Can We Stop With The Anti-Semitism Nonsense About George Soros?

Mike Grillo

Mike Grillo is a writer who, when not writing, is working in finance and surviving the wilds of being a New Jersey resident. He does not tweet.

Related Post Roulette

83 Responses

  1. Greg In Ak says:

    Tbf you left out some other Soros credits. Things he did that earned the ire of conservatives far before the 2000’s. His Open Society project funded pro democracy groups in the newly freed eastern bloc countries and he funded some dissidents prior to the curtain falling. C’s were speaking in hostile terms about him of THIS.

    It’s fair to criticize him and it’s not all anti-antisemitism. But i often see crits of him with “globalist” or some such. Yup that’s anti-antisemitism.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      Being against free trade and/or thinking the UN is captured by anti-US interests is not antisemitismReport

      • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

        You don’t have to be an anti-semite to believe those things, but it helps. Because they fit in with things anti-semites believe.Report

      • Greg In Ak in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Didn’t say they were. But “globalist” has a dirty history and that is often attached to him. If you wanna be for limited trade then, you know, just say you want trade limited in XYZ. People complain about the UN all the time w/o pressing any anti S buttons.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      It’s been a long time, and I can’t find much online, but I think that no one was complaining about Soros supporting democracy for Eastern Europe in the 1990’s, but were complaining about his particular vision of democracy for the region.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    I’ve seen this in my own history with people on the left, when I was an organizer for MoveOn and Occupy.

    We would have an open meeting where just anyone was allowed to join, and someone would start in with the usual liberal criticism of “Wall Street bankers” and “plutocrats” and so on, but inevitably there would be a guy who would push it further and veer into conspiracy territory, maybe anti-vax or something and then if allowed to talk long enough boom, out with something something Jews.

    We would always excommunicate the guy because we knew it was bad for the cause to let those sorts in the tent.

    Republicans don’t exercise that kind of gatekeeping. They did once, but no more. You can goosestep into a Proud Boys/ Oathkeepers/ MAGA event and sling around any amount of NotSee crap and no one will escort you out, no one will tell you to shut up because they just don’t care.

    The typical Republican base voter may not be racist or misogynistic or anti-Semitic but it is never a dealbreaker.

    So when a DeSantis yells about “Soros-backed” it acts like a porch light for NotSees, saying “Welcome!”Report

    • Large group, maybe a majority (you’d hope), of GOP probably do not equate “Soros” the buzzword to anti-Semitism
      There are a bunch that do, and yes, it’s absolutley a porch light to those kinds of people who want to be anti-Semitic on purpose without saying it too outloud
      There is nothing being talked about labeled “Soros” that is not anti-Semitic (as the piece does with donations and moeny trails) that cannot be explained in a multitude of ways without using “Soros” as a pejorative
      If you are using “Soros” in that way, purposefully and multiple times, you are opening yourself up to the charge, making it a “you” problem at the very leastReport

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

        The idea that shadowy rich people are quietly pulling strings is a pernicious myth because it has a grounding in truth.

        The various organizations that represent banks and major corporations do in fact have a near-veto lock over important legislation, either through lobbying, campaign contributions, think tanks or just outright control of media outlets.

        For me, the dividing line between a standard critique of plutocracy and an anti-Semitism is when someone just so happens to list only Jewish names in the rant and conveniently ignores gentile figures.

        Which is why any mention of Soros is a red flag. Not dispositive proof, but a red flag.

        Like, the Federalist Society has ten times the impact on judges than Soros. The NRA has a thousand times more impact on crime and policing.

        The innocent explanation for a complaint about a “Soros-backed” prosecutor is that the prosecutor is biased by the money he received.

        Buuuuuut…In order for that explanation to hold true, the complaint would also have to name the groups I listed above, and plenty of others, where prosecutors find all sorts of reasons to let wealthy and influential people skate free while bringing down the hammer on regular people.

        Yet, mysteriously, the very same people who yell about a prosecutor biased by money never, ever, ever even once aim their fire at the larger crowd of plutocrats and oligarchs, but somehow manage to find in Soros a target.

        But hey- Maybe they aren’t anti-Jewish, maybe they are just hypocrites who want conservatives to win and liberals to lose and the cries of “Soros-backed” are just more phony populist bullsh!t, like yelling “Its about protecting the children/ Fiscal responsibility/ Small Gummint” or whatever the daily talking points are.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          …the dividing line between a standard critique of plutocracy and an anti-Semitism is when someone just so happens to list only Jewish names in the rant and conveniently ignores gentile figures… Like, the Federalist Society has ten times the impact on judges than Soros. The NRA has a thousand times more impact on crime and policing.

          You need to be listening for other Team Blue figures. Odds are whoever is complaining about Soros thinks the NRA is a good thing, and the Federalists is hardly a Billionaire playing god.

          OK, problem, I can’t think of any high level Blue donors. Let’s check and see who other than Soros is doing this.

          #1 Soros : $128 million in donations
          #2 Sam Bankman Fried: $40m (ouch).
          #3 Bloomberg: $22 million

          If we exclude SBF for obvious reasons, Soros gives twice as much to team Blue as everyone else combined.

          https://qz.com/american-billionaires-political-spending-overwhelmingl-1849751449Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

            Why is spending 128 million dollars a bad thing?

            Why is the term “Soros-backed” and not “plutocrat-backed?

            Why complain about an individual donor, and not the dark money groups that outspend Soros?

            What exactly is their complaint, when they yell “Soros-backed?

            Are they complaining about rich folks buying influence?
            Haha of course not, they rather like it when rich people buy influence.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Why is the term “Soros-backed” and not “plutocrat-backed?

              For the same reason your side complains about the Koch brothers and not “plutocrats”.

              So the claim here is when Red does it, it’s racism, but when Blue does the same thing it’s not?

              When we started this conversation I had no clue Soros was Jewish because it’d never come up before.

              Why is spending 128 million dollars a bad thing?

              The issue isn’t whether it’s bad, the issue is whether saying “Soros backed” has a meaning other than racism.

              Soros is vastly outspending everyone else (even combined) and he’s clearly pushing to get “his people” in the DA’s office. “His people” meaning “seriously progressive”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                For liberals, “Koch” means “plutocrat”.

                What does “Soros” mean to conservatives?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Guy who supports prosecutors like Chesa.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Nice try, but no.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                What does “Soros” mean to conservatives?

                Billionaire who funds Lefty bad ideas and people who push them. Things like checking your skin color in order to see if you should be in prison for your crimes. Or trying to derail a Red Presidential candidate over his sex life.

                I’ve never heard him called Jewish until here, this week.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Right, the innocent explanation is “guy who promotes things I don’t like” which is entirely valid.

                Valid, but weak because if you write out the entire sentence: “Alvin Brag is a liberal bad ideas prosecutor funded by a liberal bad ideas donor” it becomes just a stupid tautology.

                Of course Bragg is funded by a liberal bad ideas donor- Who else would donate to his causes?

                Why not just shorten it to “Alvin Bragg is a liberal bad ideas prosecutor” since “bad ideas” is the meat of your charge?

                So why would a conservative bring his donor into it at all?

                Is there something about his donor that is worth mentioning?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                He does seem to have a type:

                A Manhattan parking garage attendant who was shot twice while confronting an alleged thief — then wrestled the gun away and opened fire on the suspect — has been charged with attempted murder, police said.

                The overnight worker, identified by cops as Moussa Diarra, 57, was also hit with assault and criminal possession of a weapon charge in the Saturday incident, which unfolded around 5:30 a.m. as the attendant saw a man peering into cars on the second floor of the West 31st Street garage, the sources said.

                Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

                The best part? The guy got charged with “Criminal Possession of a Weapon”.

                That is just *chef’s kiss*.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to bevedog says:

                Oh, good! If you’re going to drop charges, drop them during Wrestlemania, I guess.

                But the fact that he was charged with that in the first place so that the charges were in a position to be dropped is a pretty awful fact.

                It reminds me of one of those bad jokes from the 70’s. Two Social Workers came across a mugging victim who was bleeding out in the bushes. “Oh no!”, they said. “We need to help the guy who did this!”Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Right, the innocent explanation is “guy who promotes things I don’t like” which is entirely valid.

                You should have stopped there.

                Of course Bragg is funded by a liberal bad ideas donor- Who else would donate to his causes?

                This is claiming all Team Blue DAs have the same politics and the same ideas (or that Soros is funding all DAs indiscriminately and not for ideological reasons).

                That a DA would check someone’s skin color before sending them to prison because there are too many minorities already there seems more than a little unusual.

                Hmm… let’s just check if all that is a thing.

                Soros funneled $40m into DA races nationwide. He has a 90% success rating, 75 different races. He is apparently doing an end run around legislatures to decide which laws will be followed. Basically these are “pro-criminal” DAs.

                https://nypost.com/2023/01/22/george-soros-spent-40m-getting-lefty-district-attorneys-officials-elected-all-over-the-country/Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Dark Matter says:

                It looks like Soros is responsible for all of the “reform” DAs. He picks someone who has the ideas he wants and then he gives them a lot of money by local race standards.

                In other words, “Soros backed” means “a member of the 75 group of DAs picked for having the ideology that not enforcing the law will lead to good things”.

                https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/these-prosecutors-promised-us-reform-but-delivered-chaos-instead/Report

        • Mike Grillo in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          “For me, the dividing line between a standard critique of plutocracy and an anti-Semitism is when someone just so happens to list only Jewish names in the rant and conveniently ignores gentile figures.”

          Who else in Democratic and progressive political circles has spent more money than George Soros in the last three years?

          Name one.Report

      • Open yourself up to the charge of anti-Semitism for calling someone a Soros-backed candidate?

        I’d like to think I’m a reasonably informed person. I’ve known about Soros for decades. I didn’t know he was a Hungarian Jew until a few months ago (on this very site I might add) when his defenders started accusing his critics of anti-semitism en mass. It never occurred to me to factor his ethnicity or religion into my opinion of him. If it did, I would have guessed Greek-Orthodox.

        But I digress. If your main defense of Soros is to slander critics and not actually defend the organizations he funds or the candidates he bankrolls, that sounds like a “you” problem to me.Report

    • Chris in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      We would have an open meeting where just anyone was allowed to join, and someone would start in with the usual liberal criticism of “Wall Street bankers” and “plutocrats” and so on, but inevitably there would be a guy who would push it further and veer into conspiracy territory, maybe anti-vax or something and then if allowed to talk long enough boom, out with something something Jews.

      Having been in man, many meetings of left-wing groups, I’m deeply inclined to believe that this never happened. That, or you live in a place in which there’s one super antisemitic person who just shows up to everything and somehow didn’t get the message they weren’t welcome.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

        Maybe they say stuff like “Free Palestine!” and that gets interpreted as antisemitism.

        Wrongly, of course.Report

        • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

          I definitely saw leftists use the same sorts of tropes antisemites regularly use, all on the subject of Israel, and I have no doubt that there were plenty of antisemites among those people, but they were smart enough to know that if they came out and said it directly, they’d be run out of the place. I have my suspicions about a few people who continue to be prominent in local left circles, but again, I’ve never heard them just come out and say what I suspect they think, and I doubt I ever will.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

            If they know they can just yell “We have a moral obligation to boycott, divest, and sanction modern racist apartheid states!” and get applause, why in the heck would the smart ones say “I still listen to Father Caughlin podcasts in my free time”?

            They can just say stuff like “I support Palestine because I support Social Justice”.

            And those who know will know.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris says:

        That’s my point, that as a political organizer, my job was to establish and police the borders of our group to maintain message discipline and prevent hijacking by malign actors.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    I learned a great mnemonic for Type I versus Type II errors the other day. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

    The mnemonic is that the type of errors happen in the right order in the story.

    The townspeople coming out in droves when there isn’t a wolf? That’s a Type I error.
    The townspeople not coming out at all when there is a wolf? Type II.

    There. Now you’ll be able to quickly and easily remember the difference between Type I and Type II errors.Report

  4. Tod Kelly says:

    This post conflates two things. Whether that is out of ignorance or strategy I have no idea, but regardless both of these things are true:

    1. Soros is a billionaire who funds liberal & left-wing causes, and there is nothing antisemitic about disagreeing with him, his opinions, or his goals. Many (probably most!) people you see bashing him on social media see him entirely as a leftist enemy and/or boogeyman for things that have nothing to do with his being Jewish. (Many people likely aren’t even aware that he is.)

    2. Since long, long before he was a staple of US conservative media, Soros has been the subject of a string of conspiracy theories. Almost all of these are adaptations or just direct replace-the-name copies of long-standing conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family. This overlapping of false stories about him and false stories about the Rothschilds is in no way accidental, and is absolutely 100% antisemitic – and not subconsciously, but purposefully so. People who push those theories are still very much active, and work (again, quite purposefully) to both conflate the ‘leftist’ and ‘(((globalist)))’ lines of rhetoric, especially online.

    Bottom line: At this point critical discussions of Soros online are a mish-mash of genuine non-antisemitic criticism, antisemitic button pushing, and alt-right trolling to confuse the two. Where any anonymous online commenter falls on that spectrum is something that, for the most part, you’ll have to just guess.

    Assuming anyone who complains about or blames their woes on George Soros is antisemitic is foolish and almost certainly knee-jerk partisan; so too is pretending that the antisemitism isn’t there at all.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      I think we’re probably on the same page about this. I’m faster to suspect someone of anti-Semitism than of any other anti-ism. I think you have to if you’ve studied history. It’s bizarrely common and dangerous. That said, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anti-Semitism on this site, certainly not in years. And outside of this site I’ve never seen the accusation used as a cudgel, but I think I have here.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Pinky says:

        I do remember a lot of past antisemitism, but I believe from what little I see these day that you’re right: it’s all in the past. (For one thing I think most everyone I can think of who used to do it has been banned at one point or another.)Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Tod Kelly says:

      Oh it is very well out of strategy.Report

  5. And you recall how Democrats used to smear GOP officials as “Adelson-backed”.

    Oh, you don’t? That’s because it never happened.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      I remember Koch brother stuff, though.

      Heck, Kuznicki got a lot of it!Report

      • North in reply to Jaybird says:

        Well sure, I remember it. Of course the stones slung at people the Kochs’ backed were not slung because the Kochs’ have any particular ethnicity or religious background (best as I can tell they have none of the latter) but because they’re the gold standard example of plutocrats financially supporting libertarians to obtain tax cuts, eviscerate the safety nets (for more tax cuts) and nothing more.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to North says:

          Sure. Now imagine if the Kochs were Jewish.

          And imagine if the responses to the criticisms of them being all of those things was “You’re antisemitic!”

          Not “you’re wrong” or “you’re crazy” or “they have a different utility function than you have” but “you’re antisemitic!”

          Now, true, it’s possible that there would be people out there who hated the Kochs because they were Jewish. Such people exist.

          But it’s possible to criticize them for being plutocrats financially who were supporting libertarians to obtain tax cuts and eviscerate the safety nets and whatnot and not even know their ethnic backgrounds.

          Like, I thought that Chesa Boudin was an awful DA. Not merely because he had a different utility function than I have but because his utility function actively makes the world worse. When I found out that he was a Soros-backed DA, I rolled my eyes and thought “of friggin’ course… now I have to carefully titrate my criticisms of Chesa’s horrid Distric Attourneying lest I be accused of hating Jews” when, before I found out that he was Soros-backed, I could just do stuff like think that shit like his “temper tantrum” quotation was malpractice.

          And so now we’re finding out that he’s been backing a whole bunch of DAs who have absolutely god-awful utility functions. He wrote an essay about it! In the WSJ! There’s a link to it in the original post!

          Remember this awful case from last year? The shopkeeper who stabbed a guy after the guy attacked him and he got sent to Rikers for a while? Same DA.

          You know the case in Alameda County where the toddler got killed by a stray bullet between two gangs engaged in a shootout and the DA is talking about “non-carceral forms of accountability”? Well, guess what.

          It’s making the world worse. And we’re going to see a harder pendulum swing back because of it.

          And antisemitism has nothing to do with it.

          In the same way that it has nothing to do with criticisms of the Kochs.Report

          • North in reply to Jaybird says:

            Sure, but anyone who accused you of being an antisemite because you attacked a DA that Soros happened to support without even mentioning Soros would be a loon and could be disregarded scornfully.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to North says:

              You’d think!

              You’d think.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                I mean I’m open to being proven wrong. Can you refer me to someone going “I disapprove of politician Bob for x, y and z reasons and someone else going “Ah but Bob is endorsed by Soros, so you’re an antisemite for criticizing him.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Off the top of my head, I can’t remember any.

                I have plenty of examples of Soros being brought up as someone who does the stuff he bragged about in his WSJ essay and then that degenerating into a discussion of antisemitism, though.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

          The claims that the Soros attack is not really anti-Semitic is disingenuous and a textbook perfect example of Sartre’s bad faith. Quote below. In modern English, we call it trolling. I don’t see why it should be given a chiding chuckle of a response.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            If we’re talking about Team Blue Billionaires actively funding politicians in general (and DAs specifically), Soros is BY FAR the biggest player in this space.

            The amount of money he gave during the 2022 election cycle was $128 million. The #2 person measured by money gave half that and gave it to Red.

            If we ignore SBF, Blue’s #2 person gave $22 million.

            Soros is giving out massive amounts of money even by Billionaire standards and he’s doing it consistently.

            Giving money to lots of DAs across the nation isn’t an effort to buy influence. That many of them have seriously “progressive” views suggests strongly he’s giving it out in an effort to move the needle.

            What Bill Gates is to disease research Soros is to funding Leftwing causes/people. It is hardly bad faith to point this out, nor to attack it.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

        I don’t recall barrages of “Koch!” aimed at individuals the way “Soros!” has been aimed at Bragg, But Republicans are better at “message discipline”.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          I don’t recall barrages of “Koch!” aimed at individuals the way “Soros!” has been aimed at Bragg…

          If you buy enough politicians to get a law passed, then your detractors point at the law. And I have seen barrages of Koch aimed at this.

          If you buy multiple DAs and they do squirrely things, it makes more sense to point to a specific DA in a specific situation because each of them is a one man show.Report

    • InMD in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      The only Adelson bashing I can think of seeing came from people who 10 years ago would be coded left but not particularly loyal to the Democratic party. I can’t recall anyone in particular but it seems like more of a Greenwaldian perspective than something you’d read on, I dunno, Vox.Report

    • Mike Grillo in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      You’re going to rely on pedantry as a defense? So the specific term “Adelson-backed” wasn’t used so it didn’t happen? GTFOH with that nonsense. First of all, there is well over 3,100 Google results of the specific term “Adelson-backed” and if you look at the stories where “donations” “adelson” and “gop” or “Republicans” are search terms, that figure is nearly 600,000.

      One headline and sub, sport:

      Sheldon Adelson’s billions shape US politics as many question his influence
      Casino mogul is sparing no expense to get Romney elected, a win that would benefit his businesses and his bank account

      Ah yes, the JEW wants Romney to win to benefit his businesses and bank account!Report

      • No, I’m going to rely on the fact that no one thought Adelson was a boogeyman that was single-handedly destroying America. I understand the urge to posit Adelson-dislike as equivalent to Soros-hatred, but it’s crap.Report

  6. Pinky says:

    I’ve seen a lot of sneering references to the neocons from the left. It’d be nice to think that they don’t know the term’s association with Jewish thinkers, but then again it often comes up in the context of support for Israel.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: “I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc.” Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side. -Jean Paul Sartre, Ant-Semite and Jew.

    There is a centuries old tradition of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and fear-mongering over Jews being an international cable of rootless cosmopolitans who secretly control the world’s economy. No one really remembers the Rothschilds anymore (and they were more important in Europe than the United States) but the conspiracy used to revolve around them. This anti-Semitic fever dream has never gone away and it needed a new scapegoat. That is Soros.

    Tod Kelly pointed out how you were conflating various issues. I’m Jewish. DeSantis and Gaetz and Tucker and the whole Fox News Cinematic Universe crew know exactly what they are doing when they attack a Manhattan DA for being Soros backed. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      The real big anti-Semites most definitely remember the Rothschilds. You can find anti-Semitic YouTube videos that explicitly mention the Rothschilds on the Internet.Report

  8. Saul Degraw says:

    This is a very good (55 minute) video providing an analysis of anti-Semitism including various troops of Jews controlling world economy and why it is disingenuous to claim the Soros claim is not an anti-Semitic smear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAFbpWVO-owReport

    • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Beyond the anti-Zionism and treating the Arab inhabitants of Israel/Palestine as being more of the real true indigenous inhabitants compared to the Jews no matter how long the Jews lived there.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I watched it. It was a fine essay presenting a position, with quotes from well-known philosophers. However, it relies on critical theory, and I don’t think it would persuade anyone who rejects critical theory. I don’t even think the video’s creator would agree with you that this article is disingenuous.Report

  9. LeeEsq says:

    Most non-Jews and far too many Jews treat anti-Semitism as a sort of abstraction rather than a real form of hatred. Left or Right they like invoking what they perceive as the anti-Semitism of the other side and historical anti-Semitism to get Jews to favor their side but I have this sinking suspicion that many really don’t see it as a big issue because it is a lot more difficult to show how anti-Semitism effects the average Jews than say anti-Black racism effects African-Americans or homophobia and transphobia effects members of the LGBT community. Determining how the fact that tens or hundreds of millions of people still literally believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion across the world and that the number of anti-Semites in the United States probably exceeds the global Jewish population is a lot more difficult. Anti-Semitism doesn’t act in a systematic way and this makes it seem like not real racism too many people. Jews are seen as being too wealthy and privileged for anti-Semitism to be a dangerous thing.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

      I worked with a Jewish guy who told me, just matter of factly, that “Jews can never trust Gentiles.”

      He was being very friendly and meant no harm, but the comment was in the context of him telling me why Jews were so big in the diamond business.
      He said that historically Jews never knew when the next pogrom or purge or riot would erupt and they needed a form of life savings that could fit into an envelope or be sewn into collar as they fled for their lives.

      That no matter how friendly the Gentiles were who visited your shop or how cheerful and accepting the neighbors were, no matter how much a Jew might feel like he belonged and fit in, he didn’t, not really. And they always had to have an exit strategy just in case.

      Now of course, this was just some guy talking. No one voted him to be the spokesman for worldwide Jewry.

      But I heard the same comment in different words from a black guy. That no matter how long you lived somewhere, no matter how much you imagined that you fit in and were just one of the gang, you weren’t because all it would take is a spark, a white woman assaulted by a black man, of for you to raise your voice and lose your temper and suddenly you were one of Those People.

      And I heard it from a woman, that no matter how nice a man was, no matter how much he spewed pieties about respect and morality, no matter how tame and safe he might be, all it would take is a sideways comment, a subtle entendre, and he would be on top of you tearing at your clothes.
      That every single woman has had numerous instances when she felt the need to glance around the room and figure an exit strategy in case things went bad.

      And none of these people made any distinction between liberals and conservatives, religiously observant people or seculars. It didn’t matter how much people talked the talk, people who lived at the top of the social hierarchy could never be trusted to treat the people lower then them with respect as true equals.

      Those of us who live in that top space get very hurt and offended when we aren’t given the benefit of the doubt, when we aren’t afforded presumption of innocence but instead are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.

      But I think it is completely fair to judge us that way.Report

      • Damon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        Hell, I go alone, or particularly with a woman somewhere there are a lot of people, or even in the street in Baltimore, my head’s on swivel and I’m scoping exits to use “in case”. Park in an area that’s not too confined so I can make a “speedy exit”? Yep. That “guy” who’s approaching me quickly? I’m looking at him. Black, white, gay, male, female, it doesn’t matter. After all it was a crazy woman who torched several cars in a nice area of Baltimore a few years ago. I “afford” NO ONE the presumption of innocence until they demonstrate they aren’t a threat.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        But I think it is completely fair to judge us that way.

        It’s a huge jump from “I’m worried because of history and statistics” to “it’s racist to make this argument because it offends me”. The first is caution, the second is a power grab.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

          I’m just saying that if I were Jewish or black or a woman I would start with a resumption of bigotry, and combining that with a political party with a history of bigotry it seems completely reasonable to conclude that DeSantis is using a dogwhistle of bigotry.

          Its not proof. But not an unreasonable conclusion.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Its not proof. But not an unreasonable conclusion.

            Is it? One of the basic corporate cultural habits my company tries to teach is “assume good intentions” because otherwise you get bogged down into seeing what you want to see too easily.

            Look at what DeSantis said and if you really want to see a dog whistle that means “the world wide Jewish conspiracy” then you can.

            The problem is Soros really has given more money than everyone else combined to this level of the political machinery. His people really do have seriously weird ideas by DA standards. The implementation of those ideas has made the negative news multiple times and ways. Effectively he’s done an end run around the various legislative bodies for 20% of the nation (measured by population).

            Him being Jewish has so little to do with what he’s done and whether it’s a bad idea that I had no idea he was, I certainly didn’t get that from DeSantis.

            At the same time, Bragg being one of Soros crew really does mean we should be expecting some seriously weird actions by DA standards. So maybe Bragg charging Jose Alba for murder had something to do with that.

            https://nypost.com/2022/07/09/nyc-bodega-clerk-jose-alba-tried-to-avoid-confrontation-that-led-to-his-arrest-video/Report

          • Damon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            “combining that with a political party with a history of bigotry”

            So, like the Democrats?

            https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/jimcrowReport

            • CJColucci in reply to Damon says:

              Wow, you must be really old to remember those days. How disorienting is it to live in an era where the parties have switched sides?Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        The diamond business is conducted in remarkably informal manner for a modern business because of this. It is all about the trustworthy handshake from a person you know rather than written contracts enforceable by law. With Jews, I think the difference is that most of the Left really does give us the worst of being both the persecuted minority and the majority at the same time. The Jewish past gets invoked a lot on why we should support them but nobody also says that sort of you have to understand because of their history when dealing with the Jews in the way they would with other persecuted groups. In fact if a Jew ever said something like “I can’t trust non-Jews because of the Holocaust”, they would get more dirty looks than understanding at best while an African-American who says “I can’t trust white people because of slavery and Jim Crow” would get knowing nods.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

          I’ve said before that we should regard bigotry the way we think of sin. That is, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny are just variations on bad behavior.

          Currently a lot of people, both liberal and conservative regard bigotry as a bad mindset, either borne of ignorance or miseducation, that can be permanently erased and corrected. People use terms like “consciousness raising” or “enlightenment” or “woke” to portray themselves as having conquered the bad thinking and acheived a superior view of the world.

          The key point in this is that it is sort of like the Protestant idea of a spiritual awakening where one accepts the Lord and is henceforth clean and on the right path.

          I prefer the Catholic version, where bigotry, like sin, is just something we all confront every single day, and very often fail and never, ever reach a clean triumph or irrevocable conclusion.

          In Catholic social justice theory, it isn’t possible to achieve a clear view of what is right and just by oneself, no matter how hard we pray or meditate. Understanding what is right is a collective effort requiring engagement with the group, listening to each other’s ideas, debating, and reaching a consensus view. And even then this is an imperfect process subject to failure.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Not every religion things of sin the same way. This is a very and probably exclusively Christian or even Catholic way of perceiving sin. One big problem with the modern social justice movement is that they adopt everything too heavily from a religious framework. I don’t like it when things like racism or slavery are treated as original sin. I don’t believe in original sin as a religious concept, why would I accept it as a secular concept. The Jewish concept of sin is a lot less metaphysical and more legalistic. God says this is a bad thing, you don’t do it, you aren’t a sinner.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

              For me the important thing is that whether it is called “sin”, or “bigotry” or just “bad unethical behavior”, we don’t get to self-certify our innocence.

              If a bunch of people say “You’re being anti-Semitic/ racist/ badly behaved” it isn’t necessarily proof of our bad behavior, but it should be taken seriously and cause us to pause and reflect and engage honestly with them, instead of trying to litigate our case for innocence.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                This is why it’s so very important to have a bunch of people that will affirm your accusations.

                It’s no longer enough to be one guy pointing out how the speaker is a cis-het white male. You’ve got to be five or six guys yelling it.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If a bunch of people say “You’re being anti-Semitic/ racist/ badly behaved” it isn’t necessarily proof of our bad behavior, but it should be taken seriously and cause us to pause and reflect and engage honestly with them, instead of trying to litigate our case for innocence.

                This mixes poorly with tribal power grabs.

                For example, “racist” is often redefined to mean “preventing Blue from getting what they want”. Then it’s “racist” to disagree with looking at someone’s skin color before judging whether they should be able to go to college (or prison).Report

              • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I slightly disagree with this. If I’m accused of something, I’ll examine myself. If I find a fault, or a potential fault, I’ll keep on my toes about it. But obviously if you’ve reviewed an idea or action from all sides and find that the accusation doesn’t apply, then you’re not obligated to reconsider it every time it’s made.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            I view “sin” as fictional.

            It’s a creation by the church as a power grab. They get to tell you when you have it and what you need to do to get rid of it.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            LeeEsq and Dark Matter, I think you’re getting sidetracked by the word “sin”. Replace the idea with human weakness, or unevolved nature, or whatever. The idea being communicated here isn’t sin per se, but an inclination to do wrong. It’s the idea that our gut responses aren’t typically going to be the best thing for humanity, and it takes a lifetime of work to make one’s will more inclined toward reason.Report

            • Regina in reply to Pinky says:

              I’d be a lot happier with this statement if it wasn’t accompanied by lots of “reliant on Authority” folks trying to tell me that I can’t read a research study and evaluate it based on my own faculties and reason.

              50% suicidal ideation is not “healthy and normal.” Drugging children and having them still at 50% suicidal ideation is worse than “healthy”Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky says:

              I am fine with the idea that bigotry is a bad thing, a bad idea, and a bad behavior. I agree with all that.

              I disagree with the idea that I’m supposed to struggle with it every day as I sit in my cube interacting with mathematical constructs.

              I strongly disagree with the idea that self-interested self-serving “experts” will tell me what I need to do to “purify” myself of this character flaw (although only for a short period of time). My strong expectation is their advise is self-interested and self-serving.

              If someone can tell me that I’m treating people differently cause of their race, then I will work to correct that. What I’m likely to hear is nothing close to that.

              It’s a great thing that racism in our society needs to be changed into a fictional concept (“sin”) that we can’t point to and which exists to let the priestly class push people around. It says very good things about how far we’ve come.

              The goal posts need to moved that far in order to make racism exist, and thus the activists relevant, because they mostly can’t point to things that are real.Report

        • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq says:

          I think on the right side of the aisle, either statement would get disregarded. And I don’t think disregarding them is wrong, either. But it could lead to people on the right underestimating the danger of anti-Semitism.Report

  10. LeeEsq says:

    I watched the Tetris movie last night and it is somewhat relevant to this discussion. Two of the antagonists in the Tetris movie, Robert Maxwell, yes Ghisaline’s dad, and Robert Stern, are Jews and act in ways that really fit anti-Semitic tropes about the corrupt Jewish businessman. This was especially true compared to the more heroic businessman tactics of the protagonists. The actors playing Maxwell and Stein were made to be as physically unattractive as the two were in real life while everybody else in the movie got a looks upgrade to Hollywood standards. While the movie didn’t mark Maxwell and Stein as Jewish, it doesn’t take much to realize this. So the movie came across as kind of anti-Semitic even though that was probably unintentional.

    In many movies with a minority antagonist that behave in bad ways, especially if stereotypical with the minority, the movie makes some pains to show that this behavior is caused by historic mistreatment and systematic racism or homophobia or sexism. This is not the case in Jews. Movies were Jewish characters behave in ways that conform to anti-Semitic stereotypes are just presumed to be bad because they are bad. No because of the pressures of anti-Semitism, they had to developed a rat in the corner attitude towards life.Report

  11. CJColucci says:

    Direct criticism of George Soros, or Sheldon Adelson, for what they choose to spend their political money on is not necessarily, and, indeed, not usually, anti-semitic, though it could be. It’s usually possible to spot the dog-whistle stuff when it is. If you want to rail at Soros for funding progressive prosecutors or at Adelson for funding the plain-vanilla rich guy agenda, with some chocolate sprinkles relating to the gambling industry, you probably won’t be called out as anti-semitic, you’re likely in the clear.
    You can also criticize progressive prosecutors directly without being accused of anti-semitism. But when you throw Soros into the process, you put the focus not on the progressive prosecutors, but on their campaign contributors, which suggests that your point is not, simply, that progressive prosecutors have bad priorities, but that they are beholden in some way to an individual person, George Soros, which is, for some reason, supposed to be bad. And when you do that you open up natural lines of inquiry.
    Let’s take a concrete example. I do not know if Ron DeSanctimonious is an anti-semite and I make no accusations, but he very much needs the votes of anti-semites even if he himself is not one and, indeed, even if he despises them. He is also not notably stupid and surely knows that yelling “Soros” is catnip to anti-semites and benefits him politically among voters he needs. So when he does it in a context where it is not necessary, you are entitled to wonder why. And to draw conclusions.Report

  12. Saul Degraw says:

    Non-Jews debate whether something is anti-Semitic or not. Ignore the Jews on this thread. Intriguing!Report

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      We don’t know the background of anyone on this thread except your and your brother, so you shouldn’t make that assumption. I’ve thought your opinion on the subject was garbage before this thread, but I did watch the video you suggested. And I found Lee’s 12:31 comment pretty interesting.

      But, beyond that, if I were analyzing what Jews thought of non-Jews, or blacks of whites, or whites of blacks, I’d draw from the people I was trying to analyze.Report

  13. DensityDuck says:

    “Can We Stop With The Anti-Semitism Nonsense About George Soros?”

    We’re not anti-semitic, we’re anti-Sorosionist.Report

  14. Dave says:

    I’m old too. I’m old enough to remember Lee Atwater and the Willie Horton ad. I’m also familiar enough with the work of Sam Francis to know why Atwater was so effective.

    And if I’m smart enough to recognize the parallels between Willie Horton and this weird need to defend criticisms of Soros that aren’t even being framed as criticisms of Soros (Soros-backed prosecutor does not qualify), then I’m sure the rest of you can as well since I’m an idiot.

    Think of it as understanding “brand value”.

    EDIT – Oh, and for the record, since I think “Koch-backed” is a brain dead statement, even if I concede that “Soros-backed DA” is not in of itself anti-semitic, all anyone wins from me is me referring to them as an idiot instead of anti-semite.

    Classic example of a winner’s curse if there ever was one.Report