Reaction to the Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting in Pittsburgh

Table of Contents

1. What Happened
2. Why the Shooter Did What He Did
3. The Politics Behind the Shooter's Motivations

4. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 1: White-on-Black Violence, and Guns in Church

5. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 2: Christian-on-Muslim Violence

6. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 3: Israeli-on-Arab Violence

7. My Outward Reaction to the Shooting

8. Explanation of My Outward Reaction

9. People's Reactions to My Statements, and My Response
10. Insensitive Israeli Reactions to the Shooting
11. Post-Script

Content

1. What Happened

     On the morning of Saturday, October 27^th, 2018, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a gunman's fire interrupted Shabbat morning services at Tree of Life, a Jewish synagogue also known as l'Simcha (Hebrew for “gladness” or “joy”). The gunman shot 18 people, killing 11 of them, and injuring seven, including a police officer. Three handguns and a rifle were found at the scene of the shooting.

     The gunman was later identified as Robert Bowers, a 46-year-old white man. Bowers was subsequently charged with 11 counts of using a firearm to commit murder, and multiple counts of hate crimes based on religion; a total of 29 charges.

2. Why the Shooter Did What He Did

     Bowers's posts on his account with the social media site GAB.ai show complaints about supposed Jewish infiltration of the United States and its government. His posts indicate that he believes that Donald Trump's devotion to nationalism, and to keeping immigrants out, has been compromised by “kikes” (an ethnic slur used against Jewish people).

     One of Bowers's targets was H.I.A.S., the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (pronounced “HEE-yuss”). H.I.A.S. was founded in 1881 to aid Jewish refugees fleeing Russian pogroms. H.I.A.S. now aids refugees of all backgrounds. Bowers posted “HIAS likes to bring invaders that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in.”

     Bowers apparently chose Tree of Life as his target because it belongs to a group of synagogues which coordinates with H.I.A.S.. Bowers has described H.I.A.S. as bringing in “hostile invaders to dwell among us”. He also complained on social media, “It's the filthy EVIL Jews Bringing the Filthy EVIL Muslims into the Country!!”

     Bowers evidently carried out his crime because he believes that Tree of Life, H.I.A.S., one of H.I.A.S.'s projects called National Refugee Shabbat, and other groups, are part of an extensive conspiracy between Jewish-Americans and refugees, to assist en masse illegal entry into the United States.

     I hope that what I have stated above accurately and sufficiently reflects Bowers's set of reasons and motivations for committing the 29 crimes with which he has been charged. I do not intend this list of reasons to be anything other than an M.O. (modus operandi); an explanation – not an excuse, nor a rationalization – of why the shooter did what he did.

3. The Politics Behind the Shooter's Motivations

     The Tree of Life shooting came after months of reports, especially by Fox News, about the “migrant caravan”; a group of people mostly from Honduras, whom are attempting to migrate to the United States. Many American conservatives believe that billionaire financier and Hungarian Jewish immigrant to the United States George Soros, and other wealthy liberals, are funding the caravan.

     Conservative and nationalist media pundits across the board have labeled members of this caravan as “hordes” of “invaders”, mostly made up of military-age men, with few women or children. I personally believe this to be nothing but fear-mongering, and that the right is doing this because it desperately needs an excuse to use military force within our borders. Some of them even want to see undocumented immigrants get shot for the mere crimes of illegal entry and rock-throwing, and their president is promising them that show.

     Due to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, there is a limit on the president's ability to use U.S. military troops within the borders of the United States; that is, unless there is a military-level threat to our country and our borders. It seems that Trump's supporters are willing to cast any group or nationality they don't like, as providing aid and comfort to America's enemies, and as providing substantial support to terrorist groups, in order to boost their claim that such a military-level threat really exists.

     Right-wingers seem to want people to think that al-Qaeda and I.S.I.S. are hiding behind every immigrant in that caravan, because they want to see a bloodbath at the border, performed legally by our boys in blue, with Donald Trump at lead command. Some seem to suspect that every single undocumented immigrant is potentially violent, and/or a foreign spy.

     I find it shameful to see such an obvious resurgence of ultra-nationalism and aversion to people not born here, and just as shameful to see people deny it and make excuses for it.

4. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 1: White-on-Black Violence, and Guns in Church

     I cannot say that I was shocked to hear that 11 Jewish people had been shot at a synagogue. Appalled and horrified, yes; but not shocked, not surprised.

     My inner immediate reaction to the shooting was, first, “This is just like the black church in Charleston that got shot up three summers ago”. For those who don't remember, white racist Dylann Roof shot nine African-American church attendees to death in June 2015 at Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

     My second thought after the shooting was, “This kind of violence happens in the Middle East every day.” I apologize if this seems insensitive, but I live near Chicago, which sees some 500 murders a year. Eleven murders is a Fourth of July weekend for someone in Chicago. I say this not to trivialize or normalize the violence; I am merely stating a cold, hard fact: America's major cities are violent places, and pretending that they are not will only lull us into a false sense of security. I do not mean to be opportunistic by using this shooting to bash gun control, and I know it is ironic to call for more guns when people have just been shot, but I believe that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

     I saw it reported that the synagogue was a gun-free zone. It may seem paradoxical, but as a private security guard who works unarmed in a gun-free zone, I find gun bans quite difficult to enforce without the use of guns. Fortunately, people have begun to understand that. In response to a shooting at a black church on November 12^th – at First Baptist Church of Jeffersontown in Kentucky – the church has begun to allow select people to be armed, and they have made this fact known to the public. I for one am glad that the church has undertaken this step to attempt to protect their parishioners, and I hope to see more of this.

     I hope there will be no gun accidents at churches as a result of this, wherein people lose control of their guns. I would hate to see such an event used to justify prohibiting churches from deciding who can have guns on their property and when. As unlikely that that may seem, the pro-gun-control lobby is very powerful, and the N.R.A. doesn't protect gun rights as much as we'd like to think (especially not the gun rights of minorities). I hope that more pro-gun African-Americans understand what it means that Martin Luther King was denied a concealed carry permit by his racist government before he was shot to death.

5. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 2: Christian-on-Muslim Violence

     Another one of my initial reactions to the synagogue shooting was that I recalled an incident from several years ago, in which someone vandalized an Islamic mosque by leaving bacon or pork on its doorstep or door handles. Upon further investigation, I found that there were several incidents wherein white Americans vandalized mosques with pork; one in 2016 and the other in 2017. In January 2016, Michael Wolfe broke into the Islamic Society of Florida Masjid al-Munin Mosque in Titusville, and left a slab of raw bacon behind. On January 22^nd, 2017, Laurel Kirk-Coehlo wrapped pork around the door handle of the Davis Islamic Center in Davis, California. Both Wolfe and Kirk-Coehlo caused additional property damage to the mosques, and were subsequently charged with hate crimes.

     The reason why the synagogue shooting made me remember the use of pork in vandalism against mosques, is that I know that both Jewish and Islamic dietary laws forbid the eating of pork. I knew people vandalized mosques with pork because they want to offend Muslims' religious ideals, and horrify them by damaging their property with the body of a dead animal.

     The only thing I didn't understand was “When is someone going to vandalize a synagogue with pork?” I say this out of concern; I suspected that somewhere, maybe there is somebody out there who hates both Jewish people and Muslims, who would want to offend and horrify both of them by defacing their places of worship with pork.

     A while after hearing of the bacon attacks, my mindset about race in America went like this: “It seems perfectly acceptable in this country right now to hate all Muslims, Hispanics, and immigrants. I can't believe there is not more violence against Jewish people.” To be perfectly honest, I saw those acts of vandalism against the mosques, and I thought that if someone did eventually decide to leave pork out in front of a synagogue, at least people would remember that there are dangerous people out there who hate Jewish people for no reason, without anybody getting shot to death.

     This was a fleeting thought, which I at no point took seriously, nor made any plans to carry out. All I ask is that my readers ask themselves this: If earlier this year, someone had broken into a synagogue, smashed its windows, killed nobody, and left a pile of bacon behind, wouldn't fewer Jewish-Americans be calling for increased restrictions against the arrival of new immigrants? I believe that lives are on the line when it comes to immigration; the U.S. is rigging elections and sponsoring coups overseas, they are coming here, and we are drastically under-filling our immigration quotas from dangerous countries. I would like to see thousand-fold increases in the number of immigrants coming to America from Syria, for example.

     Robert Bowers hates both Jewish people and Muslims. He believes that “filthy evil Jews are bringing filthy evil Muslims into the country”. But he chose to kill Jewish people at a synagogue, instead of defacing a synagogue with pork, or defacing a mosque with pork, or killing Muslims at a mosque. That is why we should ask why Bowers chose to harm Jewish people instead of Muslims.

     Some might suggest that he is an “equal-opportunity racist” who “hates everybody equally”, a thoughtless sentiment echoed by comedians such as Carlos Mencia, and parroted by their fans. Bowers certainly believes that both Muslims and Jews are “filthy” and “evil”. But it would be foolish to say he's not a white supremacist, so we can only conclude that he believes white people to be superior to Muslims and Jews. To call this man anything less than a domestic terrorist who thinks himself a warrior in a fight against all things white and non-Christian – and perhaps even a fascist or Nazi sympathizer - would be an outright lie.

6. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 3: Israeli-on-Arab Violence

     Aside from thinking about Charleston, the amount of violence elsewhere, the issue of whether to allow guns in church, and the bacon vandalism incidents, the last thought I remember having after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was “The State of Israel just bombed the Gaza Strip a week ago, and I didn't share it on Facebook because I thought it would be perceived as anti-Jewish because it's critical of Israel.”

     On October 17^th – ten days before the synagogue shooting - the I.D.F. (Israeli Defense Forces) bombed the Gaza Strip, six days after Israelis shot six Gaza residents in response to 14,000 Gazan protesters in coming to the heavily fortified Israel-Gaza border. On October 20^th, I found out that there had been some clashes in Gaza. The State of Israel was looking aggressive and in-the-wrong in the news.

     At the time, I believed that there existed a realistic possibility that Jewish people would be targeted for violence somewhere in the world, as a response to those actions in Gaza, by someone who believes all Jewish people are citizens and agents of the State of Israel, and wants to use that idea to justify killing Jewish people. I suspected that attacks on Jewish people would increase because in mid-2018, I found out about Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro.

     Yaakov Shapiro is a Hasidic rabbi, an author, and a contributor to the YouTube channel “True Torah Jews”. In one lecture, entitled “Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism?”, Rabbi Shapiro stated that it is a statistically proven fact that when the State of Israel is having conflicts with other nations, on average, attacks on Jewish people increase around the world. He did not cite his source for that fact during that lecture, but he did say that several years ago in Mexico, Jewish people were attacked following an uptick in Israeli violence.

     Those claims would certainly make sense if they turned out to be true; I was unfortunately unable to corroborate them. But I believe that if Jewish people worldwide do get attacked more on average when Israel is at war, then it is because many people believe that all Jewish people condone the actions of the State of Israel, even the occupation of the West Bank (in violation of a United Nations resolution).

     The State of Israel's founding document, the Basic Law, defines itself as “a Jewish and democratic state”. Precisely what constitutes a “Jewish state” was left up to the citizens of the State of Israel to decide. Shapiro has explained that the State of Israel works very hard to convince the people of the world that the State of Israel is a representative – or even the representative – of all Jewish people. In his videos for True Torah Jews, he has stated that “Israel gets Jews into hot water all over the world”.

It is regrettable to admit this, but I fear that Israel is trying too hard to present a unified face for all 15 million of the world's Jews. I understand that it would make no sense to show a divided Israel to the world, or to show the world that the Jewish people are fragmented, because that would make Israel and Jewish people look weak to the world.

     But I also believe that there are many peace-loving Jewish people, many of them on the political left, who want to criticize the occupation of the West Bank and the bombings of the Gaza Strip, but are afraid to do so because they are afraid to be shouted-down as “Israel-hating Jews”, “self-hating Jews”, or even “anti-Semitic Jews” who don't want a strong Israel, and are careless about the safety of Jewish people. For the State of Israel to pretend to speak with one voice, seemingly on behalf of all Jewish people, offends Rabbi Shapiro as a Jew, and personally, it frightens me as a person who values individual rights and doubts the value of having too strong or domineering a government.

     I am not trying to imply that Robert Bowers saw some news that made the State of Israel look bad, and immediately used that, and solely that, to justify killing Jewish people. But more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the occupation of Palestine is wrong. Many people wrongly blame Jewish people and Judaism for the occupation of Palestine, and do not differentiate between a Jew and an Israeli. Some people out there want to punish all Jews for Israel's crimes.

     I know that what I have just described might seem like it better fits the profile of a Muslim who hates Jewish people and opposes the occupation, but a white supremacist does not have to love Muslims or oppose the occupation to see Israel getting away with war crimes, and conclude from that fact that “the Jews are getting special treatment”, and then decide to go out and kill Jews, with that as one of the many reasons why he hates Jewish people.

     On the other hand, though, it's entirely possible that Bowers would look at Israeli actions in Gaza and support it, because his enemies “the filthy evil Jews” and “the filthy evil Muslims” are destroying each other. It's also possible that he sees Israel bombing Gaza, and cheers it on for ruining its own reputation, while also killing a few “evil Muslims” in the process. I believe that this is roughly the position of “alt-Right” Nazi sympathizer Richard Spencer, the white American who promotes the occupation of Palestine as part of his ideal vision for a Jewish ultra-nationalist society.

     I apologize for conjecturing as to what Robert Bowers's opinion of the Israel-Palestine conflict is; I know it may seem like an opportunistic attempt to blame Israel for the shootings, and bring Israel into the discussion when nothing in the reporting of the shooting indicated a hatred for the State of Israel or an opposition to its actions. But it is a fact that some people who commit acts of violence against Jewish people do commit those crimes out of a desire to get revenge for acts of violence Israel has committed, and even make their motivation known to their victims.

     A survey taken in spring 2016, among undergraduate students at 50 U.S. university campuses, revealed that “the high rates of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility at these campuses 'are largely driven by hostility toward Israel”. That same Brandeis University survey – titled “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses” – also revealed that 20% of students reported “being blamed for Israel's actions because they are Jewish”, and that one-third of respondents reported witnessing “some form of anti-Semitic harassment, often Israel related.”

     It would be careless to fail to ask whether, if the Israel-Palestine conflict had been solved years ago, there would be as much hatred of Jewish people and anti-Jewish violence (based on the idea that the State of Israel represents all Jewish people). It would also be careless to fail to ask whether, if the State of Israel did not draft half of its citizens into its armed forces, fewer people would suspect every person who had ever lived in Israel of being an agent of its government.

     I would never accuse the State of Israel of welcoming acts of violence against Israelis, nor of provoking acts of violence against Jewish people around the world, nor of putting Jewish people at risk by staging fake so-called “false flag” attacks. And there is nothing I would say about the State of Israel that I would not also say about my own government, that of the United States of America.

     But in my opinion, the State of Israel is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, by making its own reputation worse, when it lashes out against its enemies with disproportionate force. Jewish scholars who criticize Israel's violent and illegal actions, such as Dr. Noam Chomsky and former University of Chicago professor Norman Finkelstein, have identified the State of Israel's actions as tantamount to what Nazis did to Jewish people during the Holocaust, have attempted to make their voices heard on the matter, to very vocal criticism, and their careers have greatly suffered because of it. And understandably so; it would be easy to confuse cautioning people about the Holocaust with trivializing the Holocaust by comparing a less deadly event to it (before it becomes that deadly).

     Since 2006, I have been aware of a group of Hasidic Jewish activists called Neturei Karta, which criticizes both the occupation of Palestine, and the very idea of a Jewish political sovereignty. I have tried, for the last twelve years, to make it known that not all Jewish people support the State of Israel and the occupation of Palestine. My hope in doing so has been to help non-Jewish people understand that not only are most Jewish people peace-loving, and horrified by the occupation and by Israel's wars, but also that many of the core ideals of the Jewish religion itself are profoundly antithetical to many of the things that the Israeli government, armed forces, and police are currently doing.

     I know that it may seem anti-Semitic to list the crimes of Israel, but the State of Israel has undeclared nuclear weapons, it drafts into its army young people who want to study the Torah, and racial discrimination and harassment are prevalent in Israel's immigration, security, and travel practices. Arabs, white Christians, peace-loving Jewish people, and secular atheists alike, all see these practices, and are horrified to see them being done in the name of the Jewish religion. With the symbol of the Jewish religion, the Star of David, emblazoned on the flags and war planes of the people raining fire down onto people.

     I can only imagine how it must feel to be Jewish while Israel is at war. Imagine this: Israel - a country across an entire ocean - attacks someone, and all of a sudden Jewish people around the world are liable to be asked whether they know why Israel did that, and whether they know anyone who was involved, and whether they condone it.
     I would hate to find out that most Jewish people feel pressured or obligated to make excuses for Israel's actions. But I also have to admit that Israel is doing very little to make Jewish people feel comfortable criticizing the state without being labeled “self-hating Jews”. Some staunch supporters of Israel even stoop to saying "All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic." I believe that to repeat such a thing is to intentionally confuse the difference between Israeli nationalism in Palestine, and the Jewish religion which is termed Judaism. The effect is that peace-loving, Judaism-loving critics of the occupation of Palestine can be more effectively and efficiently silenced as anti-Semites. In my opinion, generally, the Jewish religion is peaceful, while the current administration governing the nation of Israel is not.

     I would like to see all Jewish people around the world feel free to criticize whichever of Israel's actions they personally morally object to. I do not want any Jewish person to feel like they either have to excuse or disown Israel's crimes, and I think it would not hurt Israel or its image one bit to allow people to criticize its violent and illegal actions, and even demand answers and accountability for those crimes.

     Some may claim that by saying this, I am promulgating the idea that all Jewish people think alike and support Israel, or that I am saying “the Jews need to keep their own people in line”; but I am not. I am simply expressing my hope that all Jewish people - of all political, religious, and ethnic backgrounds – feel comfortable speaking their minds on the subjects of Judaism, the State of Israel and its policies, the occupation of Palestine, and the safety of the Jewish people.

     I am genuinely concerned that the State of Israel will not admit that it has nuclear weapons, and it concerns me that Israel won't sign a treaty to promise not to sell nuclear weapons to other countries. I am concerned about its draft; its racist security and travel policies; and the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights in defiance of a United Nations resolution. Israel's recent “nation state law” makes me concerned that Israel is planning to make moves to completely ban all Arabs and Muslims from the country.

     I hope that my readers will understand that if my criticism of the State of Israel is harsh, it is not directed at Jewish people, nor the Jewish religion. I also hope that these thoughts will help explain my reaction to the Tree of Life shooting on social media.

7. My Outward Reaction to the Shooting

     The day after the Tree of Life shooting - on October 28^th, 2018 – I posted the following on my Facebook wall:

     “I guess the Zionists' plan to put Palestinians and undocumented immigrants into internment camps before too many people start hating the Jews[,] and demanding that they be killed too[,] isn't working out so well, is it[?]”

     Needless to say, many of my Facebook friends were upset by the callousness and insensitivity of this statement, as well as the timing. Although I did not mean it as a joke, I did mean it sarcastically, and I understand why my statement upset people.

     At the time when I said this, I was sick of seeing white people attack religious communities – black churches, mosques, synagogues – and I could barely mask my total lack of shock that someone had murdered 11 Jewish people at a synagogue. It's not that I didn't have the sympathy to mourn the dead at that time; I simply didn't have the energy to do so.

     I have seen friends die recently, and many young people in this country are seeing a lot of their friends die of opiate overdoses. That, and news of celebrities dying, and our childhood heroes getting accused of heinous acts, have all served to completely drain me of the ability to feel any more sadness this year. This country is slowly turning into a war-zone, the war might be a race war, and I do not have time to mourn the dead in the middle of what I see to be a battlefield.

     I want people to understand that we are in a race war zone, and that Jews, Muslims, immigrants, homeless people, non-whites, and the L.G.B.T.Q. community, should all consider arming themselves; because their police and governments have been overtaken by fascist sympathizers, want to restrict vulnerable people's abilities to use guns to defend themselves, and maybe even want many of them dead.

     I admit that I said what I said in order to deliberately arouse anger. Unfortunately that backfired, and people got angry at me, instead of getting angry at those who normalize hatred of foreigners because they are foreigners, even if the people doing the race-baiting are Jewish.

     I don't even feel comfortable calling Jewish racists “Jewish”, because I believe that people who commit violent acts, and promote hatred on the basis of race or religion or national origin, have no religion. But if the few Jewish people who are racist want to call themselves Jewish while espousing racist and fascist viewpoints, I also have no right to try to infringe on their freedom of speech. That's why I state my open disagreement with them, and that's why I use it to explain how their open espousal of racist viewpoints is making racists feel comfortable to espouse their racist ideas about Jewish people, and act on it.

8. Explanation of My Outward Reaction

     I apologize to anyone whose feelings I hurt by making this statement. I see creeping Nazism in this country, and I am trying to call it like I see it. I know that it will be difficult to do so without inciting a sort of stampede. But a focused stampede, with a clear and direct target (racists), is what I intend to incite.

     I would also like to add that I did not use the term “concentration camps” simply for comic effect; I know that mentioning Jews being put in concentration camps is an upsetting thought, but it is not impossible to imagine, and the possibility of it concerns me, so I mentioned it.

     I used the term “concentration camps” because I agree with Dr. Noam Chomsky's characterization of the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza as that of an “open-air concentration camp”. Also, because I believe that President Trump's “family detention centers” for undocumented immigrants are the closest thing we have in America to concentration camps. Especially if there are any such sites that are secret, or are working people to death.

     I also apologize for not making my statement clear enough.

     The essence of my statement was that 1) fervent supporters of the State of Israel (which I termed “Zionists”) have put the people of Palestine into an open-air concentration camp, 2) that there exist Jewish supremacists in America who want to encourage people to hate and fear Hispanics and undocumented immigrants, and 3) that those Jewish supremacists were incorrect to predict that they could bash Arabs forever, and that it would never make any racist think “It's OK to be racist now”, and shoot some Jewish people.

     As I stated above, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting did not shock me. It upset and horrified me, but all I wondered was why it didn't happen sooner, when it's perfectly acceptable to be racist against everyone besides Jewish people. It's even acceptable to be racist to Jewish people, though, if you promote a Jewish stereotype in the context of a comedy show, such as Family Guy or South Park.

     We should ask ourselves, why is it more acceptable in so many places in America to openly make a joke about “Jews having all the money”, than it is to speak critically about the occupation of Palestine? Could you even imagine a TV show trying to get away with making a joke about the occupation? Even if the joke avoided criticizing Jewish people and the Jewish religion, some people who strongly support Israel would likely try to find a way to try to describe the joke as anti-Semitic, and claim that a hate crime has occurred.

     Discouraging people to talk about the State of Israel might seem like a great way to quiet criticism of Jewish people, but in my opinion, what it does, is make Jewish people afraid to talk about the State of Israel, in addition to everybody else. If Jewish people do not talk about Israel, and feel free to criticize it, then the State of Israel will remain the belligerent nation it is today, on the brink of nativism and racial supremacy, and peace-loving Jews around the world will not be believed when they say “that nation does not represent my interest, and does not speak for all Jews.”

9. People's Reactions to My Statements, and My Response

     I understand why people were upset by what I said. I was told by one friend that I was “conflating people of Jewish ancestry with Zionism”, and “implying that Jewish people all think alike and think about their tribe to the exclusion and detriment of others is EXACTLY what anti-Semitism has always consisted of.”

    However, I hope that my previous comments have made it perfectly clear that I have known for twelve years that not all Jewish people support Israel's actions, which should go to show that I am very aware that not all Jewish people agree on everything. I know there are various sects and movements within Judaism, and political parties in the State of Israel, and that the State of Israel is an extremely diverse place, in terms of politics, religion, and race. I hope it stays that way.

     Another friend of mine who saw my post said “The congregation were victims of a terrible tragedy and your first thought is about how they had it coming... this is simply a tragedy to which the only response is empathy”.

     I never intended to suggest that the 11 Jewish people who got shot to death at their morning prayers had it coming. What I said was that Jewish racists – not the victims – are among those trying to make people feel comfortable to express their racism, and that this is one of the consequences.

    My friend was correct to point out that empathy is an appropriate response to the shooting, and that I was not thinking about whether what I said was in good taste, nor whether the timing was appropriate. But as I explained earlier, I do not have any more energy this year to spend expressing sadness and empathy.

     I live in a culture that has profoundly desensitized its people to violence. I find it a waste of time to grieve the dead, or post condolences to families of victims who will never see my social media account. The best think I could think of doing at the time was to make people aware that it's not only white Americans who are calling for Arabs and Hispanics to be rounded up, put in camps, and deported; it's fervent supporters of the State of Israel, who support the occupation and its racist nation-state law too.

     I apologize that my focus was on Israel supporters, rather than all racists, but I cannot see war planes with the Star of David on them attacking Gaza one week, then a guy shooting Jewish people in a synagogue the next week, and get away with steadfastly maintaining that there is absolutely no connection or relationship between these two events whatsoever.

     I am not saying that correlation equals causality, but there is much that Israel and its supporters could do to de-escalate tensions between the I.D.F. and Israel's prisoners of war (the Palestinians), and to improve the reputation of Israel (and, as a result, of Jews) as one which promotes peace and immigration, instead of demonizing them.

     To the suggestion that I meant the victims had it coming, I say the following: they did not have it coming, and I commend what Tree of Life and H.I.A.S. were doing (helping refugees settle in America).

     Many white racists in America believe that African-Americans and Jewish-Americans are engaging in “false flag” attacks against themselves, or members of their own community, in order to portray themselves as under attack, and to inspire sympathy.

     I would be lying through omission if I failed to note that there have been incidents wherein black and Jewish people have left racist graffiti, but I also believe that white racists, and conservatives in general, drastically overstate the frequency with which such acts of racist vandalism are attributable to the people who first reported them to the police. I do not believe that the Tree of Life shooting was a false flag by Jewish people or Israelis, intended to inspire sympathy for them.

     It is an unfortunate fact that in 2007, Sarah Marshak, a freshman at George Washington University, admitted to drawing swastikas on her own dormitory door. However, in Marshak's defense, she stated that she drew swastikas on her door in order to draw people's attention to a previous incident, wherein the same dorm had been vandalized with swastikas. Marshak believed that the previous vandalism incident was not taken seriously, and that's why she decided to draw more swastikas.

     While it would not be unreasonable to describe Marshak's actions as an act of staged vandalism, or even to ask whether she did not draw all the swastikas in the first place, I will not say those things. Another student, a male, was arrested for drawing swastikas around the same time, and was subsequently banned from campus. It's entirely possible that he drew the first swastika (or the first two or three), and I believe Marshak did what she did to get people to realize how serious the problem of hatred against Jewish people is. I resent people pointing to that incident and using it to conclude that most or many anti-Semitic attacks are done by Jewish people.

     I believe that the reason why my friend thought I was saying the synagogue's congregants had it coming, is because I was blaming “Zionists” for 11 Jewish people getting murdered. In response to this, I will repeat the words of Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: “Israel gets Jews into hot water all over the world.” It's not that Israel directly provokes violence against Jewish people intentionally, it's that the State of Israel has nothing to lose when Jewish people are in danger.

That's because, when Jewish people are in danger, whether or not they get saved, Israel looks good. If Israel helps save the Jewish people who are being threatened, then it's done something good, and the I.D.F. gets more money. If the State of Israel fails to protect Jewish people, and they die, then Benjamin Netanyahu holds a press conference, appears very somber, and makes a statement saying “we stand with the victims”.

     And that is a totally appropriate way to show empathy. However, all that really accomplishes, in my opinion, is make it look like the Israeli army is standing by the Jewish people, saying “We are doing what we do in Palestine because people do this sort of thing to Jews.” It makes all Jewish people look bad, and only a very undiscerning person would claim that I'm trying to make all Jewish people look bad by pointing out that Israel is making them look bad, by claiming it represents all Jews.

     I would never claim that Zionists intentionally put Jewish people at risk. I would also never claim that the people at Tree of Life welcomed acts of violence against them for helping Muslims settle in America. I do not believe in the white supremacist idea that Jewish people are trying to flood the nations of the world with immigrants in order to undermine their sovereignty, racial purity, and moral values. I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and I hope that all non-violent immigrants to America are safe (whether legal or undocumented).

     I was told by a friend that my statement showed that I was “refusing to differentiate between Nazi ideological antisemitism... and leftist antisemitism.” Nazi antisemitism, my friend explained, “hates Jews IN SPITE of the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians” because they “view that conflict as being a net positive no matter who actually wins”, while leftist antisemitism “carries some of the same nonsensical racist roots but is heightened by a lack of differentiation between Judaism and Zionism.”

     Before continuing, I must note that I feel it inaccurate to reduce all hatred of Jewish people to the phrase “anti-Semitism” - especially considering that at least 2/3 of Jewish people worldwide do not have Semitic heritage, and are thus non-Semitic Jewish people – but I will use the term “anti-Semitism” here to mean “hatred of Jews” for the sake of brevity.

     I agree with my friend's distinctions between these two types of hatred of Jewish people. However, I don't want to be too careful differentiating between various types of anti-Semites, because if I spend too much time talking about how and why they're different, people might assume that I think one is less bad, or maybe even better, than the other.

     I oppose anti-Semitism whether it comes from the right or the left, and I understand each camp's motivations for their hatred of Jewish people. That is why I try to get right-wing anti-Semites to soften their hatred of Jewish people, with the ideas that all religions should get along, and that Judaism is a religion that anybody can join regardless of race or nation. Obviously, few racists change their mind.

     Additionally, I try to inform left-wingers who might hate Jewish people, that not all Jewish people support Israel. I believe that the more people know this, the less people will associate Jewish people and Judaism with Israeli violence, and the less they will believe that all Jewish people think the same.

     I do not mean to sound anti-Semitic by listing all the reasons people hate Jewish people. I am not excusing, nor condoning, hatred of Jewish people, when I explain what the most common historical reasons have been for mistreatment of the Jews. This may be offensive to some people, but it is necessary to explain history, and avoid the same kind of thing happening in the future.

     But my friend is right; leftist and Nazi anti-Semitism share “some of the same nonsensical racist roots”. Among them, the ideas that all Jewish people are wealthy, or are engaging in discriminatory hiring practices by hiring only other Jewish people, or control the banking industry, or are hoarding the world's money supply, or are even keeping gold on them at all times.

     These stereotypes are disgusting, they are motivated by a desire to see Jewish people in poverty, and they often neglect the fact that there are many more non-Jewish people who are greedy and power-hungry, than there are Jewish people altogether.

     But more concerns about Jewish people which the left and right share, are their apparent control over American foreign policy, and their religion. White nationalist America-firsters don't want Jewish people deciding what America's military does, and left-wing pacifists don't want the State of Israel to get away with the occupation of Palestine, or see America imitate Israel by reinstating the draft. At the same time, secular atheists on the left and the Christian right both have an aversion to the Jewish religion, ranging from a slight distaste, to wanton misunderstanding, to outright hatred.

     I am not trying to characterize Robert Bowers, the alleged Tree of Life Synagogue shooter, as a leftist. Nor am I trying to prove Donald Trump's claim that hatred of religion, or hatred of Judaism, motivated the attack.

     What I am trying to do is make people aware of why people harm Jews, who else they might hate, what other types of racists they might be willing to work with, who they might try to take out next and how they might do it. Additionally, whether there is anything that we can do to make it easier for leftists to understand that the actions of the Israeli army, and a few rabbis who committed some crimes, should not be used to justify distrust of Judaism or hatred of Jewish people.

     I do not mean to say that left-wing anti-Semites need to be held more responsible than right-wing anti-Semites. I am simply saying that left-wing anti-Semites are probably a lot easier to convince to stop hating Jews, than literal Nazis are. That is why I spend more time criticizing left-wing hatred of Jews than right-wing hatred of Jews. Because it's obvious that fascists will never change, but peace-loving secularists who dislike Judaism but don't understand it, might be convinced that the Jewish religion is not out to get them.

     My friend stated that the anti-Semitism described as motivated by Israel's actions, is “not typically the right-wing kind that created this attack, but the left-wing kind.” I agree with my friend completely on this; however, I am still not willing to rule-out the possibility that Israel getting away with bombing Gaza could have been just one of the many negative thoughts about Jewish people that enraged Bowers that week.

     Whether or not Bowers saw the Gaza bombings and thought negatively of Israel because of it, I believe that hatred of Jewish people was not the sole cause of this shooting. The desire to make it harder for refugees to come here and settle comfortably, was obviously at least a secondary motivation, perhaps even the primary motivation. But we have to look at the whole picture: he killed Jewish people in order to try to stop a Jewish group from helping refugees, whether those refugees are Jewish or not.

     In my opinion, it is patently absurd to consider none of these facts, and simply conclude that the shooter being “crazy”, or the shooter hating Jews, explains the whole thing. I would never say that Bowers shot Jewish people because Jewish people are bringing immigrants into the country. What I am saying is that Bowers shot Jewish people because he believes that Jewish people are deliberately trying to bring in a number of immigrants that they know America cannot handle.

     I do not believe that such a number exists; especially not when the United States let eleven refugees come into America from Syria in 2016, when hundreds of thousands of Syrians needed help (after they and their government had undergone years of bombardment by three or four national militaries and two or three terrorist groups vying for control of the area).

     The idea that there are Jewish people in America who have forgotten that their ancestors came here as immigrants – some of them illegally and without proper documentation, which is perfectly justifiable when their home state has collapsed, or succumbed to war or civil war, or has been overtaken by bloodthirsty racists – and still advocate closing the door on the immigrants who are trying to come in after them.

     In my opinion, America is a “city of immigrants”, and discrimination on the basis of national origin is not the American way.

10. Insensitive Israeli Reactions to the Shooting

     I know that what I am about to say might re-ignite suspicion that I wrote this piece solely to attack Jewish people, but I have to more fully explain why I chose to criticize the State of Israel, and the racists who make excuses for its war crimes and atrocities, in the wake of the Tree of Life shooting.

     On October 29^th, 2018 – two days after the shooting – Grayzone Project founder and editor Max Blumenthal published an article entitled “Israel's Far Right Blame 'Leftist' Victims of Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre”. The subtitle of the article reads, “As Israeli Minister of Education Naftali Bennett sets out to Pittsburgh, prominent members of the governing Likud Party have blamed the Jewish victims of the neo-Nazi massacre 'for causing anti-Semitism'.”

     According to Blumenthal, in the hours after the shooting, a listserv for the Israeli Likud Party (the party of the ruling majority, led by Benjamin Netanyahu) “pumped out talking points”, addressed to “Likud Party ambassadors”, claiming that the shooter “drew inspiration from a left-wing Jewish group that promoted immigration to the U.S. & worked against Trump.” This is evidently a reference to H.I.A.S. (the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), which Bowers openly criticized on social media.

     To suggest that Bowers “drew inspiration” from H.I.A.S., when he chose his victims specifically because they belonged to a congregation that was associated with H.I.A.S., is like saying that Hitler “drew inspiration” from Jews when he used his hatred of Jews to justify killing them. It's ridiculous and offensive, and it's the last thing that should be said by someone who wants all Jews to agree with them and feel well-represented by them.

     Blumenthal continues his article by explaining that a Likud Party member and so-called “Israeli hate rapper” Shadow (real name Yoav Eliasi) described Robert Bowers, who killed eleven Jews, as “a man fed up with subversive progressive Jewish leftists injecting their sick agendas” into his country. Eliasi also said “HIAS brings in infiltrators that destroy every country. The murder was fed up with people like you [presumably referring to the Jewish people at HIAS]. Jews like you brought the holocaust and now you're causing antisemitism. Stop bringing in hate money from Soros.”

     This echoes, almost exactly, the kind of anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by right-wing white American racists. Eliasi's views seem to parrot talking points from Fox News and the Alex Jones Show. I'm bringing this information to the American public because I want people to understand that not everyone cheering-on attacks of Jewish people hate Jewish people. Some of them are Jewish. But I'll say it again: Those who promote or excuse violence, in the name of religion or nationality or race or anything, have no religion.

     I'm not going to say that Yoav Eliasi is not Jewish. I'm not going to say that the people at Tree of Life or H.I.A.S. aren't Jewish. I'll leave that to Israel's Askhenazic chief rabbi David Lau, an Orthodox rabbi who said in an interview after the shooting, that Tree of Life is “a place with a profound Jewish flavor” or “profound Jewish mark”. Rabbi Lau was subsequently criticized for refusing to say that Tree of Life is a synagogue, especially considering that the congregants were shot while praying to the G-d of Abraham. Benjamin Netanyahu (and others) later corrected him, and confirmed that it is a synagogue.

     While we're on the topic, Orthodox control over “who is a Jew” in Israel, is another thing that concerns many Jewish people. This is because Orthodox rabbis have gotten a reputation of telling other Jewish people that they're not Jewish, or not Jewish enough. This “voluntary separatism” is increasingly becoming less voluntary, and it is a growing source of unease between the various sects and movements of Judaism.

     I hope that my readers will look into the history of the foundation of the State of Israel, and of the political movement of Zionism with emigration to the Holy Land. I believe that if they do this - and consider the views of Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, Neturei Karta, the Satmar Rebbes Teitelbaum, and Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein – then they will eventually understand that the State of Israel, from the beginning and at its core, is based on the idea that a nation-state can effectively determine what is or is not the Jewish religion, and perhaps even who is and is not a Jew.

     I am not Jewish. But as a student of history, all of this terrifies me. I do not know how to express my empathy for the victims and their families, besides to state that they should arm themselves as soon as possible, and recommend that vulnerable people take up arms to defend themselves in case the police decide that they're not worth their time. I apologize if it is self-aggrandizing of me to pretend that I could ever say anything that could save a Jewish life. But I have to try.

     I do not wish for Jewish people worldwide to present themselves with a single face that is divided. Nor do I want to see all Jewish people represented by an imperialist Jewish supremacist occupier. I would rather have people see Jewish people as individuals, who have no obligation to make excuses for any nation, and have the right to be safe and defend themselves. But I cannot pretend that it is not true that some Jewish people actually do look at other Jews being killed, and think to themselves “they weren't really Jews”, or even “it's OK because they support immigration and they don't want a strong Israel.”

     I believe that the State of Israel, or at least the Likud Party, is trying to make Jewish people all over the world, choose between saving either the State of Israel, the I.D.F., and the occupation of Palestine on the one hand, or else saving the Jewish religion and protecting Jews from being lulled into a false sense of security by Israel and then not protected.

     I hope that the Jewish people in my country are intelligent enough to see that the State of Israel is embracing a white-nationalist distortion – a caricature – of what Jewish culture is supposed to be about, instead of true Judaism. Based on my study of Judaism, I believe that its central moral principles are a belief in G-d, peace, mercy, equality, duty, loyalty, and the idea that oppressing people brings more dishonor and shame than being oppressed.

     I hope that the rest of the 21^st century does not feature a lot of Jews being oppressed. But I also hope that we don't see Jewish people doing the oppressing. Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro says that his study of traditional Jewish values has led him to conclude that Jewish people find it more dishonorable to participate in someone else's oppression, than it is to become the victim of oppression.

     Opportunists might use this to try to claim that Shapiro and I would rather see Jews killed than “a strong Israel” (read: “a brutal, warlike Israel”), but we do not wish to see either scenario happen. Unfortunately, right now, we are seeing both. I have recommended herein how I think that that situation could and should change for the better.

     I apologize again if I have upset anyone with my statements. I do not intend to upset or offend anyone, but to inspire anger and dissatisfaction, and to make people aware of the seriousness of the problems of anti-Jewish violence and threats to the safety of Jewish people. I regret that I was not more precise; I only meant to say that Jewish racists thought they could get away with fomenting racial hatred forever without it coming back to bite Jewish people in the ass.

     I am not rejoicing that the Tree of Life shooting happened. I am a doomsayer and I make negative predictions all the time. I hate being proven right. I apologize if my post sounded like gloating; I was genuinely horrified, but without surprise, so I was unable to pretend that I did not know that Jewish blood would eventually be shed in order to complete the racists' “perfect” nationalist dream (wherein each of the world's 193 countries embrace nativism and ultra-nationalism, and kill or deport everybody who's not exactly like whatever the racist model of the ideal citizen is, which may take hold in their countries during the sweeping xenophobic fervors that will shape their national destinies).

     I am concerned that the Israeli Defense Forces may increase their activities over the holidays, which seems to have been the pattern over the last several years. I suspect that some people will try to use this to justify attacks against Jewish people, as a way to get revenge. I do not condone the Tree of Life shooting, I do not condone any potential copycat attacks, I don't condone attacks against peaceful Jewish people, and I don't condone the use of violence against Jews in order to make a statement about Israeli violence.

     I will not say I condemn these attacks, because to say I have the power to condemn people is to call myself G-d, and I refuse to do that. And that is why I have been hesitant to condemn the attacks, why I have put more focus on urging non-violent Jewish people to arm themselves, and why I am telling people that there are real concentration camps in America and Israel, and that not all Jewish people want to help immigrants and refugees get settled.

     These are sad facts, but they are true, and we have to deal with them if we want to help keep peaceful Jewish people and peaceful immigrants alike safe from attacks against them, whatever the motivations may be.



11. Post-Script

     (added on July 16th, 2021)

     Read the following article, from Israeli media outlet Ha'aretz.com, to learn more about Naftali Bennett (who became the Prime Minister of Israel in 2021):
     http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-americans-may-never-forgive-israel-for-its-reaction-to-the-pittsburgh-massacre-1.6616617

Written on November 16^th, 2018

Based on Notes Taken Between October 27^th and November 16^th, 2018

Originally Published on November 16th, 2018

Post-Script Added on July 16th, 2021

Thoughts on Immigration, Racial Violence, the 2018 Elections, and the National Debt

     On November 2^nd, 2018, I attended a round-table political discussion at the Highland Park Recreation Center in Highland Park, Illinois. Ralph Bernstein moderated the event, and e-mailed his questions to attendees prior to the event. Below are my responses to the questions I cared to answer.



Question #1

     President Donald Trump says he wants to order the end of the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States. The 14^th Amendment provides that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Can a president, by executive order, change a provision of the constitution? What about changing the First Amendment regarding the press? Are such orders constitutional? If so, what does that do to the presidency, make the president “all powerful?” He has also said he wants to change the 22^nd Amendment to allow a term for the president to be 16 years.

Answer #1

     Amending the 14^th, or 1^st, amendment to the Constitution, cannot be done by the president. That is the executive-branch equivalent of “legislating from the bench”; legislation is Congress's job. Executive orders only allow the president to make minor recommendations as to how the law should be enforced, not to dictate what the law is. Amending an amendment requires the approval of majorities of Congress and 3/4 of the states to approve.

     If your goal is to stop aristocrats' and diplomats' children from becoming American citizens and having too many privileges, then you should be looking at the Emoluments Clause, not birthright citizenship. I'm worried that if Trump goes after birthright citizenship, the next thing he'll do is make it easier for the U.S. government to recognize titles and honors from foreign governments. As well as continuing to do business with governments after you've formed a political campaign; continuing down this route will likely result in a “post-game” rationalization of the legality of what the Trump campaign may have done in coordination with Russians.

     The current birthright citizenship controversy has nothing to do with keeping our country safe, and it has everything to do with cementing Trump's control and giving him dictatorial powers, which will eventually result in any and all citizens (even those born here to citizen parents) being deported, for any cause the president wishes.

Question #2

     When the president uses the word that he is “a nationalist,” what does he mean? Some say it’s a “dog whistle” about” white supremacy” others say it’s just a patriotic expression. Is it better to be a “nationalist” as the president says, or is “globalism” a better way to think? Your thoughts?

Answer #2

     I believe that Trump uses the term “nationalism” for several reasons: primarily to evoke patriotism, and to promote the idea of “American exceptionalism”. Trump wants you to think he believes all nations should put their own interests first (over other nations), but I think he's only referring to the nations he likes; specifically, the white-majority ones. Many worry – rightfully, I think - that “globalist” is being used as racist code for “Jew”.

     It's not wrong to be patriotic, or to put your country's needs before the needs of other countries. But Trump's brand of nationalism takes a perfectly good principle – from an economic school of thought called mercantilism – which says “each country should sell what it makes best”, and he adds an unnecessary social element to it. He attaches the idea that human beings are mere “products” of their home countries, and if you look at his “Mexican rapists” comment, he promotes the idea that these people's governments are deliberately sending everyone who's coming, and sending their worst. Which makes them look like tools, with no free will of their own. This is not only dehumanizing to foreigners, it also disparages America because it denies that an immigrant would have any reason of their own to come here, like freedom or opportunity (which we barely even have anymore).

     Globalism and nationalism, each, have good and bad things about them. I encourage you to look up the term “alter-globalization”. Rather than being simply anti-globalist, alter-globalization favors free travel, free exchange, and integration of economies across the globe; but without endorsing global governance, imperialism, centralization, command-and-control economics, or government-directed so-called “free” trade.

     Real free trade is possible, and if Trump wants zero tariffs, then he should eliminate them, instead of trying to bully, mock, intimidate, confuse, and humiliate foreign leaders into lowering theirs first.

Question #3

     There are thousands of persons who are in Mexico walking to the U.S. border. The president has said he will deploy 5,200 active-duty troops to the border, in what officials of his administration described as a necessary national security measure. Is the deployment necessary or not? Can the military prevent these persons from crossing the border? What about a claim for amnesty by any of such persons? What would be done in this event?

Answer #3

     I support amnesty for all migrants of whom there is no reasonable suspicion of having committed a corpus delicti crime against real persons who can claim victimization, or against their justly acquired property (please note that I did not say "legally" or "legitimately acquired property").
     The notion that non-citizen undocumented immigrants and the children of foreign nationals have less rights (or no rights at all) while in the United States - predicated on the 14th Amendment's clause reading "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - implies that immigrants are not subject to American laws either, which would imply that they cannot be legally deported. This argument against birthright citizenship is self-defeating; anyone on U.S. soil, including at an embassy, can, and of right ought to be able to, apply for U.S. citizenship. Foreign nationals may even be entitled to taxpayer-funded legal representation, so it would not even be accurate to say that their legal rights are fewer or lesser than those of U.S. citizens (at least not in a legal, technical sense; this is not to say that immigrants' legal rights are never ignored, quite the contrary).
     The deployment of troops at the border to stop the migrant caravan from entering is unnecessary. Additionally, the use of military officers to enforce domestic policy is martial law, and the use of federal officers to enforce domestic policy is unconstitutional.

     The Posse Comitatus Act reads in part, “it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress...”.

     Subsequent modifications of that law have resulted in the designation of terrorist groups as people whom the president has some authority to dispatch federal troops to act against. That is why it is being claimed that members of al-Qaeda are present in the caravan. Not only is there no evidence of this, the influx of Honduran immigrants can be attributed to the C.I.A.'s recent backing of a coup there; this is just more of “America's chickens coming home to roost”, we only have ourselves to blame for this. If we don't want foreigners to come here, then we should stop bombing their countries, rigging their elections, and sabotaging their economies. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, that George Soros is funding the caravan. But people all around the world, who don't want the people in the caravan to die on their way here, are sending help too.

     We already have I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which has only existed since 2003. America did without I.C.E. for 227 years, we can do it again, and deportations can still be carried out even if I.C.E. ceased to exist.

     I.C.E. is unconstitutional; the last thing we want to do is do is impose martial law on top of it, which is not only unnecessary and unconstitutional, it would also be a serious human rights violation, that could accelerate with curfews for adults, travel restrictions, conscripting young people into the military, relocation to settlements “for our own safety”, forced labor, or much much worse.

     If you support shooting people who cross the border, you are asking for an international incident, for a war to start, for martial law, and for a race war, as well as for the reputation, credibility, and moral authority of the United States government and its citizens to be ruined forever.

     If you want to go after al-Qaeda, don't go after the migrant caravan. Go after the people who founded al-Qaeda. And I'm not talking about Osama bin Laden, I'm talking about Carter, Reagan, and the Bushes. Jimmy Carter, who started this thoughtless involvement in Afghanistan, and agreed to find mujahideen ("freedom fighters") against the Soviets. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who continued it. Bush's son George W., who founded the oil company Arbusto 88 with Salem bin Laden, the brother of Osama.

     After 9/11, rumors surfaced that numerous members of the bin Laden family, and other Saudi nationals, had been secretly airlifted out of the country for their own protection. This appears to have been denied by the National Commission on Terror Attacks, Snopes.com, and Osama bin Laden's brother Yeslam, but in truth, the only things they denied were the suggestions that the U.S. government helped, and that it happened before U.S. airspace re-opened. Yeslam bin Laden told Matt Lauer that it was the Saudi government, not the American government, that helped his family fly out of the United States; and that it occurred after airspace was re-opened, not before.

     If what bin Laden's brother said is the truth, then the Bushes would have been in prime positions to help (if they wanted to). Either way, the bin Ladens are among the wealthiest non-royals in Saudi Arabia, so their ability to use their political influence to enlist America's help conspiring to assist the Saudi government, and keep U.S.-Saudi ties strong, should not be underestimated. Especially now, after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the revelations about the Saudi regime's brutal treatment of women and homosexuals (among others).

Question #4

     What role of the President’s warnings about the caravan of migrants headed toward the U.S. border from Central America played in inspiring the virulent anti-Semite who killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue and injured 4? Or was this person going to do violence without the migrants coming here because of his hatred toward Jews?

Answer #4

     I believe that the shooter might not have chosen that particular target (the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) if fewer immigrants were coming to America. Immigration and Judaism seemed to be two motivations for the attack, but there might be additional motivations, and we don't know whether there was any particular thing that was a “last straw” or a final trigger for him, so that's why I think it would be unwise to point to just one or two primary motivations.

     If what I have read about the shooter is true, then one of his motivations was his belief that Donald Trump has been compromised in his attempts to revive American nationalism, fight “globalism”, and reduce immigration. It seems likely that the shooter would agree with the statement that “liberal Democratic Jewish politicians are behind a push for more immigration to the U.S.”, and that they are responsible for compromising Trump. It would make sense if that line of logic led him to select for his target a Jewish group that supported immigrants and refugees.

     Many of the people who think that way, consider Jewish people non-white, or as potentially disloyal to America; and many feel that immigrants – Jews and Hispanics included – are part of a virus-like “infestation” that puts our public health and our values at risk. These notions are parts of a mindset that suspects Jewish people of trying to divide all nations of the world against each other, make dissimilar people live together, and compromise the genetic purity of distinct nations through encouraging inter-breeding and increases in the number of mixed-race people. Of course, this is textbook Nazi propaganda, and I don't mean to rationalize it; I only mean to explain how Nazi sympathizers think.

     I believe that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter chose the target he did, because he believed that the organization was – in some way, however directly or indirectly - providing material assistance (or at least ideological support) for “the enemy”. That is to say, for “the enemy”, as the shooter defines it. Generally, that means foreign-born people, including the migrant caravan (which the shooter likely believes is harboring terrorists). But as I've explained, there's no evidence for that; it's propagandist fear-mongering from the Trump Administration, intended to allow the president to dispatch federal troops to enforce domestic immigration law on the grounds that al-Qaeda might be lurking around every corner, even behind every immigrant.

     We shouldn't assume that the shooter could have been dissuaded from doing what he did, if only there were fewer immigrants coming into the U.S., or if fewer Jewish-Americans supported allowing more people in. If fewer Jewish people approved of immigration, then sure, we might see less anti-Jewish violence from right-wingers, but we might also see more anti-Jewish violence, just coming from different people. That's because leftists, and anti-racists, might see Jewish people strongly criticizing immigration, and conclude from that, that the sentiment is motivated by racism, or perhaps even by a belief in Jewish supremacy. If they conclude the latter, then it is likely that they will come to associate the Jewish religion with racism, violence, or both, and assume that all Jewish people are violent or racist. Coupled with the shooter's belief that H.I.A.S. (the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society)'s assistance of the migrant caravan constitutes material assistance to terrorists, it would be understandable if the shooter felt under attack; by al-Qaeda, with the cover of Hondurans, funding from wealthy Jewish liberals, and housing and employment assistance from H.I.A.S.. (a refugee assistance network of synagogues, in which Tree of Life participates).

     I say this not to rationalize racists' line of logic, but in order to point out the worst things that left-wingers and right-wingers could be thinking about the Jewish people. If you want to defeat your enemy, you have to understand him. If your enemy tells you directly to your face why he hates you and why he attacked you, then you can disagree with the truth of those ideas, but to flat-out ignore them is to carelessly assume that your enemy is irrational. People can be full of hate, and hold opinions about people which are wholly unreasonable, but still make rational decisions in the battlefield. Don't underestimate your enemy by assuming that he is simply crazy, or by assuming that racism is his sole motivation. His reasons may seem backwards, and his logic may seem tortured and convoluted, but admitting that your enemy makes rational decisions in no way obligates you to accept or rationalize everything he says and does. It helps you avoid underestimating the horrors and deception he's capable of.

Question #5

     What has happened to the children who were separated from their parents? Are they still held in these “cages”? Will they be released to the custody of their parents, or what?

Answer #5

     I have heard rumors that some of the children separated from their parents have been essentially sold by the government to adoption agencies. This concerns me, since I have heard horror stories about emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of children; not only in the hands of adoption agencies, but in the hands of I.C.E. themselves. Not to mention police, soldiers, for-profit prisons, and teen boot camps.

     Some of you may have seen the pictures of Obama's and Trump's Homeland Security secretaries walking around in the I.C.E. detention facilities; “family detention centers”, they call them. One picture of the facilities showed a sign that said “males aged 16-18”. So they're separating people by gender, and by age, taking parents away from children, and immigrants are having their religious jewelry taken away. These facts should ring serious alarm bells for anyone paying attention to history and the times they're living in.

     If those facts don't, by themselves, evoke memories of what happened to Holocaust victims, then I implore you to look up “the Bath Riots”. Back in the 1930s, immigrants on their way into El Paso (from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico) were sprayed with harsh de-lousing chemicals, because American authorities thought they had typhus. This continued years after the typhus epidemic went away. One of those chemicals was Zyklon-B, which the Nazis used to poison Jewish people (and other minorities and political dissidents).

     People don't belong in cages. Children should not be taken from their parents without clear and present danger (that somebody else hasn't manufactured in order to whip people into a frenzy), and they certainly shouldn't be sold as commodities by government agencies. Selling human beings doesn't suddenly become “not slavery” just because it's the government who's doing it (instead of a “private” slave master).

     We must stop calling refugee encampments “tent cities”, stop calling forced internment facilities “family detention centers”. We are looking at literal military prisons, like the one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, except they're in Texas; on American soil, within the contiguous 48 states. And they're being used to indefinitely detain people who ought to have their rights respected; their rights to legal representation, and to apply for citizenship. The existence of embassies does not prove that legal immigration is an easy and realistic solution everywhere; foreign governments are collapsing, and with them, their legitimacy, and thus, people become stateless. As far as I am aware, there is no Anarcho-American embassy at which stateless people can become American citizens (at least not yet).

     I want to say that “the inevitable result of this will be martial law”, but it would be difficult for me to argue that martial law has not already been in effect for 17, or 40, or 100, or 150, or even 230 years (respectively, since the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, or since REX84, or since World War I began, or since the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, or since the imposition of the Constitution in 1789; however you want to measure it).

Question #6

     How will Congress – the Senate and the House – be formed as a result of the midterms? Any guesses? Who will be the leaders?

Answer #6

     I anticipate that the Democrats will retake the House with a noticeable majority, and that they will retake the Senate by a noticeable (but smaller) majority. Given Nancy Pelosi's promise that the Democrats will not pursue impeachment of Donald Trump (as she did with Bush when the Democrats regained the House in 2006), I expect that Nancy Pelosi will encounter a few difficulties convincing her cohorts to give her her old Speaker position back. But I also suspect that dirty tricks will be played, and that all opposition to her from within the party will be easily silenced.

     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will win her election, and emerge as the new conscience of the progressive and farthest-left-leaning Democrats; or else she will be defeated amidst numerous accusations of dirty tricks on the part of her opponent Joe Crowley. Crowley, for those who don't know, is one of the Democratic congressmen thought most likely to become Speaker of the House, in the event that Democrats retake the House. Maxine Waters becoming Speaker of the House would be political suicide for Democrats, but I wouldn't put it past them, and I would understand their rationale for it.

     If Democrats retake the senate, then Dianne Feinstein, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, and Bernie Sanders will comprise the core of the most respected members of Democratic Party leadership (which finally seems to have begun to loose itself from the grip of Hillary Clinton, neoliberalism, the New Democratic Coalition, and the corrupt Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee).

     Hopefully the Democrats will see that what will have made them successful in the 2018 midterm elections, is their recent embrace of the staunchly left-leaning ideas which are necessary to fully distance themselves from what Trump and his loyalists want. Hopefully soon the Democrats will admit, and not forget, that distancing themselves from progressivism, socialism, and leftism has not worked out. If they continue to do so, then they will keep losing elections.

     Giving up hope in places like West Virginia, the Midwest, and the Great Plains states, just sends the message that the party does not care about Democrats stuck in red states, even if they could be flipped to blue with just a little effort. But these states are not thought of as battleground states, by most popular media, in the same way that states like Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina are.

Question #7

     The treasury has announced that there will be an increase in the national debt for this year of approximately $1.2 trillion. How is this explained, when Trump in his campaign promised a substantial decrease?

Answer #7

     Trump can get away with having a $1.6 trillion deficit if he wanted, because he'll always be able to say that Obama's highest was $1.7. We should not underestimate Trump's ability to point to someone who's behaving worse than he is, and use that to make himself look good and moral by comparison (even if what they're doing is more or less equally terrible).

     Trump knows that giving the upper class bigger tax cuts than the ones he gave to ordinary working people, was only going to help the already well established entrenched business interests, which often buy and control our government. He calls them “The Swamp” to his voters, but he seems to think that the only path to economic growth – the only way to increase jobs - involves stealing your taxpayer money, and spending it on his cronies; in the form of bigger tax breaks, undeserved tax credits, stock buybacks, loans, intellectual property protections, trade promotions, subsidies, and even bailouts.

     Trump is illiterate constitutionally, economically, historically, and morally. He is an opportunist, and a narcissist, who has no regard for other people's needs. He seems to have no guiding political principle other than “make the trains run on time” and “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. He cares much more about increasing his own wealth than he does about helping struggling people who are in need and can't afford to buy stocks. Trump has no respect for free markets or economic opportunity; and no desire for lower prices, or even an idea of how to bring prices down to something his cronies' indentured servants (the people) can afford.

     Everyone is focusing on how much we are spending, and what we're spending it on; but way fewer people are talking about where we get our revenue sources from: what we're taxing, why we're taxing it, and whether the people being taxed, (first) can afford it, and (second) did anything wrong in the first place to deserve that “tax” (or, as we Libertarians call it, “theft”).

     Taxing away all the rewards of making improvements to your own home, doesn't help people. Confiscating people's earned income doesn't help them. Confiscating the un-earned income, and ill-gotten profits, of businessmen who balance their books on the backs of taxpayers and government contracts instead of by selling a better product, will help ordinary working people.

     Paying-off the national debt is a lot easier than we think it is. If we want to pay-off $20 trillion dollars, we could pay-off $1 trillion a year for 20 years. If we start now, America can be debt-free by the end of 2038. All we have to do in order to make that happen, is take-in $1 trillion more each year than the amount we spend. As long as we do that, and total federal government revenue stays above $1 trillion a year (it's currently at $4 trillion), then we can have any size government we want, and still balance the budget.

     Nothing is impossible, as long as we don't start-out trying to solve it under the assumption that it's unsolvable. This is a simple mathematical equation, yet many of us have apparently lost the ability to think simply about our problems. Trump's inability to significantly reduce spending, is compounded by his refusal to lower taxes on those who need tax breaks most, and his refusal to tackle either the military-industrial complex, or “The Swamp” of corporate political donors. That's because he's willing to look the other way whenever battling America's demons is too risky for him or it doesn't boost his bottom line.

Originally Written and Published on November 2nd, 2018

Expanded on November 2nd, 2018