I remain surprised that so little attention has been given to the murder of a Jewish counter-protester in California named Paul Kessler, who appears to have been either punched or hit with a megaphone by a pro-terrorist Muslim antisemite named Loay Alnaji, causing Kessler’s death.
In part, the silence is probably due to the fact that the police are saying the details of the incident remain somewhat unclear. Given that Alnaji has now been officially questioned, however, they are likely far less unclear than the police are willing to say at the moment.
Nonetheless, there are more compelling reasons for the media to downplay the murder. The first is that Alnaji is an academic. That is, he is one among a great many of his colleagues who have justified, supported, or celebrated the October 7 Hamas massacre and morally debased themselves in the process.
This has terrible implications, because these academics are not where they are by coincidence. They have been installed as a result of a movement over 50 years old, often called “The Long March Through the Institutions,” in which the antisemitic progressive left infiltrated academia and then established totalitarian control over it via institutional corruption.
The Long Marchers have spent decades slandering, defaming, harassing, indoctrinating, brainwashing, and otherwise abusing generations of their students and colleagues—and now, they appear to have murdered somebody. Alnaji, in other words, is the product of decades of corruption and antisemitic hate speech promulgated by thousands of elite academics in numerous disciplines.
Thus, the allegations against Alnaji do not only indict himself and the pro-terrorist movement of which he is a part. They indict an entire world, an entire regime, one that the regime’s leaders will do literally anything to preserve—including, it now seems, racist murder.
The Long Marchers created the academic equivalent of an army of suicide bombers, and they now appear to have done what suicide bombers do: kill people. If the allegations against Alnaji become too widely known, the entire professoriate stands condemned, and they know it. Much of the media, of course, was trained by the Long Marchers, and they are happy to do everything in their power to prevent this condemnation, even if it means covering up a fatal hate crime.
Clearly, the problem of elite academic antisemitism is systemic and has deep historical roots. It cannot be solved overnight. I have previously written about possible steps that could be taken. But what is clear is that the Long Marchers’ domination must be broken and their institutions smashed. Thankfully, the process of doing so is already partially underway, and we may hope for growing support as the Marchers continue to debase themselves in their support for terrorism, genocide, and murdering Jewish people.
As for Alnaji, the imperative is clear: If he has committed the crime he appears to have committed, he must face capital charges. These would have to be federal charges, as California does not have the death penalty. Given that the incident was a hate crime, however, federal charges could almost certainly be brought, and prosecutors should seek the death penalty; not only due to the egregiousness of the transgression, but in order to set a precedent of absolute zero tolerance for antisemitic violence, even when committed by a privileged and protected member of the progressive elite.
The single worst thing the US government can do right now is to allow a culture of impunity to develop around antisemitism. If it does, something like the far more severe situation in Europe could well develop in the US, threatening America’s most fundamental values. In order to prevent this from happening, give the swine the chair.
Also relevant to the issue of accountability is the House vote to censure pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas, antisemitic representative Rashida Tlaib.
This is one of the most welcome pieces of news to emerge out of the past heinous month, in particular because it is a clear bipartisan statement that institutionalized antisemitism will not be permitted in American politics. Unlike in Europe, where politicians generally bow and genuflect before antisemitic Muslims and leftists, the US Congress has managed to take a stand and condemn one of its own. While Tlaib certainly has her supporters, which is disturbing enough, they are not a majority and the majority is willing to say so and take appropriate action.
It must not stop with Tlaib, however. This is not the time for half-measures against the Axis of Antisemitism. It is time to run it over with a bulldozer. The Axis is now making its bid for domination of the American political discourse, and decent Americans inside and outside of politics must stand like a wall against it—for their own sakes, if not for ours. Thus, the equally antisemitic congresswoman Ilhan Omar must be censured next, followed by all of Tlaib’s defenders like AOC and Ayanna Presley. In addition, expulsion proceedings against Tlaib should begin.
Accountability is everything, because antisemites are fundamentally cowards. They never accept a fair fight and never dare to fight someone bigger and more powerful than they. When their nose is bloodied, they run into a corner and cry about being bullied and persecuted, which is annoying but preferable to their usual practice of bullying and persecuting others.
So, it must be said again: If there is one thing that has allowed antisemitism to become endemic in Europe, it is the lack of consequences. The US must not repeat this mistake.
Looking at the bigger picture, it is my hope that, over the past month, the Axis of Antisemitism has made the same mistake the far-left made after 9/11. Most people have forgotten that, during the first few days after 9/11, the far-left went on a gleeful spree of celebration, euphoric that the American “empire” had finally got what was coming to it and—as their favorite and most ridiculous slogan put it—“the chickens came home to roost.”
Encased in their elite bubble for decades, these pro-terrorism leftists had no concept of how they appeared to the rest of America, which was almost universally appalled and disgusted by their hideous dance on the graves of 3,000 innocent Americans. The backlash, when it came, was ferocious.
The pro-terrorist left, of course, was not stupid. They went silent, dissembled, retreated to the institutions they controlled with an iron fist, and eventually managed to worm their way back into the public discourse—especially after the Iraq War began to go bad. But for a time, they had fully discredited themselves and their fetid cause.
There is a good chance that, especially if we who do not think terror and mass murder are good things speak up, the same thing will happen now, only much more decisively. Once again, the pro-terrorist forces could not contain their euphoria, and this time they have taken to the streets in their thousands to proclaim it without the slightest attempt at concealment. Judging by poll numbers and anecdotal evidence, the majority of Americans are once again appalled and disgusted.
It is quite possible, in other words, that the Axis of Antisemitism has overplayed its hand in spectacular fashion. It was so thrilled by the Hamas slaughter and certain that it was on the verge of a triumphant genocide that, drunk with blood, it threw itself over a cliff. Most Americans, I suspect, despise these people. Unlike in Europe, moreover, the Axis’ blatant antisemitism does not increase sympathy, it increases Americans’ rage.
Nonetheless, we should not be complacent. The pro-terrorist left recovered from the 9/11 backlash. We must not permit that to occur again. We must grind its face into the rancid pool of its own venom. We must ensure that it has not just overplayed its hand, but gone over the cliff for good.
Following up on the perennial issue of the New York Times’ antisemitism, I recently came across yet another example of something that cannot be emphasized enough: The New York Times is a systemically racist publication.
In this case, the offense was small but telling. An article on Nikki Haley’s run for president included this paragraph:
Note the term “Israeli settlers.” Now, none of the people attacked and murdered on October 7 were “settlers.” They were all living in “Israel proper.” That is, on undisputed sovereign Israeli territory. It is, of course, just possible that the Times was referring to a different attack, but that is so vanishingly unlikely as to border on the absurd.
It should be clear, then, what the Times is saying by using this term: All Israelis are settlers. Given that the Times and, one presumes, its mostly elite progressive readership considers the presence of Israeli settlers illegal and illegitimate, the Times is essentially saying that all of Israel is illegal and illegitimate. Not coincidentally, this is one of the tenets of Palestinian nationalism in its genocidal form, and certainly embraced by Hamas itself.
This was not, in other words, a minor slip or an insignificant error. It was an explicit endorsement of genocidal antisemitism as embraced by numerous terrorist groups who seek to commit acts of genocidal antisemitism. It could not possibly have been allowed into print by anything other than a systemically racist publication.
The Times, unfortunately, is a behemoth. It enjoys global prestige, millions if not billions of dollars, and a halo effect that outstrips that of the Pope. It is a status symbol for much of the American aristocracy. Nonetheless, it is only as potent as we allow it to be. The best weapon we have against publications like the Times is our refusal. That is, our refusal to grant it the moral deference to which it believes itself entitled.
The Times, for example, constantly preaches to Americans about their country’s supposed inherent and essential racism, browbeating its readers like a Savonarola for the internet age. There is a simple way to respond to this: Refusal. Simply say, “Yes, but you are a systemically racist publication that supports terrorism and genocide, so why should I listen to anything you have to say? By the moral standards you yourself profess, you are guilty of an original sin that denies you any moral right to preach to anyone on any subject.”
If you wish to express such sentiments to the Times, you can contact them via this page or submit a letter to the editor.
I have to admit, Benjamin, that this piece of yours gave me cause for a bit of optimism, something I did not expect. You see a way forward in the fight against antisemitism, and believe that significant support can be drummed-up for this fight. More power to you!