even without dividing these by the number of victims to get a per capita rate, it’s clear that anti-Semitism is manifested twice as often as “Islamophobia”. I also am not sure what an “anti-white” hate crime is, or who perpetrates them. Perhaps readers can help here.

As far as number of victims are concerned, it’s 2,220 for blacks, 933 for gays, 909 for whites, and 862 for Jews. 388 Muslims were victims of hate crimes.  To get a rough probability that an individual of a given religion or ethnicity was the victim of a hate crime, we simply divide the number of hate crimes in each class by the number of individual victims in that class. When we do that, we get this:

Blacks:  0.0051%
Gays:     0.0082%
Whites:  0.0004%
Jews:     0.014%
Muslims: 0.013%

(Data for blacks and whites taken from 2017 U.S. census estimates, LGB statistics from PBS 2016 [includes bisexuals], Jews and Muslims from the Pew Religious Landscape study.)

On a per capita basis, then, the decreasing order of probability of being a victim goes this way: Jews, Muslims, blacks, gays, and whites. Jews edge out Muslims in terms of hate crimes per capita, but you hear a lot more about the latter than the former.

Why is that? My own guess was twofold: Jews are perceived as “white” compared to blacks and Muslims, and therefore not “people of color”; and because the demonization of Israel somehow takes the sting out of anti-Semitism—perhaps because people feel that Jews somehow deserve anti-Semitism because of the actions of their religion’s “apartheid state”. (Remember, though, that these are American Jews, and Muslims are often as “white” as Jews.)

The Forward, though, has an interesting take on this. In their recent piece, “How anti-Semitism’s true origin makes it invisible to the Left,” author Jean-Paul Pagano suggests that Jews aren’t really perceived, like the other groups, as oppressed. Rather, they’re seen as a wicked but clever cabal that, through almost supernatural powers, have taken control of money, business, show business, banks, the government, and so on. That is, Jews are seen as a conspiracy rather than a subjugated group, which makes their demonization easier to swallow. A few quotes:

. . . in a key sense, regular racism — against blacks and Latinos, for example — is the opposite of anti-Semitism. While both ultimately derive from xenophobia, regular racism comes from white people believing they are superior to people of color. But the hatred of Jews stems from the belief that Jews are a cabal with supernatural powers; in other words, it stems from the models of thought that produce conspiracy theories. Where the white racist regards blacks as inferior, the anti-Semite imagines that Jews have preternatural power to afflict humankind.

This is also why the left is blind to anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism differs from most forms of racism in that it purports to “punch up” against a secret society of oppressors, which has the side effect of making it easy to disguise as a politics of emancipation. If Jews have power, then punching up at Jews is a form of speaking truth to power — a form of speech of which the left is currently enamored.

In other words, it is because anti-Semitism pretends to strike at power that the left cannot see it, and is doomed to erase — and even reproduce — its tropes.

Although conspiracy theories about Jews are rife in the Middle East, they’ve also infected the U.S., though Pagano gives just a few examples (e.g.. claims that I sometimes hear that Israel is engaged in training U.S. police to kill blacks, that Israelis take the organs of Palestinian babies, etc.). A few more quotes:

Above all else, anti-Semitism is a conspiracy theory about the maleficent Jewish elite. And it’s this that makes it easy to disguise as a politics of liberation, or, at least, to embed anti-Semitism quietly in efforts for social justice.

You can see this in the resuscitated efforts of groups like Black4Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace to portray Israel and America as bastions of capitalist white supremacy that collude to brutalize people of color.

In the early part of the decade, Ethiopian-Israeli women charged that state-mandated health providers had used shady means to depress their fertility with the contraceptive Depo-Provera. The government denied coercion, but questions remain about the validity of its probe. This was not enough for Black4Palestine, which declared that “[Israel] has sterilized Ethiopian Israelis without their knowledge or consent.”

Narrowly, the effect of alleging sterilization invokes the Nazi specter of eugenics. But more broadly, the conspiracy theory summons medieval fears of Jewish magic harming sexual function, which live on in the Arab world.

For its part, JVP launched a national effort to promote the idea that Israel teaches U.S. law enforcement how to inflict “systemic” racism on people of color, “including extrajudicial executions, shoot-to-kill policies, police murders, racial profiling, massive spying and surveillance, deportation and detention, and attacks on human rights defenders.”

It’s critical to note that Americans are not accustomed to recognizing, let alone understanding, a sizable portion of anti-Semitism, because it typically doesn’t resemble anti-blackness — the horrific down-punching form of racism that haunts American history and reverberates into the present.

Well, it’s an interesting view, but I’m not sure I’m totally on board. I’ll just throw it out for discussion.

The “normalization” of anti-Semitism (sometimes called “anti-Zionism”, which I think is pretty much the same thing), is evidenced by this cartoon that appeared in the Daily Californian, the University of California at Berkeley student newspaper, when Alan Dershowitz spoke there last October. It reeks of “blood libel” and other anti-Semitic tropes that are the daily fare of government propaganda in the Middle East—propaganda that Western news studiously ignores. The cartoon was eventually removed when there was an outcry (see my post here).

As I said, I’m not sure how much I agree with the “cabal” theory for the normalization of anti-Semitism, but it’s an interesting thought; and I’d be glad to hear reader’s takes. What seems clear is that hate crimes against Jews aren’t publicized or recognized nearly as much as hate crimes against other groups, even though Jews are, on a per capita basis, the most frequent target.

69 thoughts on “Why isn’t anti-Semitism as reviled as “Islamophobia” or anti-black racism?

  1. In my view — relatedly — I have wondered
    my entire life .why. “on a per capita basis,”
    sexism is not reviled as much as any racism
    — or, for that matter, any other -ism, has
    been. Sexism continues to be, nearly any
    time it is not only blatant but also pointed
    out, merely sniggered, tittered and giggled

    “on a per capita basis,” Worldwide.
    Why is that ?


    1. Exactly! Racism is far more reviled than many things, and one of the things is misogyny. The comments section on any story about women’s issues is testimony to just how ‘alive and well’ are appalling male (and female) attitudes to women.

  2. Minor nit: percentages are an unusual way to present this. The standard form is “incidents per 100,000 people per year”; it drives me crazy that this is 1E5 not 1E6, but that’s become the standard. Re-doing your calculations I get the following rates:

    Black 5.12
    Jewish 13.93
    LGBT 11.96
    Muslim 13.24
    White 0.46
    Latinx 0.83

    BTW on the same scale, the US homicide rate is 4.88.

    1. It should be roughly in the same order, except that your calculations show “incidents” rather than “victims”. To my mind, the chance of an individual being a victim is the relevant statistic, for an “incident” could affect varying numbers of people.

          1. We agree on anti-Jewish and anti-black hate crimes; your numbers on anti-Muslim and anti-white crimes seem slightly low to me; and your numbers on anti-LGBT crimes seem off by more than an order of magnitude. Maybe you could share your spreadsheet so we can figure out the discrepancy?

            1. I gave the data in the links, I don’t have a spreadsheet. I multiplied the % of the population that is X, Y or Z by the US population as a whole, but that shouldn’t matter if it’s off a bit. I might have made some errors, but the data are all there in the links to check. The hate-crime data is in the post. Let me know if I’ve made a calculation error. Not that it matters that much: Jewish hate crimes are still at the top.

              1. I’m using the same links as you! There’s not much point in saying “the data are all there in the links to check” if you ignore it when someone does just that 🙂

                I don’t get how you find a big difference between anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim crime. My spreadsheet uses exactly the figures you quote “862 for Jews. 388 Muslims” while Pew quotes 1.9% Jewish, 0.9% Muslim. Just eyeball those figures and you’ll see that 862:388 isn’t so different from 19:9, so I think you have to have made a calculation error. But if the error is mine, at least you can tell me which cell is wrong 🙂

                This still contradicts the standard story which talks a lot more about anti-Muslim crime than anti Jewish crime; it’s enough to make your point that the two are actually pretty similar.

          2. Note that you say “933 for gays”. While they aren’t the same thing, I think it’s often a useful starting point to lump all anti-LGBT crime together, so I took the 1255 for sexual orientation, subtracted the 23 anti-heterosexual incidents, and added the 131 anti-trans incidents. Where did you get 933 from? That figure doesn’t appear in the FBI’s table.

            The PBS figures give us 3.5% LGB and 0.3% T, but doesn’t give a number for the union of LGBT, which could be anywhere from 3.5 to 3.8. Conservatively I used 3.5 in my spreadsheet.

            One complicating factor is that the Pew figures measure religious Jews only, meaning that people such as yourself (and just about all the Jewish people I know) wouldn’t be counted. A survey that measured Jewish background – ie “Jewish enough to attract antisemitism” – would be useful here.

            1. I didn’t use anti-transsexual data (I say this in the post). Gay male + lesbian victims = 938, probably a transcription error (I used pencil and a calculator), but that’s a trivial distinction. If the Pew figures count only religious Jews, then the rate of anti-Jewish hate crimes would be even larger.

            2. Yes, I misplaced a decimal. Using the gay + lesbian + bisexual statistics for population size, and today’s US population size, I get an estimate of per capita hate crimes for this group to be 0.0082%. You were right and I’ve corrected that figure in the post.

              I also recalculated the data for Muslims, and yes, it’s a tad less than for Jews, but not as low as I had put originally. I have no idea where the error is. That’s been fixed as well.

              I get the same figure I had before when I recalculated the data for blacks: about 0.005%.


    1. The blood libel hasn’t gone away; it’s alive and well in the East and the West (though it tends to fly under the radar in the West these days,it’s still there); and has even mutated to adapt to the times.

      I just found a link to a very interesting conference on the blood libel that the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research held in 2016 https://www.yivo.org/blood-libel-conference. The webpage links to the program and to complete videos of all the sessions. I have an interest in this subject and am anxious to dive in.

    2. Well, but people parrot the blood libel because they are antisemites in the first place. I doubt there are many who are persuaded to hate Jews because they believe in Christian children’s blood is in the matzoh balls.

      1. There are various versions of the blood libel. When “Rothschild” Jews are characterized as alien reptilians that engage in murderous feeding frenzies of Gentiles, and especially want menstruating non-Jewish white women, I’d call that a blood libel. This is a foul belief put forward in this day and age by David Icke and his associates. I don’t know what else to call it but a blood libel. I do not know how many people adhere to Icke’s teachings, but they are legion, all over the world, from all walks of life and educational backgrounds.

  3. Xianity was/is the foundation of Western Civilization. Anti-semitism is baked in the origins of the religion. The Jesus movement was a sect within Judaism that led to early Xianities (yes, plural). After the destruction of the Temple and the end of Temple Judaism, every splinter sect Essenes, Saducees, Jesus people, et al) thought they would take over. They lost out to the Pharisees who began the movement to rabbinical Judaism. So the losers became anti-Judaic. You see the hostility toward the Jews build through the four canonical gospels – Mark (none – Jesus says forgive them on the cross) though Matthew and Luke (increasing) to John, the last gospel written where it is central.

    When the Roman Empire adopted the Roman form of Xianity in the fourth century (and crushed all the others – here were the huge number of early xian martyrs – killed by other xians), you had to stop blaming the people who actually killed Jesus (the Romans) and blame the Jews.

    The stupidity of all this is that in xian theology, Jesus had to die. Central to their faith – Jesus died for your sins. So why are they mad at the people who they said killed him (again – it was the Romans who had no problem executing any and all potential troublemakers including an apocalyptic Jewish preacher from the sticks.)

    Xians should think about the message in the Gnostic Gospel of Judas. Jesus is happy that Judas turned him in – he was the only apostle who actually understood his teaching.

    1. Not to argue theology, but to understand the development of Western Christianity you really have to know about the Heliand. This was a Frankish (Germanic) version of the gospel where Jesus was a Nordic Thane and the Apostles were his “posse”. In the Heliand the Jews actually were presented as bad guys who conspired against and killed Jesus.

      The Heliand is how the story of Jesus was spread north into Europe after the fall of Rome. It echoed down for a long time.

        1. Not to turn this into a Monty Python skit, but it was written IN Saxon, apparently after their conquest by the Franks perhaps in order to convert the Saxons to the Frankish faith.

  4. This makes a fair amount of sense to me. I’ve encountered relatively little direct anti-Semitism, but when I have it’s been in the form of “Jews control Hollywood”- which is why it is corrupting America, or “Jews control banks”.

    In the novel “The Thirty Nine Steps”, the hero is led to falsely believe that the villains are a Jewish cabal, and he is ready to believe this because of having read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Later, he discovers he has been deliberately misled to throw him off the scent, the ‘bad guys’ exploiting his anti-Semitism.

    Neither Alfred Hitchcock nor any of the subsequent film adaptations retained this element of the plot.

  5. I’m not sure that left indifference to anti-Semitism is due to traditional anti-Semitic beliefs about Jews. More likely, it’s that good old left inclination to Blame America First. Since Israel is an American ally, it’s among the bad guys and, to the extent that American Jews are assumed to identify with Israel, they couldn’t possibly be victims.

    1. I think there is also the tendency to root for the underdogs. In this case, the Palestinians have been very effective in portraying themselves as blameless victims of oppression.

  6. What we have to remember is there are different forms of bigotry. There is the easier more visible form shown in the crime statistics, easy to see and understand. Then there is another form of bigotry under the name of silence. Many on the left do not recognize this form and would not admit to being part of it even when examples prove it. Ignoring it or silence, take your pick, it still adds up to serious bigotry and because it is prevalent among the left, they are not going to admit it.

  7. Jews, I think, are viewed as a special case, since they have achieved — and, it’s hardly a stretch to say, have done so in part as a matter of self-preservation after spending centuries as an ostracized minority in the ethno-states of Europe — an unparalleled level of educational, professional, artistic, and, yes, financial, success.

    Well, there’s that, and then there’s the Rothschild-family-led conspiracy to achieve world domination. Ya got that workin’ against ya, too. 🙂

    1. With the Rothschild conspiracy, it’s amazing to see how those who advance it tie themselves into knots denying that there’s anything anti-Semitic about it — because, they say, they’re talking about Ashkenazi Jews, who are not genetically Semitic/Jewish at all, but impostors.

      1. You can make a million great bottles of Château LaFite claret, but start one itsy-bitsy international banking plot and they never let you forget it.

      2. You can drive yourself batty trying to rationalize the irrational. That particular anvil has worn out a lot of hammers.

    2. As I noted in response to another comment below, this shows no signs of happening to the most successful and affluent minority in the US: East Asians. It seems Jews are unique, and I imagine it’s because historical bigotry — especially when rooted in ideologies — is much easier to sustain and grow.

  8. I agree with your conjecture and will add: perhaps Jews are viewed as smarter, stronger and more successful than other groups and therefore better able to fight back.

    I wonder if anti-Asian sentiment is viewed in a similar way.

  9. One can add Holocaust denial to the mix; I’d aver that there’s a strong element of conspiracy theory in Holocaust denial in that it’s always the ‘devious Jews’ who fabricated the Holocaust.

  10. I’ve read that antisemitism increases when the economy is in crisis, so (to echo others) it seems a lot of it is rooted in the stereotype that most Jews are prosperous. And the conspiracy theory that Jews “run Wall street” perhaps can make others think it is Jews who are responsible for a bad economy and/or aren’t affected by a bad economy like everyone else. This type of prejudice stems from envy, jealousy and fear of perceived Jewish affluence and success.

    There are many different factors that feed prejudices of all types, but I surmise for Antisemitism jealousy is a strong motivator. In general, African Americans, Muslims, Latinos and gay people aren’t minorities that Americans envy.

    1. “I’ve read that antisemitism increases when the economy is in crisis, …”

      And that particular sword is hanging by a slim thread.

    2. Of course, the most successful minority in the entire country is East Asians and Indians, but they are not treated the same way.

      Although we might be getting there, as now when studies are done on the “lack of diversity” in tech companies, East Asians are lumped together with whites as “not diverse,” and are sometimes called “honorary whites” by regressives. Then again, when East Asians aren’t overrepresented at a company or in an industry, they are put in the “diverse” group. So I guess this might be more a matter of narrative and statistical convenience than any sign that East Asians will ever suffer the type of prejudice Jews do.

  11. Why are different Christian groups like Protestants and Catholics listed separately? It pushes them down the table…

    1. Maybe because attacks on one may be acts of the other. There is still a fair amount of sentiment left over from the religious wars in some circles.

  12. There are a lot of factors involved, starting with the ordinary in-group/out-group suspicion and hostility that is a part of human psychology. I’ve seen people go pretty crazy and violent over allegiance to football teams. We ARE animals with a very broad range of potential behavior.

    Lots of people obsess over one thing or another. Obsession starts as an impulse and looks for an object, Jews are pretty handy. Especially since there are some very serious differences in outlook and history between groups.

    For some of the really obsessed ones it looks like a phobia to me, only a more acceptable one in certain social circles. My daughter had a friend with a genuine bird phobia (when she was a child) and from being around someone like that child you get an idea that there are aspects of human psychology that prompt us to focus our anxieties on external things in order to “organize” them, to fix, contain, and blame them. There was no reason for the child to be afraid of birds, it was an expression of an inner state.

    But people are ridiculed for phobias if they fix on some unusual object, out-groups are not unusual as objects of suspicion. Look at the treatment of the early Mormons or how Indians are treated in Africa or Chinese in Indonesia. One of the most distinguishing things about the Jews is their ubiquity and persistence. You can collect a lot of historical baggage in 2500+ years.

  13. So, 99.9% of latinos and 98.5% of Muslims or Jews that live 100 years will never be victims of a hate crime.
    I think we are close to eradicating hate crimes.

  14. I can’t think of a better explanation, not that I understand the explanation much anyway. I mean, when a neo-nazi nut job went on his murderous rampage in Kansas a few years ago, there was a massive outpouring of grief and support that was very much pro-Jewish, and nothing but. I felt such pride at the great number of people who came out to march from the Jewish community center to the Jewish retirement village where the murders occurred. I cannot rationalize the two disparate situations. I just don’t understand.

  15. I cannot add anything more than has already been said but decided to chip in as this is one of the few fora I would bother to mention this on.

    It interests me that when people list the minorities who face discrimination or hatred they rarely, if ever, include the disabled.

    I do not know about the situation in the US but in the UK there is a small but disturbing amount of anti-disabled sentiment. Many of the disabled I know have been sworn at or insulted by strangers at least once in their life and there seems to be an attitude among some, possibly fuelled by the media, that disabled people are spongers living off state benefits.

    A month ago I was sworn at by some woman at my local railway station, she was screaming “you ****ing cripple.” and other stuff I did not catch as I had no intention of staying near her. When I was working as a sports journalist there were a few occasions when people tried to argue I had no right to comment on a game I was incapable of playing and I have heard similar stories from others who have been insulted.

    1. There is some normal human psychology there, an aversion to the different, a fear of the ill or disfigured. In most people it is very mild and restrained by social learning, but in the bell curve(s) of human personality and experience you are just going to get some pretty harsh people.

      I was a shy child. There are predators who will pick out a shy child as a target like a dog attacking a cat. It was not fun.

      Ambrose Bierce, as usual had an astute observation: Abnormal, adj. Not conforming to standard. In matters of thought and conduct, to be independent is to be abnormal, to be abnormal is to be detested.

    2. “…disabled people are spongers living off state benefits.”

      Well, only if you consider being a royal to be a disability. 😬

      Sorry, trying to inject humour into what is a disgusting situation. I’m sorry that you’ve had to experience such vile stupidity. I’ve worked with people who are severely disabled for about ten years now and I’m grateful for not having ever experienced such a situation in all that time. One of the parents did tell me that a woman complained about being disgusted seeing he child eat, at which time the mother went off at this idiot. She was not one to suffer fools (or ar$eholes) lightly. I guess I’ve been lucky to only have positive encounters when I’m out in public with the people I’ve worked and cared for, I hope you can have a bit of that more of that luck in the future too.

      1. Thanks Christopher, I used those encounters to highlight the worst but in general I have had few problems. Working as a sports writer was fun and I made a lot of friends, I think because fitness is important and valued by sports people they take a more sympathetic line when they see someone on crutches, an injured team-mate to them.

        No worries about the humour. I remember when the Soviet Union was opened up by Gorbachov they allowed some Romanov bones to be analysed and it was discovered the haemophilia in the Royal family was the B version, Factor IX defiency. Mine is the usual Factor VIII and I used to tell people how relieved I was because living with what then was a potentially life-threatening condition was far easier than knowing I may be a close relative to a bunch of parasitic retards.

  16. This all seems pretty straightforward to me: Jews are vilified because they (as a group) tend to be industrious, steadfast, and successful. And it’s well-established that hate leveled against successful groups is acceptable to the Left.

    If Jews were wallowing in poverty and misery, the Left would be far more sympathetic and treat them as an aggrieved people instead of as villains.

  17. I think you basically nailed down the reasons, Jerry. Another reason might be that, if Jews are given the status of “oppressed” by those who use the oppression hierarchy, they would actually have a voice (and thus the status to demand other, less oppressed groups “shut up and listen”), and the same rules about how to deal with any issues relating to them would also apply as they do within these regressive frameworks. If the same rules applied to Jews as to, say, Muslims, there would be an awful lot of things regressives could no longer do or say that they very much like to.

    I also think there is something to the conspiracy theory-related reason offered by the article. We have seen several far-left professors and students from college campuses openly write, blog, Tweet, and talk about malicious conspiracy theories regarding Jews ans Israel, from the old “Jews control money, media, etc., and oppress the entire world from the shadows,” to “Israel tortures Palestinian children and sells their organs.” None of this would be acceptable if they were talking about any other group (except maybe white people). It also makes one wonder how many other people hold these views, but either don’t express them, or express them by bashing proxies. The latter can be even more pernicious, as students won’t know the professor in antisemitic, and may believe lies about, say, Israel. I had a professors like this in college and, even as a Jew, I believed the various conspiracy theories and fabricated facts (he often made up statistics) he presented as unassailable truth in his classroom. I was vehemently opposed to Israel because I had been intentionally taught reams of falsities. Thankfully, I became more skeptical in general two years later and started researching things I had previously believed blindly. I went through that process with all of my beliefs — and I’m very glad I did — but I don’t imagine most people do the same. Especially not young college students.

    1. Jo Rogan had an interview with a Pro-Palestinian woman a while ago who revelled in claiming Israeli forces deliberately try to shoot Palestinian women in the vagina and men in the penis! Yet Ensaf Haider points out that sahih hadith say when end times are approaching, there will be fighting against the Jews, and Jews will be killed as they hide behind rocks. “Progressives” don’t give a toss about that

  18. One possible problem with the statistics is that more than, say, murder, hate crime figures can be influenced by differences in reporting rates – a group with heightened sensitivity might be more likely to report hate crimes than another group.

    Interaction rates between groups of different size can also affect our interpretation of victim statistics. In a population of 90 Dots and 10 Lines mixing randomly (which won’t happen in real life) the Lines will have nine times as many opposite-shape encounters as the Dots. Even if the per capita rate of expression of opposite-shape prejudice is equal for the two groups in these encounters, the per capita rate of victim hood for the Lines will be nine times higher than for the Dots. Or am I writing statistical nonsense?

  19. You asked about hate crimes against whites.

    This surely didn’t go into the statistics, as the police didn’t respond to our call until hours later. My boyfriend and I (both white) were on our bicycles, and a carload of black males ran us off the road twice, while screaming at us. If the races had been reversed, this would have been considered a hate crime.

  20. I made a google search, and The Nation, The New Republic and The New York Times have much more articles about “antisemitism” than about “islamophobia” (perhaps 5 or 10 times more); The Mother Jones and The Jacobin have slightly more articles about “islamophobia” than about “antisemitism”.

    I admit that the search was not much deep (for example, if I had controled by time period, perhaps the results could be diferent – after all, the word “antisemitism” is much more older than “islamophobia”)

  21. I think that the traditional role of Jews in Western civilization makes the Ctrl-Left hate them, because what the Ctrl-Left really wants is the dismantling of Western civilization. To me, the reason anti-Semitic crimes is underreported is that they are regarded by many as justified acts. (The same is true for anti-white hate crimes.)

  22. Not only that but “Islamophobia”? A fear of Islam? A prejudice isn’t a phobia. I refuse to accept this term, please have them come up with another that is more accurate.

    I have a prejudice against stupid religions but I am not Catholicphobic or Protestantphobic. These people need to get their act together if they want us to be concerned about their issue.

  23. When a group is successful it then becomes more acceptable on the Left to overlook it; it loses its status as oppressed. Same with Asians here in San Francisco. Left: single family homes are racist (tools of racism). But my neighborhood is not majority white? Left: but you’re referring to Asians (Chinese mostly); they don’t count; discriminates against blacks and Hispanics. -NextDoor thread.

Leave a Reply