The post VDH on how you can tell when “anti-Zionism” is Jew-hatred appeared first on The New Neo.

The story:

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won’t be attending the city’s annual Israel Day Parade on Sunday, a break from decades-long tradition, despite attending other events celebrating the city’s diverse cultural landscape.

Since 1964, every mayor in the city has attended the Jewish celebration, which comes amid record levels of antisemitism …

Which his election has aided and abetted.

More:

Mamdani indicated that he would not attend as a matter of political principle. …

Despite his stance against Israel, the mayor has participated in other celebrations, including this year’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration, during which he compared the historic plight of the Irish to the “genocide” in Palestine amid Israel’s war with Hamas.

That’s a very popular stance in Ireland itself – the Orwellian confusion/inversion about who’s really seeking genocide, and about who really is the “colonizer.” It’s classic stuff which has caught on tremendously in recent years, as decades of propaganda launched by the USSR (see this), decades of academic indoctrination, recent increases in Muslim immigration to Western countries, constant lies in the MSM, and post-10/7 internet anti-Semitic smears have all combined to create a perfect storm. This has allowed someone like Mamdani to be elected the mayor of New York in the first place.

Israel-haters claim they’re not anti-Semitic, only anti-Israel. “Can’t we even criticize Israel?” they ask disingenuously, because of course they can. Israelis criticize Israel. But when “criticism” is over-the-top Orwellian lies and reversals of the truth, and when similar logic is applied to no other nation on earth – then anti-Israel sentiment is actually Jew-hatred. Mamdani normalizes it, but why would that be surprising, because it originated on the left in Soviet Russia.

In this 2024 post I quoted this article, and that quote bears repeating now:

The claim that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians is among the longest-running lies told about Israel. “Genocide Israeli style”; “Zionist-engineered genocide”; “the ‘final solution’ of the Palestinian question”—these may look like snippets from some recent campus proclamation, but they are not. They appeared in a Soviet pamphlet titled “Zionists Count on Terror.” Published in 1984 by Novosti, a Soviet foreign propaganda arm masquerading as a news agency, this pocket-sized brochure was meant to promote the Soviet view of Israel and Zionism to English-language audiences.

You can read more of the history in this post. Suffice to say the lessons the Soviets taught have been well-learned, and are now rampant among younger Americans and even with some who supposedly used to be on the right (Tucker, I’m talking about you).

Meanwhile, from yesterday:

Jewish New Yorkers, beware.

The same rabid anti-Israel activists who have harassed Jews at synagogues in recent weeks in violent protests, flown the flag of Hamas and Hezbollah and stomped on the Israeli flag are returning to the streets tonight at Time Square in midtown Manhattan to rage-bait Israelis and Jews attending a “Jerusalem Real Estate Expo” at Times Square.

The protest underscores how anti-Israel activist groups are continuing to escalate their pressure campaigns against pro-Israel and Jewish events across the city, despite mounting criticisms of antisemitism. Earlier this week, Jewish and Muslim leaders led a protest at Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s residence at Gracie Mansion, asking that he address the growing antisemitism in the city.

Note that at least some Muslims are against the anti-Jewish anti-Israel harassment. I assume those Muslims will be targeted as well.

More:

Community leaders say these protests put more pressure on Mamdani who joined anti-Israel protests many times before he ran for the mayor’s office. In college, he was a founding member of his school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which also seeks “the return” of Palestinians to modern-day Israel and a one-state solution that claims modern-day Israel for Palestinians, essentially destroying the state of Israel.

Exactly.

And in Brooklyn, there’s trouble in yuppie enclave Park Slope [emphasis mine]:

Israeli-made products were ripped from the shelves of the lefty Park Slope Food Coop just hours after being banned in a historic vote — prompting scores of Jewish shoppers to threaten to quit the member-run market in revolt.

Tuesday’s boycott vote — which drew over 7,000 members and passed with an overwhelming 67% in favor — went into effect immediately, with the Israeli products vanishing from the shelves by Wednesday morning. …

The nasty food fight — over about 10 goods like hummus, herbs, matzo and peanut puffs — drew condemnation from even the most liberal residents in the leafy Brooklyn enclave. …

Coop member Ramon Maislen told The Post that an informal survey prior to the vote suggested up to 1,000 members would leave if the ban passed. The market has about 15,000 members total. …

The controversy has been brewing at the Union Street coop for years, with BDS supporters claiming Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and demanding all products from the country be barred.

Sound familiar? It should.

And this ploy should feel familiar, too [emphasis mine]:

And Tuesday’s vote meeting only compounded the controversy, as it was immediately preceded by a successful vote to lower the threshold required to ban coop products from 75% in favor to 51%.

Without that threshold vote, the ban would not have passed — leaving Jewish members feeling cheated, a feeling which was also reinforced by the alleged lack of public discussion ahead of the final vote.

You may think this is a tempest in a teapot. But it’s not. It’s part of the death of a thousand cuts, proceeding apace in many countries.

The post Mamdani won’t deign to attend the Israel parade in New York: the origin and spread of the “genocide” charge appeared first on The New Neo.

The day of the killings, one of the first statements of authorities was that the perps had written “Hate crime” on the weapons they used, and that they were teenagers who had committed suicide afterward in their car. This immediately made me think “Columbine.”

Now, for those who only vaguely remember Columbine – did it have to do with school bullying, as the early reporting (erroneously, it turns out) said? – the connection may seem obscure. But for those who have delved into it more deeply, the connection is obvious. Harris and Kelbold were extremely hate-filled and nihilistic, their hatred went in many directions, they meant to kill a great many more people than they ended up killing, and they were also suicidal. They shot themselves in the school library.

I’ve written a great deal about the Columbine killers; you can find a list of posts here. I have also written about what I call “dark duos,” which is the synergistic effect that sometimes occurs when two people (usually young men) with psychopathic and depressive tendencies get together. Here is a relevant post about dark duos.

The Islamic Center killers seem to have been another dark duo. That was my sense from the start, and nothing I’ve seen so far has convinced me otherwise.

But there are some elements of this crime that make it an updated version of an old story. The two met online in some sort of chatroom or discussion board; that’s a relatively new phenomenon for such killers, as far as I know, but quite appropriate for the current young generation, many of whom seem to live their emotional lives online and get their viewpoints there.

Another thing I noticed immediately – and which is very unusual – is that one of the perpetrators was given the first name “Cain.” That particular spelling of the name, which is the name of the first murderer in the Bible, is very uncommon and to me it would tend to indicate something unusual or tone deaf in a parent. Even if it’s a family surname, it’s very odd to spell it that way as a first name. Names can help shape a person’s identity, and although I think it would be ridiculous to put too much emphasis on this element, it still strikes me as highly negative.

When I read a bit more about the killers, I wrote in my draft notes: “I bet online radicalization of a groyper type.” And that also turns out to have been correct.

For example:

Investigators said they recovered a manifesto, as well as writings outlining religious and racial beliefs “of how the world they envision should look,” according to FBI Special Agent in Charge Mark Remily.

“These subjects did not discriminate in who they hated, and let me be very clear to anyone who thinks they can end the world through violence: They’re sorely mistaken,” Remily said. “The FBI, our law enforcement partners and our community are much stronger than you think.”

Mark Remily of the FBI said during a news conference that authorities have uncovered writings by the suspects. Authorities declined to specify what ideologies or views were expressed by the shooters, only that they met online and shared a “broad hatred” toward different religions and races.

There was no specific threat against the Islamic center, which is the largest mosque in San Diego, but authorities found that the suspects engaged in “generalized hate rhetoric,” [San Diego Police Department Chief Scott] Wahl said.

That’s the way it’s been covered. But it’s not exactly the case. I will get to that in a moment. First, about the suicides, which they apparently livestreamed:

San Diego mosque killer Caleb Vasquez urged his accomplice to shoot him in the head in a twisted exchange captured on a livestream broadcast after the pair murdered three people.

Vasquez, 18, is seen in the passenger seat of the white BMW he and 17-year-old Cain Clark used to flee the Islamic Center of San Diego, in footage captured by a camera the pair placed on the car’s dashcam while the vehicle was stopped.

Vasquez grabs the barrel of Clark’s rifle and brings it to his own forehead at multiple points in the livestream clip. The video, circulating on social media, did not have audio.

Finally, the camera turns to include only Clark — sitting in the driver’s seat — who uses his pistol to shoot Vasquez in the head twice and then turn the gun on himself.

About their manifesto:

The teenage San Diego mosque gunmen appear to have left behind a shocking, hate-filled manifesto, which praised Adolf Hitler and a slew of mass murderers, before the attack, The California Post has learned.

Authorities are investigating whether 17-year-old Cain Clark and 19-year-old Caleb Vasquez wrote the nihilistic missive before killing three people and then each other, according to law enforcement sources.

The document espouses a desire to spark a race war and bring about the end of civilization.

That is very much the Columbine impulse; they wanted a huge conflagration to follow. Also, it is somewhat similar to the Manson “Helter Skelter” motive, which was to spark a race war in a convoluted fantasy of what would follow the Tate and LaBianca murders.

I said that the San Diego Islamic Center killers seemed to hate just about everyone, and this is true. But there was one hatred they placed about all others: Jews. That fact is not being widely reported, as far as I can see. One would think that, because their targets were Muslims, hatred of Muslims would be their paramount motive. But no; it was Jew-hatred.

There’s coverage of that fact in some Jewish publications [emphasis mine]:

The shooters’ deepest resentment seemed reserved for Jewish people.

The manifesto listed previous antisemitic shootings at the Tree of Life synagogue and Chabad of Poway among the teens’ many sources of inspiration, calling the assailant in the latter incident a “saint.” It called the Jews “the children of Satan.” It denied the Holocaust as a “complete fabrication.” Vazquez called Adolf Hitler his hero; in his section, Clark wrote out the Fourteen Words, a neo-Nazi declaration.

“Everyone has their own idea of who is to blame for all the wrong in the world” Vazquez wrote in a section titled “The Universal Enemy.”

He printed his answer to the question four times in a row in all capital letters: “It’s the Jews.” …

Atomwaffen members are part of a network of mostly online extremist groups that subscribe to “accelerationism,” the idea that forcing societal collapse through an all-out race war is the only way to restore white supremacy and save civilization. The idea is propounded by a white nationalist named James Mason, author of a book called Siege that both shooters cited.

“Though officially I was not a part of any groups or organizations there are many I support, I would even go so far as to say I did it for Atomwaffen Division, Terrorgram, The Base, and North Korea,” Vazquez wrote….

Whereas the shooters were unsparing toward Jews in the manifesto, with Vazquez calling them the “most evil creature in the world,” they espoused mixed feelings about Muslims in the document before they killed three. “I don’t hate Muslims, at least not really,” Vazquez wrote. “What I hate is the religion of Islam itself and them invading my country.”

He added that Islam “is completely contradictory to both Western morals and values and Christianity.”

But he wrote only three paragraphs about Islam and Muslims — about one page — before the section ends with the word “unfinished” in brackets.

Clark appeared more committed to the eradication of Islam in his writing. Muslims and Jews, he said, “must be isolated and exterminated.” Yet he, like Vazquez, wrote several pages denigrating Jewish people.

The shooters did not state why they ultimately targeted a mosque. Vazquez wrote their plan was to “cause as much death and destruction” as fast as possible with a “diverse” selection of targets.

Here’s more, from the Times of Israel; they also hated women [my emphasis]:

The writings, some of which were circulating online in the days after the attack, glorified other terrorists and included hateful rhetoric toward Jews, Muslims, LGBT people, African-Americans, and both the political left and right.

They were also vitriolically sexist, asserting that “after the Jew the most evil creature in this world is the woman.” At least one of the shooters identified as an “incel,” a term used by men online to refer to their failure to have sex with women.

In a lengthy manifesto, which police said they believed to be authentic, the shooter declared Jews “the universal enemy,” responsible for war, famine, child abuse and various social ills, and wrote that the only solution is “to just kill them all.”

The document heaped praise on Adolf Hitler, yet denied the Holocaust.

It also bore the trademarks of more recent antisemitic conspiracy theories, claiming that Jeffrey Epstein’s sex crimes were religiously motivated, and fixating on supposed Jewish hatred for “goyim,” or non-Jews. ...

The shooters expressed beliefs that white people are being eliminated, explicitly citing the “Great Replacement” theory that Jews are facilitating mass migration to the West in order to wipe out white people.

Muslims were described as one such “invading” force, who must be “exterminated.”

So they blame the influx of Muslims on – the Jew.

Why have I gone into this in such detail? It’s simple: I see all of that online at many sites, and have for many years. It’s easy to find, not difficult at all, and almost mainstream these days. Fuentes didn’t invent it, nor did Carlson or Owens, but it’s the stuff they and others spew every single day. Of course some people saying this sort of thing are bots, and some are people in countries such as Pakistan. But I am convinced, and have been for quite some time, that many are Americans – especially young ones. There are more men than women, but there are women too (without the incel part).

Jew-hatred is like an entry drug to a whole world of nihilistic hatred. Which comes first, the philosophy or the rage? I don’t know the answer, and maybe it’s a meaningless question. But I think it’s far more widespread in this generation in the West than in previous ones in my lifetime. And that is very very dangerous to all of us.

[NOTE: RIP to the victims.]

The post The San Diego Islamic Center shooters: another dark duo appeared first on The New Neo.

Lastly, I wonder – with zero evidence, so this is truly just a thought – whether the investigation of Kent for leaking (an investigation which started prior to his resignation) has to do with leaking information to Carlson or Owens or both.

Well, consider this new information, courtesy of Ace:

So here’s the story as alleged:

A TPUSA employee named Andrew Kolvet says he wanted to leave no stone unturned in the search for Charlie Kirk’s killer. This was in the early hours after the murder, before police discovered the rifle with Tyler Robinson’s fingerprints on it, and his texts telling his gay furry lover he was going to do something wonderful.

Kolvet knew Joe Kent. He passed to Kent some private DMs of Charlie Kirk — if I have this right — complaining that one Jewish donor had stopped funding TPUSA because he didn’t like the organization platforming confirmed antisemitic monsters Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. Kovet’s idea — stupid from the start — was apparently that maybe this Jewish donor might have killed Charlie Kirk.

Kolvet claims he never believed this, but that he wanted to make sure every possible avenue of investigation was open. It’s silly, but I’m sure he wasn’t thinking quite straight in the hours after his friend was murdered.

He trusted that Joe Kent would act like a responsible government official in handling the texts in a responsible, official way.

Instead, antisemtic Nazi conspiracy theorist Joe Kent began demanding that Kolvet make the chats public. Kent wasn’t investigating the texts; he was trying to create a podcaster “investigation” and public witch-hunt.

Not long after that, Owens got hold of the texts:

Kovett’s conclusion is — and it seems hard to doubt — that Joe Kent was a determined conspiracy theorist who could not let go of the idea that Jews Killed Charlie Kirk, even after the proof emerged that the killer was a non-Jewish furry-fucker. And after Kolvett repeatedly refused to make the chats public, Kent gave them to Candace Owens (and probably Tucker Carlson too, although Owens could have given them to Carlson).

Note that Joe Kent was a government official and ostensibly a high-ranking counter-terrorism official, but decided to leak private DMs he had been given in his capacity as government official to an extremely unreliable and toxic internet personality.

The texts were the beginning of her “the Jews killed Kirk” smear campaign, which later morphed into all sorts of other accusations. It’s certainly possible that it wasn’t Kent who gave her the texts, but the timing plus intent certainly makes it reasonable to suspect that he was the source.

Oh, and this: the same Andrew Kolvet now says that Kent has “reportedly indicated he is willing to testify on behalf of [Tyler Robinson’s defense], to get Robinson off the hook for an evil he committed.”

This is terrible stuff, if true. You can read much much more at Ace’s.

The post Joe Kent, leaker appeared first on The New Neo.

I feel fairly confident in calling it a terrorist attack rather than “merely” a school shooting because the shooter has been identified as Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, 36. And guess what? He was convicted in 2016 of ISIS ties:

In 2016, he was arrested for attempting to provide material support to ISIS, according to public court documents. He allegedly attempted to help procure weapons intended to be used in what he anticipated was going to be an attack in the U.S., the complaint said at the time. The complaint also alleged that he attempted to provide funds to individuals hoping to join ISIS.

He pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and was sentenced to 11 years in prison. He was released in 2024, according to the Department of Justice.

Although he didn’t serve the full eleven years, it seems he served close to eight years. Even eleven would not have been enough, however – although it’s hard to see how he could have been sentenced to more than that, because it was just an attempt. He is a US citizen; you can find a lot more information here. He apparently was radicalized by listening to recorded sermons of al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki, and then [emphasis mine]:

Following service in the National Guard, Jalloh traveled to Africa, where he stayed between July 2015 and January 2016. While in Nigeria, according to FBI investigators, Jalloh first established contact with an ISIS operative who later introduced Jalloh to the CHS [Confidential Human Source].* Jalloh told the CHS in April 2016 that he wished to carry out a domestic attack similar to the Fort Hood shootings carried out by Nidal Hasan in 2009.* Jalloh also allegedly spoke about targeting an unidentified person who had organized several “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contests.*

In May 2016, the CHS introduced Jalloh to an undercover FBI agent posing as an ISIS member.* During conversations on an unidentified mobile messaging service, Jalloh allegedly told the agent that it was best to plan an attack during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. He allegedly believed such violent operations were “100 percent the right thing to do,” and he prayed to Allah to make him a martyr.* Jalloh allegedly gave the agent $500, believing it would reach ISIS’s coffers.*

On July 1, 2016, Jalloh entered the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun store and firing range in Chantilly, Virginia. According to security footage and the store’s owner, Jalloh allegedly tried to purchase a Bushmaster AR-15, but did not have adequate identification.* Jalloh returned the following day and purchased a Stag Arms 5.56 caliber assault rifle.* The FBI arrested him on July 3 and charged him with attempting to provide material support to ISIS. Jalloh pled guilty on October 27, 2016.* He was sentenced to 11 years in prison on February 10, 2017. In a letter to the court, alloh reportedly renounced ISIS and its “superficial and dishonest interpretation of Islam.”*

That renunciation was almost certainly bogus and/or temporary. Note how Jalloh seems to have now followed his original plan: an attack on military people – such as the Fort Hood attacker’s victims – during Ramadan. It’s Ramadan right now. The “military people” part was fulfilled because of this:

The victims have not been identified. Two of them are members of the school’s ROTC program, NBC affiliate WAVY of Portsmouth, Virginia, reported.

“We can confirm that two members of the university ROTC program were shot and were taken to a local hospital to treat their injuries,” the U.S. Army Cadet Command told the station in a statement.

Officials said Jalloh allegedly targeted an ROTC class and was a former member of the Army National Guard.

That’s followed by “a motive in the shooting is unclear.” That seems extremely absurd at this point.

The day’s second attack involved a perp – also now deceased but as yet unidentified – who rammed a car into a synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. Fortunately, no one but the perp was killed in this one, mainly because there were security officers on the scene who opened fire. The perp fired back and wounded one guard, and eight first responders are also being treated.

It’s not totally clear whether they killed him, he killed himself, or he died in a car fire.

We await word on his identity. Could be a jihadi, or could be just the usual Jew-hater on left or right. So many possibilities!

I doubt these attacks were coordinated with each other. There’s a lot of chaos and violence as well as incitement these days, all of which act as releasers for those inclined to attack. There’s certainly also the possibility of higher-up organization. However, I’d expect the latter to feature larger attacks.

The post Terrorist attacks in Virginia and Michigan appeared first on The New Neo.

Schools are stepping back from Holocaust Memorial Day. Not because the facts changed. Not because the lesson became unclear. Because it became dangerous. Administrators sense backlash. Teachers fear complaints. Institutions calculate risk and choose quiet. …

The West forgetting the Holocaust does not dissolve Jewish identity. Jews do not require British schools to remain Jews. Jewish memory is internal. …

So why does this matter so much.

Because in Britain, and across the West, the Holocaust is not merely a tragic chapter to teach. It is part of the foundation of the moral identity that replaced religion as a shared anchor after the war. …

It built a rules based order with human rights language, minority protections, and institutional checks meant to prevent the machinery from ever being assembled again. It built education systems that treated remembrance as civic duty, not political option.

That is why the retreat from Holocaust Memorial Day is not a marginal culture war story. It is an indicator light on the dashboard of a weakening civilization. …

… [F]ear of backlash now outranks fear of forgetting. …

This is Britain quietly admitting it is no longer sure who it is.

A country that cannot commemorate the clearest moral lesson in its modern history without fear has already begun the next chapter.

I’m not British and don’t claim to know for sure, but my sense from across the pond is that it’s actually worse than that. There is some fear of backlash, of course. But much of British society – both imported and homegrown – has become more anti-Semitic, and the schools themselves are probably staffed by more and more teachers and administrators who at best don’t care about the Holocaust and at worst wish it had been more successful.

What’s more, as the actual event recedes, there’s an understandable diminution of caring as well as knowledge. Unless a person is especially interested in the topic, and makes an effort to read in depth about what is admittedly a distressing example of evil, it is possible to gain only a very cursory and sometimes flawed understanding of what the Holocaust was, how it worked, and what it meant.

It also becomes easier and easier to have Holocaust fatigue and say to oneself, “Why are we learning about Jews and their sufferings compared to everyone else on earth who has suffered? What self-centered and annoying people Jews are; who cares?”

To some people the Holocaust has become a useful way to make false and cheap analogies against one’s opponents. To take a prime example, we have the abominable Tim Walz:

“We have got children in Minnesota hiding in their houses, afraid to go outside. Many of us grew up reading that story of Anne Frank,” Walz said. “Somebody’s going to write that children’s story about Minnesota.”

Speaking of Anne Frank, her father Otto – a person for whom I have the deepest respect – decided, for understandable reasons at the time, to edit her diary to make it more “universal” and somewhat de-emphasize her references to being Jewish. You can read about it in this article.

[NOTE: Here’s a post I wrote about an oft-quoted and oft-misunderstood quote from Anne Frank’s diary. And here’s one of many posts I’ve written on the Holocaust; two more can be found here and here.]

The post Holocaust remembrance these days appeared first on The New Neo.

Bad as all this is, the really shocking thing has been the refusal by certain mainstream conservatives to denounce [growing anti-Semitism on the right] and shut it down, appearing instead to nod along to it.

It’s certainly true that some have not condemned it, but a great many have – at least it seems that way to me. For example, she cites Kevin Roberts’ initial failure, but not the fact that it caused an uproar and rebellion at Heritage, with many conservatives there leaving in anger.

The split is an old story rather than a new one, with Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley playing starring roles way back when.

In my opinion,Vance tries to be too clever by half. From Phillips:

One of those influential conservatives, however, is none other than U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who is another of Carlson’s friends. Vance closed the conference by decrying “purity tests” and said: “I didn’t bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to de-platform.”

The difference between “denounce” – that is, criticize – and “deplatform” – that is, silence – is huge, and Vance is smart enough to know it.

From Phillips:

In a subsequent interview on the website UnHerd, [Vance] made some even more troubling remarks. Although he said that antisemitism and all forms of ethnic hatred “have no place in the conservative movement,” he also said the idea that Carlson’s views “are somehow completely anathema to conservatism, that he has no place in the conservative movement” was “frankly absurd.”

That makes zero sense if one believes, as I do, that Carlson expresses anti-Semitism or at least heavily implies it, by highlighting and failing to challenge the views of people who lie about Israel in order to demonize that country. In Tucker’s case, it takes the form of promoting the idea (sometimes in his own direct statements, sometimes through fawning interviews with others) that Israel purposely murders Christians and discriminates against them, and that Israel is committing genocide.

A differing view from that of Phillips about the right and anti-Semitism can be found here – although, interestingly, the article steers clear of mentioning Vance:

Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes represent regress masquerading as rebellion. They do not speak for the right; they speak for themselves and for the algorithms that reward outrage and sounding outrageous.

Many, maybe most, prominent people on the right — from President Donald Trump to Pastor John Hagee to Thomas Sowell to Marco Rubio — stand with Israel because they stand with the West, with victims of jihad, and with a commitment to preserve the values of individual freedom, equal justice under the law and freedom of speech. …

To its credit, the American right has no shortage of adults in the room. Many intellectuals, Jewish advocates, and elected Republicans openly condemned the Carlson-Fuentes stunt. You could watch the split in real time: one faction explained that freedom of speech does not require private companies and organization to provide a platform for unreconstructed bigots; the other faction accused “the establishment” of “silencing us.” …

The fact is that Republican support for Israel remains high, even though younger cohorts are more skeptical. Pew Research in April 2025 found solid GOP confidence in Israel’s leadership and warmer views of Israelis than Democrats expressed. In October, Pew found the same partisan gap, even as overall U.S. favorables toward Israel declined. The point: when far-right influencers target Jews, they are out of step with rank-and-file Republican voters — and not speaking for them.

And Vance? I’m still not sure, but I’m fairly certain that before November of 2028 we’ll find out more.

The post J. D. Vance tries to thread the needle appeared first on The New Neo.

Why do I highlight this? It’s disturbing to watch, but this woman does have influence on many people who celebrate her (hard to say how many because her audience is so bot-heavy). In this most recent clip, she’s also very obviously trying to incite a race war of black people against Jews:

Now that you’ve digested that, this is the book she’s holding up:

Der Talmudjude, by anti-Jewish German Catholic theologian August Rohling, claimed that the Talmud commanded Jews to steal, lie, cheat, and kill Christians.

Rohling had repeatedly spread the libel that Jews consumed human blood in murder rituals. The theologian’s scholarship was cast into doubt during a failed libel suit against one of his detractors, but Der Talmudjude has remained a mainstay of antisemitic texts.

The book was written in 1871 and was a Nazi favorite:

In addition there have been fabricated interpretations such as the 19th-century antisemitic book “The Talmudic Jew” by German Catholic theologian August Rohling, a popular text with the anti-Jewish newspaper Der Stürmer in the years leading up to the Holocaust and the rise of the Third Reich.

More here:

And there it was, one of the digital right’s best-known figures, a woman with more than five million YouTube subscribers, hawking a book full of anti-Semitic lies. Rohling was a German Catholic theologian. He was an infamous Jew-hater. The Talmudic Jew depicts the Talmud as a ‘repository of anti-Christian hatred’ and a ‘manual for swindling Gentiles’, says Hussein Aboubakr Mansour. And of course it’s fraudulent, Mansour writes. It relies on ‘medieval anti-Jewish polemics and out-of-context quotations’.

Rohling later wrote a hateful pamphlet on the ‘human sacrifices’ carried out by rabbis. The Jews do indeed engage in the ritual murder of Christian children, he wrote. It was a pseudo-academic revival of the medieval blood libel. And it helped to whip up Jewphobic animus across Germany and beyond. That a 21st-century right-winger is citing this Jew-hater – worse, actively promoting his work – is extraordinary.

Much more here:

Perhaps no book has excited the intrigue of antisemites quite like the Talmud and which became its own self-contained myth. Just the mention of “the Talmud” is bound to conjure up worlds. It is difficult to say exactly why. Its sheer inaccessibility, certainly—the alien script running right to left like a mirror of proper reading. To European eyes it has always carried the aura of the esoteric, something halfway between scripture and spellbook. The very look of it suggests secrets. Perhaps that Jews possessed a textual tradition beyond the Bible, an “oral law” whispered down through generations and only later committed to writing, was itself suspect: what were they hiding? What had they added?

But the fantasy of the Talmud has always exceeded the Talmud itself. As a matter of fact, the real Talmud is a big disappointment compared to the muscular, mythological one; we would do better to make the distinction between the Talmud of reality and that of myth. One opens the former expecting occult mysteries and finds rabbis arguing about liability for damages caused by an ox. The gap between the myth and the text is so vast that one suspects the myth requires the text to remain unread. Rohling understood this, perhaps instinctively: his readers would never check.

Rohling claimed expertise in rabbinical literature that he did not have. His interpretations of Hebrew texts were dilettantish at best, fraudulent at worst. He relied heavily on medieval anti-Jewish polemics and on out-of-context quotations ripped from the vast sea of Talmudic disputation. The truth is, he likely never actually read the Talmud.

The Talmud is not a catechism; it is a record of centuries of legal debate among rabbis, filled with minority opinions, hypothetical arguments, and positions that were never adopted as normative practice. It is the definition of pedantry, written primarily in Aramaic, a language Rohling could not read, with Hebrew interspersed, in a terse and allusive style that presupposes familiarity with an entire tradition of commentary. It dwells, for pages—volumes, really—on the most mundane and technical details of daily life: the proper handling of food, the timing of prayers, the laws governing agricultural cycles, rules for feasts and holidays, the conditions under which an egg laid on a festival day may or may not be eaten, if and how to carry things on the Sabbath in what kind of vessel. It endlessly argues over these riveting and exhilarating questions. So exciting to read it should really come with a heart rate monitor. To extract from this a simple set of commands—”Jews must swindle Christians”—is not to misread the Talmud; it is to have never encountered it at all. It is to have read about it in other books written by other people who also never read it, which is likely what Rohling did.

But I noticed this sort of Jew-hatred online long long ago, at least as long as I’ve been blogging. There’s been a huge genre of web-based propaganda about the Talmud and how Jews are evil and their evil is expressed in the Talmud, and it’s probably based on books such as Rohling’s. I am relatively sure these falsehoods have been spread worldwide on the internet long before Owens got into the act, although she’s certainly doing her bit to spread the venomous stuff still further.

The post Candace Owens goes full Der Stürmer appeared first on The New Neo.

“Tucker’s a friend of mine,” [Vance] told Ahmari. “And do I have disagreements with Tucker Carlson? Sure. I have disagreements with most of my friends, especially those who work in politics. You know this. Most people who know me know this. I’m [also] a very loyal person, and I am not going to get into the business of throwing friends under the bus.”

I had no idea that friends can’t be criticized when they lie publicly and often. “My friend, right or wrong” isn’t a principle of which I’m aware. When your friend is doing something mendacious and destructive, and it’s public and influential, it’s moral cowardice to say nothing.

Of course, this isn’t really about friendship. I think I’m on safe ground when I say that. Tucker Carlson isn’t all that charming. What’s happening here, I believe, is that Vance doesn’t want to alienate Carlson’s Jew-hating supporters. They vote too, right? I don’t know how numerous they are, But J. D. must believe they are numerous enough that he needs them in the coalition. It’s true that Vance and others are in a bind, if this group is large enough that it’s necessary for victory. But they’re going to alienate a lot of other people in the process, and not just Jews.

More from Vance:

Vance noted further that “the idea that Tucker Carlson — who has one of the largest podcasts in the world, who has millions of listeners, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 election, who supported me in the 2024 election — the idea that his views are somehow completely anathema to conservatism, that he has no place in the conservative movement, is frankly absurd.”

Meanwhile, the latest from good old friend Tucker to help you make up your own mind as to whether Carlson has a place in “the conservative movement”:

Pernicious mendacious garbage. The Qataris must love it, though.

The post J. D. Vance ♥ Tucker Carlson appeared first on The New Neo.

[The younger] Akram is an Australian-born citizen, while his 50-year-old father arrived in the country in 1998 on a student visa, which later transitioned to a partner visa in 2001, Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told reporters Monday.

Since then, the gun-wielding father — who was killed at the scene during a shootout with police — had made three trips abroad, returning each time on a resident return visa, Burke said.

The guns were legally owned. As suspected, there was an excuse, because gun ownership in Australia is very strictly regulated:

The father, who was killed at the scene during a shootout with police, was part of a “gun club” and held a recreational hunting license for over a decade, officials said.

“So the firearms license was to be for a recreational hunting license. There are two types of hunting license: the ability to hunt on a property or also as part of a hunting club — so a gun club. He was a member of a gun club and was entitled by nature of the firearms act to have a firearms license issued.”

Sajid has had his license since 2015, allowing him to legally own the “long arms that he had” as registered guns, Lanyon added.

“In terms of a firearms license, the firearms registry conducts a thorough examination of all applications to ensure a person is fit and proper to hold a firearms license,” Lanyon noted.

Of course, Australia plans to further restrict guns as a result. Why don’t they monitor what goes on in mosques instead? Too “Islamophobic” I suppose. And what’s a “watch list” – which at least one of the two was supposedly on – if not something to monitor?

In this case, the father had lived in Australia almost 30 years. I bet the pair were both radicalized within the last few years, or even since 10/7.

And the police – what gives? Completely unimpressive performance:

One of the survivors of the terror attack at a Bondi Beach Hanukkah celebration said four police officers just “froze” during the 20-minute rampage on Sunday that killed 11.

Eyewitness Shmulik Scuri said he was with his family when the two suspects began firing at the crowd of worshippers from a nearby bridge.

“For 20 minutes. They shoot, shoot. Change magazines. And just shoot,” the witness told reporters. …

It wasn’t until a local good Samaritan, a local fruit seller, disarmed one of the terrorists that police appeared to return fire, taking out one of the shooters, video shows.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the police are taught that, because of draconian Aussie gun control, they will never face such a situation and won’t need training for it. On the other hand, I have read that two of the four police were targeted immediately by the gunmen, and wounded – although I also read that two others hid (possibly women?). There are still a lot of rumors swirling around, so it’s hard to know what to believe.

However, not only was there hero Ahmed al Ahmed who’s become well-known for disarming one of the shooters (and then being shot by another), but there was a second hero who tried to disarm the other shooter and was himself shot by police for his pains. You can find that story here. Granted, it’s not always easy to tell who’s who, but this guy apparently had his arms up when shot.

The saddest element of the whole thing are the victims. You can find some of their photos and stories here. Two rabbis, which indicates some careful aiming by the shooters. A ten-year-old girl, out enjoying the day with her family. An 87-year-old man who survived the Holocaust as a child. One thing that struck me but did not surprise me is the number of victims who had been born in other countries; Australia used to be a refuge for Jews. No more.

There are only about 120,000 Jews in Australia, and a great many came post-Holocaust. That means they represent less than a half a percent of the total population there. The Muslim population there is much larger, both for bad (the shooters) and good (the heroes): 3.2% in 2021 and probably more today, due to a high birthrate.

The Bondi Beach massacre is definitely an example of “globalize the intifada.” But it’s not new; not at all. I immediately thought of the 1994 bombing in Argentina, orchestrated by Iran (as Bondi may have been):

The AMIA bombing occurred on 18 July 1994 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and targeted the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA; transl.?”Argentine Israelite Mutual Association”), a Jewish Community Centre. Executed as a suicide attack, a bomb-laden van was driven into the AMIA building and subsequently detonated, killing 85 people and injuring over 300. To date, the bombing remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentine history. In 1994, Argentina was home to a Jewish community of 200,000, making it the largest in Latin America and the sixth-largest in the world outside of Israel. …

In 2024, an Argentine court ruled that Iran directed the attack, and that it was carried by Hezbollah. The ruling also characterized Iran as a terrorist state.

Argentina and Australia are far away from the Middle East. But even thirty years ago, jihadis were bent on globalizing the intifada, although back then it wasn’t a popular slogan on Western college campuses. Now it is.

[NOTE: I plan to write a post tomorrow on Australian gun control and its effects.]

The post More on the Bondi Beach shooters, heroes, and victims appeared first on The New Neo.