In America today, you usually don’t see overt public antisemitism. You do see some on the internet though, where people can be anonymous.
Rabbi David Nesenoff interviewed veteran journalist Helen Thomas who let slip her opinion that the Jews should leave Israel and go back to Germany and Poland.
I found out the news that Helen Thomas died when I received an e-mail from someone who wrote: “Happy now Kike?” He called me a “nasty filthy and smelly Jew …one of the ones Hitler missed.” I assume Helen Thomas was also his role model.
Should we allow such “hate speech?” I would say yes.
David Horowitz, a former leftist, says: “Free speech – which is precisely the freedom to speak what is hateful to others – is our most sacred right.” In an internet article “The Totalitarians Among us”, he talks about attacks on that right. (see “sources” below)
Nonie Darwish, herself brought up as a Muslim, says that in her youth in Egypt, the words to shut off debate were “you are an apostate”. In the USA she says “political correctness” is used to shut off debate.
We do have “hate crime” laws, which make it a separate kind of crime if you kill someone due to “hate” rather than – say – for his wallet. This is a mistake. Any group can become exempt from criticism by accusing the critic of “hate”.
But back to the main topic of freedom: In the United States, we had slavery, which is an infringement of the right to go where you want, choose the job that you want, have the right to leave that job, and get paid for that job. In fact, slavery exists still in the U.S. though it is of course illegal.
There are at least 50,000 slaves currently in the U.S. (see sources).
Every country seems to have Marxists, and some have racial supremacists. History shows neither ideology puts a value on freedom. Also, I have read the arguments of Muslim clerics saying that Democracy and Islam are incompatible. (Islam is our fastest growing religion).
Freedom requires restraint. One example that I remember reading was of a man who trained his dog not to beg for food at the table. The dog has freedom to go into the dining room while his family eats, or guests are present, because he has learned to restrain himself. What goes for dogs in this case, goes for people.
If you eat snacks all the time, chances are you will not be able to hike up that beautiful mountain. Or be selected for the Miss America pageant. Or if you want to be governor of New York, but can’t keep from soliciting prostitutes (as one recent governor did), then you end up in disgrace and out of office. Life is full of trade-offs.
Many Americans want ‘free stuff’ from the government, and view it as only justice or compassion to get it. But there is a price there too. Such as a stagnant economy and a national debt so huge that there may come a time when the welfare checks stop coming, or if they keep coming, they will be able to purchase nothing.
I’ll talk about my personal experience here, and it has to do with freedom, but it also involves a criminal conspiracy, so first let me point out the downside of conspiracy theories:
People who believe in conspiracy theories can be dangerous. For example, terror experts say that extremist U.S. literature (from the right, I assume) and also extreme Islamist readings (from Jihadists) both suggest wide-ranging plots by the U.S. and Israeli governments, and that time is running out before an “intended apocalypse” and heroes must act before it is too late.
A man named Donald Larking started believing conspiracy theories after being shot in the face in a robbery. According to a relative interviewed by the WSJ, he was brain-damaged by that bullet. Larking shared the extremist right-wing papers he subscribed to with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the young Jihadist who, with his brother, planted explosives in the Boston Marathon of 2013.
It’s interesting that brain-damage can cause you to believe in conspiracy theories (in the case of Larking), and its also interesting that there is a mental similarity between Tamerlan, who blew up the marathon, and Timothy McVeigh, an anti-government conspiracy theorist who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma city. Oddly enough, McVeigh thought he was striking a blow for freedom, as he deprived men, women, and children of their right to live. He also thought of his strike as revenge against violence by the U.S. government (for instance for the Ruby Ridge incident). Tamerlan Tsarnaev thought he was avenging violence against Muslims, though there may have been more to his motives, such as the doctrine of Jihad, etc.
I also notice that at least one conspiracy theorist in Hungary blames U.S. Jewish investors for messing up Hungary, and I read a letter from a Swedish woman blaming Obama’s “New World Order” for the problems that supremacist Muslim immigrants have brought to Sweden. There is an odd tendency to latch on to America, or in some cases America’s Jews, as a source of locally caused problems.
So here is my personal conspiracy theory.
I claim I was told that I would be “annihilated” (by a young black man), and indeed, I claim a group of people (of all races) set about to do just that. But they did it in a way so as to be beneath the radar of police.
They used drugs.
Not cocaine and marijuana. That is not what I mean. I’m talking drugs that affect well-being and behavior. If you look at the Physician’s Desk Reference, for example, you will see a huge variety of drugs, with a bewildering number of side-effects, many of these side-effects are quite strange and harmful. And these are drugs that are meant to cure. What would happen if a bad organization or country researched drugs to do harm?
There are also many drugs that were invented to cure malfunctions of the brain, again, they are intended to do good. But what if some bad organization or country researched drugs to alter the brain’s activity in an adverse way – perhaps a drug that affects our urges, or disorients a person, or whatever else you can think of?
Well, to make a long story short, based on my experiences, I believe this has happened.
Now what does this have to do with rights? Well imagine a group of criminal vigilantes of some sort, who gain access to a technology that lets them make people sick, or even change people’s behavior. Imagine that these same vigilantes realize that drugs are chemicals, and like other chemicals can be absorbed through breathing, through touching a surface, through eating and drinking. A victim could not escape. He could be attacked, and not know when and where.
So now these vigilantes look around them, and find people who they don’t like, for whatever reason.
So these vigilantes spring into action. They use methods most people would disapprove of. Are they trampling on basic rights? I would think so.
Remember, you read it here first. There are two parts to this technology: first: the drugs themselves and secondly, the means of delivering them. Think of one simple drug – a drug that puts you in a daze – such as “Rohypnol”. Imagine that such a drug can be sprayed as an aerosol. This may be a big logical step, but we know that some chemicals can be sprayed across entire battlefields and kill and maim thousands of people. These chemicals can be colorless and odorless, but they are effective just the same. If that’s the case, can you be sure I’m stretching things by saying that some chemicals can be sprayed from close quarters? A drug that puts you in a daze could be useful in several instances, for instance, in getting hold of your keys and copying them without you ever knowing they were temporarily missing, etc.
If criminals would deprive you of your property, and perhaps your life, both of which can be seen as “rights”, they can also have no qualms about using drugs that affect your “brain”, which some believe is the source of who you are. Your drives and your emotions, can be tampered with. This is a new type of assault of freedom. If you search the internet, (or read medical books on drugs) you see that it’s all technically possible. The only part I haven’t seen information on is what the requirements are for making a drug into an aerosol – apart from some anti-allergy drugs, I can’t find information on that. But there are drugs that affect your urges (You can Google for example “Bremelanotide”), there are reports of countries researching drugs to do harm (see ‘Biohazard’ in sources below), and of course there is my first-hand report, which is based on subjective evidence, of course, but overwhelming subjective evidence – I had to be dragged unwillingly by events before I could bring myself to believe it).
I talked about “restraint” earlier. Your freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins. A criminal, and often an ideologue will shrug off restraints that interfere with their goals, and will interfere with another person’s freedom.
Larking and Tsarnaev – Wall Street Journal of August 6, 2013
Biohazard – by Ken Alibek (1998) – why I include it:
Col. Dr. Kanatjan Alibekov (aka Ken Alibek), was deputy director of Biopreparat, a large Soviet biological warfare development program prior to his defection in 1992. His information in his memoirs, Biohazard, describes a top secret, covert KGB development program, code-named Fleta (Flute). He learned about the project but could not penetrate it because of its extreme secrecy. Nevertheless, he was able to learn enough to establish its mission: the development of psycho-active drugs and neurotoxins to “alter personalities and modify human behavior.”)
Totalitarians Among Us – by David Horowitz – http://frontpagemag.com/2009/david-horowitz/the-totalitarians-among-us/
The Slave Next Door – by Kevin Bales and Ron Soodalter