The Guardian don't like them Jews

I was shaking my head and shivering as I read this article in the British newspaper The Guardian, detailing efforts by American right-wing vigilantes to persecute liberal professors and high school teachers. I shuddered to hear stories like this one:

In mid January, the Bruin Alumni association offered students $100 to tape leftwing professors at the University of California Los Angeles. The association effectively had one dedicated member, 24-year-old Republican Andrew Jones. It also had one dedicated aim: "Exposing UCLA's most radical professors" who "[proselytise] their extreme views in the classroom". Shortly after the $100 offer was made, Jones mounted a website, uclaprofs.com, which compiled the Dirty 30 - a hit list of those he considered the most egregious, leftwing offenders. Top of the list was Peter McLaren, a professor at the UCLA's graduate school of education. Jones branded McLaren a "monster". "Everything that flows from Peter McLaren's mouth and pen is deeply, inextricably radical," wrote Jones. "In keeping with the left's identity politics he has been a friend to the gay community."

Professors persecurd for being a friend to the gay community? Andrew Jones and his ilk are the real monsters. This right-wing pseudo-fascist persecution of liberal teachers is wrong and has to be fought.

But as I read the article, I started to notice something even creepier. I looked at the names of all the "radical conservative witch-hunters" named by the Guardian article: Silverstein, Rosen, and Horowitz.

Coincidence?

And then I noticed this paragraph:

Last year, some students at the Department of Middle Eastern and Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia University ran a campaign against alleged anti-Israeli bias among professors, criticising the university as a place where pro-Israeli students were intimidated and faculty members were prejudiced. A faculty committee appointed by Columbia concluded that there had been no serious misconduct.

Note: the "campaign against alleged anti-Israeli bias" is portrayed as just another example of hysterical right-wing persecution. Nestled snugly in the middle of reports of true McCarthyism, this paragraph injects a subtle message into the reader's brain - pro-Israel = McCarthyist. Now, Israel isn't the same thing as Jews, but "pro-Israeli students" are probably going to be.

The Guardian's anti-Israel bias is well known. What is more disturbing is the creeping, almost subliminal anti-Semitism in this article's choice to cite only Jewish examples of crusading right-wingers (especially when Christian examples are so common and readily available). The message, intended to be subtle but shining through anyway, is that the American far right is being driven by the Jews in order to support Israel. Maybe this is why this popular British newspaper is routinely cited on neo-Nazi websites.

How can we respond to a wake-up call against American McCarthyism delivered by British anti-Semites? Isn't there anyone out there who hates fascism but doesn't think of the Jews as sinister evildoers? If so, sign me up. If not, Yahweh help us all...


READING GUIDE

1. Here's an interesting tiff between the conservative Weekly Standard, which says the GOP needs to embrace illegal immigrants to secure future electoral majorities, and it's cousin the National Review, which fires back with a blistering anti-immigration polemic. Isn't it fun to see conservatives fight? For the record, the Weekly Standard is right, but it's gratifying to see the National Review shooting conservatism in the foot by pushing xenophobia.

2. Another Weekly Standard article about a new book by my least favorite professor in the world, Harvey Mansfield. The book's title is Manliness, which makes you wonder why people who write about manliness tend to look like this. The book is basically a paean to supposedly "manly" virtues like assertiveness, aggressiveness, bravery, moral rectitude, etc. Of course, he says women can be manly too...has he been watching Xena, Warrior Princess? Well, at any rate, he's full of it. Even if men are "manly," it makes not one iota of difference to anything in the world.

3. Cheap Chinese workers ain't so cheap any more, according to the New York Times. Does that mean China starts moving into high-level industries, or does it mean China loses its competitive advantage and its growth slows down? Your guess, dear readers, is as good as mine. Interestingly, the article also notes that the number of Chinese women between the ages of 18 and 35 has begun to decrease. Yes, it appears there are actually fewer Chinese chicks in the world than there used to be. Though you wouldn't know it from walking around LA.