On the Battle of UCLA

If the chickens come home to roost by any means necessary, the campus genocidists can hardly complain when the Jews strike back.

Regarding the recent clash at UCLA between what are described as “pro-Israel counterprotesters” and the pro-genocide antisemites who have infested the university, one has a distinct sense of the fog of war.

That is, it’s been very difficult to get a coherent idea of what actually happened. Most of the reporting appears to be from biased sources and based on contradictory information. There is endless talk about the counterprotesters’ violence, though it doesn’t seem as if the violence was particularly severe. In addition, a video is making the rounds of the campus genocidists beating a Jewish counterprotester unconscious; so one has to wonder who was violent and who wasn’t.

Moreover, it’s somewhat unclear who the counterprotesters actually were. They don’t seem to have been part of an organized group and, if they were, it would have to be one that was previously unknown. I have also seen one clip that showed a counterprotester holding a Chabad “Mashiach” flag, which indicates that this usually pacifist community has somehow been radicalized. That would be a very interesting development, to say the least.

Even though the whole thing feels like a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing, it’s clear that 1) the incident was the first serious Jewish pushback against a genocidally antisemitic movement, and 2) the genocidists are losing their collective minds over it. Their oceans of tears are practically a second Deluge.

One can argue forever about whether the pushback took the form it should, but some conclusions can be reached if, ironically, we take the genocidists’ narrative of the event at face value.

If the counterprotesters indeed arrived intending to commit acts of violence and then did so, it would illustrate better than anything else the genocidists’ own astounding hypocrisy.

The reason is that, by definition, the genocidists are partisans of the most horrendous forms of violence. You cannot take up the cause of a terrorist organization, after all, without being, at the very least, quite sanguine about terrorism and its results. That is, you have to be perfectly fine with killing large amounts of people in horrific ways. This has been reflected in the campus genocidists’ own acts of antisemitic violence, as well as lesser forms of brutality such as racist incitement, intimidation, and emotional abuse.

The genocidists justify their ideology of sacred violence with two rather irritating slogans: “The chickens come home to roost” and “by any means necessary.” I recently published a column on this subject and, while I accept the immodesty of doing so, I think it’s worth reiterating a few points:

Both slogans were coined or at least popularized by the iconic black nationalist Malcolm X, whose virulent antisemitism is regularly whitewashed by radical leftists of all stripes. The first slogan is frankly hilarious (as Christopher Hitchens once asked, “What chickens? Where?”) and not particularly original. It amounts to nothing more than “The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction” or, less aggressively, “What goes around comes around.” In other words, violence inevitably results in counter-violence, and it’s a damn good thing too.

The problem with this brand of poultryism is that it negates itself. It’s intended to justify acts of violence by asserting that, because other people have also committed violence, the violence in question is moral. However, since almost everyone has, at one point or another, committed acts of violence, this means that more or less all violence is moral.

For example, if one accepts the principles of poultryism, one could argue quite easily that Israel’s military actions in Gaza are simply the chickens of Oct. 7 coming home to roost. One could even argue that if the entire Muslim population of the Middle East and North Africa were ethnically cleansed and deported to Saudi Arabia, it would be the chickens of the early Muslim conquests coming home to roost. At best, the poultryists would have no room to complain, because all things are busy being equal.

The second slogan is far more sinister, for obvious reasons. If the arbiter of morality is “by any means necessary,” then morality itself is demolished. In effect, anything can be justified if it is deemed necessary, up to and including things like nuclear war. It’s not surprising, then, that it’s been adopted by genocidists, since it essentially justifies anything, including the obviously unjustifiable.

For example, the slogan renders the genocidists’ blood libel that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza utterly ludicrous. By definition, the slogan holds that if Israel decides that genocide is the necessary means to prevent another Oct. 7, then that genocide would be moral and justified. The campus genocidists could make no argument against it.

All of this puts the violence at UCLA in a very interesting and, for the genocidists, inconvenient context. After all, it’s important to remember what the campus genocidists are actually after. One of them is genocide, of course, but another—less commented upon—is to destroy the American Jewish community. The genocidists know they cannot break Israel without also breaking the Jews, and they are perfectly willing to use “any means necessary” to do so. Moreover, since American Jews (despite the genocidists’ claims) are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, the genocidists see American Jews as complicit in Israel’s alleged crimes. Thus, if the genocidists’ nihilistic morality is to be satisfied, the chickens must come home to roost.

Given that they are an existential threat to American Jews, then, it is the basest hypocrisy for the campus genocidists to complain when the Jews push back “by any means necessary.” It is, after all, just the chickens of the genocidists’ own ideology coming home to roost. This ideology compels them to believe that Jewish violence against those who embrace Amalekism is perfectly justified.

I have a suspicion that the campus genocidists know this perfectly well. The oceans of tears they are shedding over their supposedly infinite suffering are, at best, a political tactic—one straight out of the Hamas playbook.

Such tactics are hardly unprecedented. For decades, radical leftists have employed the most debased and hypocritical expressions of pathos to assert a single principle in which they devoutly believe: Because they are a caste of saints, the finest and most moral people in the entire history of the universe, they have the right to do whatever they want to anyone they want and no one has the right to stop them or retaliate in self-defense.

This belief is almost if not quite as ludicrous as the genocidists’ preferred slogans, but it is both risible and quite morally bankrupt. What is remarkable is that so many people who ought to know better tend to fall for it. They are welcome to do so, of course, but they have no right to demand that the Jews do the same. If the Jews strike back against the genocidists and the genocidists wail amidst floods of tears, all that any thinking person can hear are the distant strains of the world’s smallest violin.