Carolyn Yeager’s defense of “anti-Semitism”: A critique

    Jeremy Rothe-Kushel embraces a prophetic, moral interpretation of Judaism. (Carolyn Yeager embraces misguided judeophobia.)

    By Kevin Barrett, VT Editor

    What’s left to say about “anti-Semitism”?

    According to mainstream usage, “anti-Semitism” means “racially-tinged prejudice against Jews” or more succinctly “anti-Jewish racism.” It is held to be the most scandalous and reprehensible of prejudices. Today, it is said to be on the rise, the evil core of a supposedly neo-fascist current threatening Western civilization. The panic over “resurgent anti-Semitism” was sparked by last year’s series of more than 100 bomb threats to American Jewish institutions—which turned out to be a massive false flag operation ginned up by a young Israeli-American Jew named Michael Kadar, presumably under the direction  of his vicious, Islamophobic Shin Bet black ops specialist uncle and colleagues.* The Michael Kadar false flag op succeeded in forcing Amazon to ban dozens if not hundreds of history books, and led to an ongoing internet censorship crackdown on critics of Israel.

    In fact, the 19th-century term “anti-Semitism” is incoherent and should be dropped in favor of “Judeophobia.” Today, virtually nobody hates Jews due to their spuriously “Semitic” racial heritage. We now know that there is no such thing as a “Semitic” race—there are only Semitic languages. (19th century Europeans confused race with language.) It is Arabs and Muslims who revere the Arabic-language Qur’an who are hated for their connection to a Semitic language—the main Semitic language on earth, the one used by more than 95% of all “Semites,” namely, Arabic.

    So anti-Semitism has only one valid meaning today: Bigotry against Arabs and Muslims.

    Carolyn Yeager’s recent article endorsing “anti-Semitism,” in the spurious sense of “Judeophobia,” stupidly accepts the misnomer, then goes on to offer a parade of errors and exaggerations, as well as some partial truths.

    Let’s break it down to see where she goes wrong.

    “THESE DAYS, WE REGULARLY SEE IN THE JEWISH NEWS MEDIA story after story proclaiming that ‘antisemitism is on the rise.” In Poland, in Germany, in Austria and Hungary, in British and US cities – the same phrase is repeated. And everywhere else, too. Will Jews never learn that the more they try to control what others think and say about them, the more antisemitism they create?”

    When she writes “Jewish news media” Yeager obviously does not just mean the Forward and other “Jewish” publications. She is calling the whole mainstream media “the Jewish news media.” This is clearly an exaggeration. Yes, Jews are in fact greatly over-represented in the media and even more over-represented in Hollywood. But obviously the MSM are not 100% Jewish. Nor are all Jews in the media 100% in agreement with any Jewish “party line.” On the other hand, as Jewish journalist Philip Weiss points out, the vast majority of American Jews in media, who collectively do in fact “dominate” the media, are in fact strongly biased towards Israel, and even view their pro-Israel media spin as the last thing standing between the Zionist entity and its tragic destruction.

    Likewise Yeager exaggerates by histrionically asking “Will Jews never learn…?” It sounds like she is saying that all Jews are trying to control what others think and say about them. In fact, a great many Jews, probably the majority, are not party to any such effort.  A few brave dissidents, like Gilad Atzmon, Henry Herskovitz, and my colleagues Jeremy-Rothe-Kushel and Jonathan Revusky, are courageous critics of tribal discourse-control by Jewish elites. On the other hand, it must be admitted that even many eminently humane and reasonable Jews, such as my esteemed colleague Rabbi Michael Lerner, have a blind spot when it comes to their ultra-sensitivity about what non-Jews say about Jews—listen to Rabbi Lerner put that ultra-sensitivity on display on my radio show:

    This reveals the main flaw in the kind of thinking represented by Yeager: Taking the bad or fallible behavior of some members of a group and unreflectively using it to smear the entire group. We all are guilty of doing this, on some occasions and to some extent. But it is a form of sloppy thinking that leads to prejudice, i.e. “pre-judging” individuals based on their group membership. In the worst case scenario, this kind of prejudice can lead to violence and disaster.

    Yeager’s article continues with an even more problematic paragraph:

    “The current big push to ‘wipe out’ antisemitism is a phony issue being used by Jews to get more laws on the books to protect Jews from the consequences of their actions.”

    Whose actions? Those of the majority of US Jews who have little or no connection to Israeli genocide, internet censorship, etc.? If Yeager means that the “anti-Semitism” scare is ginned up by people like Mordechai Kedar to protect ISRAEL from the consequences of its own genocidal actions, she should say so.

    “It is a cynical campaign devised by high-level Jewish strategists to further their entry into places, perhaps previously partly closed off, where they can make money.”

    WTF? How, precisely, are they going make money? Yes, the ADL, SPLC, PRI, and other censorship organizations do make vast sums of money by hyping “anti-Semitism.” But Yeager isn’t talking about that; she is saying something nonsensical instead:

    “International or Diaspora Jewry became partial to bank notes (and their equivalent in precious metals, jewels, paintings, etc.), because they are easily transportable and able to be invested and/or held secretly and safely in many nations. It is important to Jews that these goods keep up a high value in our societies. (It’s not a coincidence that Jews are so overrepresented in the fine art world and stock brokering, for example.)”

    So pray tell, Ms. Yeager, how Jews are going to increase the value of their banknotes, precious metals, jewels, paintings, etc. by hyping “anti-Semitism”? Obviously this paragraph makes no sense; it reflects emotional prejudice, not logic.

    “Connected to that, Jewry has changed our Western social values from faith, family and homeland to gold, hedge funds and conspicuous consumption. Jews are more in control of our societies than most people are aware – in fact, most people have no idea at all of the high level of control Jews exercise over their lives.”

    Again, while it is true that European Jews were overrepresented in the Enlightenment push to overthrow traditional Christian values and replace them with materialistic ones, Jewish participation in these historical movements was only one factor in their success. Others included fallout from the Wars of Religion, the effects of mass literacy unleashed by Gutenberg’s printing press, ideas presented by such non-Jews as Charles Darwin, and so on. And what precisely is this “high level of control Jews exercise over (our) lives”? Does Yeager mean that whatever is wrong with our lives must somehow be the fault of Jews? This represents a gross exaggeration (and sloppy thinking) at best, and an invitation to mindless and potentially vicious scapegoating of an entire community at worst.

    “But when people do get wise, they become antisemites. And this is the other side of the campaign of the Jews against antisemitism – to keep you from realizing the reality of their power and influence over you. They famously present themselves as either friends or victims, every kind of victim imaginable.”

    Yeager’s invitation to “anti-Semitism” (i.e. Judeophobia) is so exaggerated and paranoid that it reflects badly on those who raise questions about Zionism, Jewish supremacism, and the possible role of elite Jews in various historical misdeeds. While it is true that when people get wise to certain aspects of history (for example, by reading Laurent Guyénot’s magisterial From Yahweh to Zion) and speak out about them, they risk being called anti-Semitic. But real wisdom is antithetical to prejudice. A person who is truly wise to suppressed aspects of historical reality will never succumb to bigotry.

    “The latest idea in Germany to fight antisemitism is to mandate visits to former WWII concentration camps which have been turned into tourist centers – visits by Muslim migrants who bring their antisemitic views with them from their home countries. Even though this won’t work with these people because they don’t have the ethnic background to care about what happened in Europe during WWII (or any time), the German government is willing to spend their German taxpayers’ money to keep the Jews satisfied that something is being done on their behalf. The Jews want to always see programs carried out for their benefit that cost the Gentiles money, even though they know as well as I do that these programs won’t change anything.”

    Yeager has a point here: The German proposal for mandatory visits to concentration camps is absurd, and if implemented it will be ineffectual. But she is wrong to claim that Muslim immigrants are Judeophobic. Just because the Zionist thought police say so doesn’t make it true! Muslims are strongly anti-Zionist out of logic, not prejudice. There is absolutely no good reason why a “Jewish state” should be established and maintained in Occupied Palestine, and virtually every Muslim on earth knows it.

    The claim that Muslims are Judeophobic because they often agree with such holocaust revisionists as Robert Faurisson, Roger Garaudy, etc. should be addressed by debunking the revisionists’ arguments, not forcibly dragging people to concentration camps! Currently there are no good single-volume debunkings of holocaust revisionism. The two leading efforts thus far, Shermer and Grobman’s Denying History and Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust, are unlikely to convince anyone trained in critical thinking; indeed, they often have the opposite of their intended effect. A decent book-length argument against holocaust revisionism, published in European languages as well as Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Urdu, Indonesian, Malay, and other languages of the Muslim world, would solve the problem. Why hasn’t this been done?

    Muslims are generally NOT prejudiced against Jews AS JEWS. Muslims and Jews have lived side-by-side for 1400 years with vastly fewer problems than Jews have experienced with other groups. It is only with the rise of Zionism, which perpetrated the unspeakable crime of invading, occupying, and committing genocide in a Holy Land that has been administered by Muslims almost since Islam began, that Muslims have come into large-scale conflict with Jews.

    “Jews are also putting up elaborate new holocaust museums and centers in every city and town in the world, large and small. The latest I know about is a complex to be built in central Vienna, Austria, and another going up in a popular, peaceful park next to the Parliament in London. Why are they allowed to intrude on the landscape everywhere? Because Jews have money and friends and that equals power over the ruling establishments (which also have their share of Jewish members). Jews obviously do not care if they anger or upset the average man in the street, which means they actually do not care if they are disliked. They care about exercising power.”

    Yeager’s disgust for the Holocaust Museum epidemic is understandable. She ought to have pointed out that these buildings are the sacred temples of a new religion, Holocaustianity. And she ought to have analyzed how this hideous new form of idolatry is driving mass murder and genocide all over the world, by reinforcing the myth of the “good war” and thereby legitimizing American military aggression against every “new Hitler”—thereby enabling the American Holocaust in which the US has murdered 55 million people since World War II as well as the Palestinian genocide.

    “The only real fear Jews have is that there will be a popular uprising against them, which has happened many times in the past. Jews characterize these uprisings against them as unjust, as unwarranted persecution for no reason – in other words, they use guile to turn what is unacceptable in them and their actions within Gentile society into a blow and an accusation against that society. This is the meaning of the common saying: “The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.” They have labeled the reaction against them as anti-human rights, anti-semitic, xenophobic, and now in current lingo, racist. Not so long ago (in my memory) everyone was ‘racist’; now that has been changed – by the Jewish lobby – to be seen as a personality defect serious enough to have one fired from one’s job, kicked out of a university, and even dragged in front of a court of law and sentenced to prison. Jews have been responsible for all the so-called international laws that impinge on the sovereignty of nations; in fact, Jews invented international law for that very purpose!”

    Yeager has a point about the one-sidedness of mainstream interpretations of the historical conflicts between Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Obviously there are two sides to such stories, and we are only being allowed to hear one, at least in the mainstream world of media, publishing, politics, and academia. She also has a point when she argues that it is critics of Jewish power rather than Jews who are today’s real victims, “fired, kicked out of university, and even dragged in front of a court of law and sentenced to prison.” But blaming Jews for international law is absurd. On the contrary, the world’s worst violator of international law is Israel! Brave Jewish people like Richard Falk, who have done terrific work in the unfortunately under-appreciated field of international law and tried to apply international law in Occupied Palestine, are heroes, not villains.

    “So I repeat, dislike of Jews has always existed and it is based on the behavior of Jews.”

    This is just as one-sided and ahistorical as the mainstream notion that such conflicts have always been the fault of non-Jews. For a thoughtful and well-sourced analysis highlighting what is left out of mainstream accounts, read Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion.

    “Their tendency toward arrogant or dismissive attitudes toward the concerns of non-Jews (which each and every Jew may not be fully cognizant of) is a turn-off. So is the criminality of Jews that is directed toward non-Jews, mainly in white-collar financial schemes, but also in many other more repulsive areas such as pornography and the sex trade.”

    These issues are also dealt with in a balanced, factual way in Guyénot’s book.

    “Finally, it is based on the way Jews look out for other Jews to the detriment of their host people, not only in business and professional advancement, but in their vaunted charity as well.”

    While Jews didn’t invent tribal nepotism, some would say they have perfected it. Again, for a solid analysis of this aspect of Jewish culture, read Guyénot.

    “Considering Jews’ attachment to their centuries-old religious and cultural programming that they are a special, chosen people (with corresponding special privileges), how could antisemitism ever be ended? I think that can only happen if they succeed in turning the rest of us into masochistic, self-hating, blubbering punching bags or else door mats.

    “If antisemitism is our only defense, we would be not only fools but craven cowards to give it up.”

    We don’t need prejudice or bigotry. What we need is defensible, well-sourced analysis of issues Yeagar raises that have any degree of truth or legitimacy (such as those found in Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion.)  Such analyses could foster a dialogue including both Jews and non-Jews that could help both groups change their cultural attitudes in ways that would end Judeophobia and the historical complexes that produced it.

    *Richard Silverstein, “Israeli-U.S. Tug of War Over Teenager Accused of Terror Threat Campaign Against Jewish Institutions.”  April 23, 2017.

    “A reader here published a comment saying that he lived in Ashdod and knew the Kaydar family.  He adds that the suspect is a nephew of Mordechai Kedar, a leading trainer of Shabak agents.  Kedar teaches Arabic at Bar Ilan University and is one of the most vicious, Arabophobic academics in Israel.  I’ve written several posts about him.  The combination of Uncle Mordkhe the Arab hater with Nephew Michael the greedy nerd terrorist seems odd, to say the least.”


    We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
    In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

    About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
    Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


    1. “A decent book-length argument against holocaust revisionism, published in European languages as well as Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Urdu, Indonesian, Malay, and other languages of the Muslim world, would solve the problem. Why hasn’t this been done?” – KB

      The above implies that Kevin Barrett endorses the mainstream view of The Holocaust – was that the intent? There are enough contradictions, red flags (e.g. the keepers of The Holocaust dost protest too much over any questioning), and things that do not pass the smell test so that it does not take a bigoted person to be agnostic or doubtful on the subject.

    2. Many of these wounds, if that is the proper word, are self inflicted. They, the Jews, made the decision to create a country based on a religion. So, many actions of that country are intertwined with religion. It becomes impossible to criticize what may be political actions of the country without also mixing up arguments with their religion since many actions are “justified” by religious based myth and dogma. Because they tend to stick together, especially during a crisis, individuals may get blamed for the actions of a group. Look at the gross mistreatment of the Palestinians today by Israel. How many in Israel are speaking up against these atrocities? If they are not, it is their own fault for being blamed for them. Their often bigoted beliefs, based on biblical nonsense cause many of their own problems which they blame on others instead of themselves. The abridged Protocols of Zion published by Henry Ford about 1921 in his newspaper
      The Dearborn Independent did not just appear out of thin air. They were based on a mountain of evidence and facts developed over a long period time. Of course there are exceptions to any rule.
      These groups have certain very selfish and self centered attitudes, which extend to the group, which have brought them such a bad and frankly deserved bad reputation for a long period of time. Man’s inhumanity to man did not begin or end in WWII. How about the Armenian Holocaust of about 1.5 million in 1915 by the Turks? Israel does

      • Israel does not even acknowledge this. What they are doing is seeking to use the “ruse of religion” and the “anti-S” ruse, as a shield to prevent any legitimate criticism of their immoral and even illegal actions in many spheres, especially the current mistreatment of the Palestinians, the immoral and illegal possession of nukes, their failure to allow international inspections while hypocritically criticizing Iran, their daily land theft and building of illegal settlements and even the mountain of evidence and facts that they did 9/11/01 to the U.S. Again they seek to use the ruse of anti-S to shield them from legitimate criticism for many improper, immoral and illegal often very selfish and self centered actions totally against “The Golden Rule” which they, as a group, seem to be ignorant of. After all how can they expect others to respect them if they do not respect others? How would they, as a group, like to be treated the way they treat the Palestinians? How would they like to have their “9/11/01” done to them by the United States of America instead? They seem to be oblivious that other people actually have feelings and moral rules of right and wrong too, not just them. Evidently all they learned from Nazi, Germany is how to copy them.

    Comments are closed.