NTOABOMA—Donald Trump won the US presidential election fair and square, yet two enervating theses for Hillary’s triumphant loss have emerged. In one, Trump’s neocon critics allege that Trump was a Putin plant. The “Red Scare” thesis came after a similarly fashioned, well-polished “Blue Scare” was floated during the Republican primaries: that Trump was a Hillary plant.
On the other hand, among the alt-left still reeling from the election defeat, the discussion remains a bit more nuanced and vituperative, although the red tide that Trump may be a Putin plant has not tapered off within the comatose imaginations of the leaders of the Democratic Party (the DNC).
More, the issue that has captivated the sublime imagination of Hillary’s neoliberals is one about race: Trump won the elections on November 8 because of race, and race alone. They claim that Trump won because he marshaled racist and fascist white men who were afraid that too many Blacks had come to occupy the White [Plantation] House to vote for him. They claim that Trump won because he was endorsed by white supremacist groups. They claim that Trump won because white people disliked the changing color of an emergent Latino-America and hence came out in droves to finally stamp their claim to America.
“This is all a whitelash!” cried one neoliberal critic while he shed actual tears on national television right after Election Day. Another alt-left critic, whiplashed by the surprising blow of defeat, said that “Trump voters are racist and anti-Semitic, so there must be more racists and anti-Semites than we realized.”
Any other reason for why Trump won was rejected outright! Definitely the outcome on November 8 could not have been a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Hillary Clinton; no, it was a primal scream by the white masses against fairness, equality and progress.
All this flies in the face of the evidence. Fewer whites actually came out to vote for Trump than Mitt Romney in 2012 or John McCain in 2008. In fact, more African Americans voted for Donald Trump than did for either Romney or McCain. The charge of a “whitelash” is both superfluous and ill-conceived.
Nor could Hillary’s defeat ever be attributed to the creation of a new American class of ordinary people, notably native-born men, who have been so alienated; who have become losers, at least relatively; and who do not share equally in the economic gains of the nation. Instead of focus on this new class of people who feel used and abused and who after the financial crisis and slow recovery in standards of living, saw Hillary’s elites as incompetent and predatory, the alt-left would rather emphasis Trump’s perceived racism and anti-Semitism.
The surprise about the dictates of the alt-left’s intransigence in this regard is not that many are angry protesting on the streets but that so many who actually voted for Trump have maintained their cool.
It is within this superfluous misconception of the elections that the alt-left’s antics, now morphed into nationwide protests against Trump’s victory, have newly surfaced. Major cities across the United States have seen college students, who could have spent precious time completing homework, roaming the streets of New York City, and particularly storming the front view of Trump Tower, to demand that Hillary, the double Queen of the Prison Industrial Complex and the pernicious Welfare Reform, be crowned president of the “free egalitarian world”—at all costs. Parroting the talking points of their neoliberal masters, these students felt that the election of Trump marked a step backwards in American race relations although the vast majority of them did not quite vote.
More, most of the students who charged Trump with “racism” do not even understand who benefitted the most from the Civil Rights era nor could they be expected to comprehend the detrimental effects to the African American community of Clinton’s Prison Industrial Complex, Clinton’s bad trade deals (through which America decided to build a middle class in China instead of in North Philadelphia), Clinton’s pernicious Welfare Reform, Obama’s expensive Affordable Care Act and Obama’s record signing deportations of illegal immigrants.
There is truth in worrying about American race relations. In fact, the very cities in which these students protested remain the symbolic embodiment of the stalled real integration since the Civil Rights era. New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and so on are some of the most segregated cities in America with piss-poor poverty levels ravaging the inner parts of every single one of them. And the victims? They are the same tint as the man who cried “whitelash” upon Trump’s emphatic victory on November 8.
But when one examines the leadership in the major cities that continue to hold protests against the election of Trump, one comes away with a fantastic conundrum—from the mayor down to the house representatives of these geographic areas, these cities are led by members of the Democratic Party (DNC), Hillary’s Party. In addition, when one examines how long these democrats have governed these inner cities, one is confounded by the Democratic Party kingpins who have stretched their rule, like dictators in Germany, for well over decades. It does not take long before one quickly understands that the economic and educational decadence plaguing the African American communities, especially those in the inner cities, is clearly a democratic machination and rarely a republican one.
So why would students, who need precious time to do their homework, spend it on the streets protesting a president-elect who is without the criminal records of some DNC members? Bill Clinton for instance is a convicted sex offender. He is also the husband of Hillary Clinton and an actual former president of the United States. Why would real college students, who should be learning how to think, spend their precious hours protesting Trump when democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders do not seem to care any more about poor Blacks than Trump? Why would Trump’s election arouse so vehement a sentimental reaction about bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism among students in big American cities?
The answer is simple: the alt-left’s appetite for race mongering.
For decades, the answer has been mulled over by experts, although they have refused to give it real cadence, for reasons centered on Political Correctness. If there is any time to spill the beans, it is now, since Trump’s win also marks a turning point in American politics: the death of political correctness.
It is no secret in America that the white ethnic group most associated with neoconservatism (Trump’s neocon critics) is also the one most associated with civil rights activism (the alt-left): Jewish Americans. George Soros (Jewish Hungarian American) and Sheldon Adelson (Jewish American) are but two key examples. Both funded and continue to fund republican campaigns and democratic ones. Also, they fund social movements such as the Black Lives Matter movement, which they often deploy for their own peculiar interests in social movements: one of them being the nationwide protests against Trump.
No doubt, Trump went against multiple establishment cartels in the general elections: the neocon critics of the Republican Establishment, the alt-left neoliberal critics of the DNC and the well-funded social movements in Black Lives Matter, Color of Change, Planned Parenthood and many others.
But to mention only two moguls as examples of a whole group would be unfair and would not be a rigorous basis for sweeping assertions about how Jewish Americans on the left fan issues about race and civil rights in America, in a bid to garner African American support for an initial interest in nationwide integration, but for which the goal is more nuanced and geared towards only advancing parochial Jewish interests while holding the door tightly shut behind to prevent African Americans, too, from making similar progress.
This history goes back to the early days of the Civil Rights era in which significant Jewish American groups after they had made substantial gains with the Civil Rights movement sought rather to impress upon the Federal Government of the United States, which wanted more than ever to fully integrate the nation, to stall its desire for the full integration of African Americans into American institutions.
In the beginning, there was no doubt that Jewish Americans forged a collective front with African Americans to strive for access into key American institutions. For example, during the early 1970s Jewish Americans who actually held many decision-making positions in Hollywood opened up their doors to African Americans in order to win their support in building a “collective front” for desegregating American institutions. Such a support was exemplified by the minority employment initiatives of the producers Hal De Windt and Hannah Weinstein, and by Bert Schneider, a vocal supporter of the Black Panther leader Huey P. Newton.
However, in that period of dramatic flux in race relations, Jewish Americans, once they had made significant gains into segregated American institutions consciously began to cleave increasingly towards their ethnic allegiances and became equally receptive to racial resentments that were being propounded in incipient neoconservative discourses of the day against African Americans.
The putrid wave of Jewish American neoconservatism had begun. As African Americans and their federal allies’ calls for proportional representation in employment gained steam, Jewish Americans essentially refused to integrate those institutions or sectors in which Jews were over-represented.
Rather, as Nancy MacLean details, the budding new neoconservative Jewish American ethnic group started framing the issue of integration in America in zero-sum terms: more African American representation meant less Jewish American representation. Along with higher education recruitment and academe, the good jobs in the film industry into which African Americans sought entry were occupations in which Jewish Americans had long enjoyed a strong presence.
Even within the Democratic Party today, the issue of reparations for African Americans is one that Jewish establishment leaders oppose constantly when questioned. Bernie Sanders, for instance, who rationalizes the good of reparations for German Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and who also supports billions of dollars in US aid to Israel each year, vehemently opposes reparations for African Americans. Apart from the Prison Industrial Complex Queen, Sanders was the only other candidate presented to democratic voters as an option for the general elections. Meanwhile, the significant majority of African American voters are registered democrats.
No matter the base of the DNC, if it feels more like a Jewish Organization run by the likes of John Podesta, Warren Buffet and George Soros, it is not without an understated observation in almost every African American neighborhood. Even the idea of the rise of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States is analyzed in this unnerving light. It is rumored that Obama, the son of a Kenyan student and a white mother, who grew up largely in Indonesia, was only able to win the Democratic primaries in 2008 because he was financially backed by Jewish Americans from Chicago. Conveniently, Chicago is one of the major cities in America where African American progress has been systematically stalled for decades. Democrats, or better yet, Jewish American democrats, run the city of Chicago with Mayor Rahm Israel Emanuel as its indisputable head.
What has become obvious from this history is that Jewish Americans only marshal African American support for achieving their own parochial interests. To this point, first, the charge of anti-Semitism everywhere in American politics has been key to organizing solidarity for Jewish interests. Second, where they have succeeded in arranging African American interests to align closely with theirs, even if only at face value, the white Jewish American ethnic group has charged racism as a means to buttressing support of Jewish interests. Once Jews have gained access to American institutions, they have often cut the queue to stop African Americans from likewise gaining equal access often citing vague concepts of “liberal individualism” as reasons for breaking promises.
For instance, in August 1972 claims of “reverse discrimination” gained legitimacy in mainstream political debate when the president of the American Jewish Committee, Philip Hoffman, wrote a widely publicized open letter to the presidential candidates, Richard Nixon and George McGovern, on behalf of a number of major U.S. Jewish organizations. The letter, which came from groups that had actively supported the civil rights movement, now called on the candidates to “reject categorically the use of quotas and proportional representation.” It argued that race-conscious policies stood against liberal individualism, sparking a scare about racial quotas that helped instigate a dramatic turnabout in the terms of debate for serious American integration.
Jewish Americans even forced the president of the United States, Nixon, to quickly respond to the Civil Rights leaders by publicly eschewing proportional representation in recruitment and hiring in higher education and ordering government agencies to prohibit quota hiring. “Criteria for selection will be based on merit,” and “numerical goals . . . must not be allowed to be applied in such a fashion as to, in fact, result in the imposition of quotas,” read Nixon’s memorandum to department and agency heads. Strikingly similar rhetoric was deployed to reject African American demands for inclusion in Hollywood. In September 1972 Hollywood management offered its first official response to the African American film protests, charging that the demands amounted to a bid for “unfair preference.”
It was mainly because of these setbacks from which the quest for inclusion in America for all races never recovered its earlier momentum.
It is within this proper backdrop of the historicity of flip-flopping by the alt-left on African American interests that the current protests across major American cities must be examined. Once again, although no one can cite exactly what Donald Trump has said about African Americans specifically, the alt-left, which is led exclusively by Jewish Americans is branding Donald J. Trump, the president-elect of the United States, not only as anti-Semitic but also racist! The leaders of the Black Caucus, too, have been coaxed to believe that the fight against Trump is a civil rights issue and one that should largely be played out about racial issues, in much the same character as the Civil Rights movements of yesteryear!
But we know how this story ends. We know how the alt-left, led by Jewish Americans, have used African Americans to achieve their peculiar goals in America. Until Trump succumbs to Jewish interests in the same way that Nixon did, African Americans, it seems will be marshaled through moneyed interests to charge Trump with racism, on top of anti-Semitism.
Already Trump’s pick for Chief Advisor, Steve Bannon, has been charged with anti-Semitism although Trump’s own son in law is Jewish American. Already Trump’s picks for every other position have been charged with varying degrees of racism by leading democrats rabble-rousing the alt-left into a frenzy of race mongering accusations of Trump’s team. This constant threat to Trump’s presidency will hold until Trump can completely give in to Jewish American interests. None of which, as the history has shown, has anything to do with the interests of African Americans—with whom Jewish Americans claim they have much in common.