Tag Archives: law

Blog

Jews Screech, Facebook Jumps

24 Comments

Open Letter to Facebook — Stop Antisemitism (PDF), 7 August 2020:

In accordance with the recommendations outlined in the “The New Antisemites” report, which call on social media platforms to eliminate antisemitic content by adopting the IHRA working definition as the basis for content removal policies, we the undersigned coalition of 128 [as of 11 August, 145 as of 26 August] organizations, urge Facebook to implement a hate speech policy on antisemitism that includes the full IHRA working definition at its core. Nearly 40 countries have already endorsed or adopted the IHRA working definition in some official capacity, either through their membership in the IHRA or independently. In the United States, in addition to the adoption by the State Department, the recent Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism instructs the Department of Education to consider the IHRA definition when evaluating Title VI Civil Rights Act complaints of discrimination.

The overwhelming majority of civil society organizations at the forefront of efforts to combat antisemitism endorse and encourage the use and adoption of the IHRA working definition. Today’s antisemitism undoubtedly includes the delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist. This bigotry is expressed in various ways, such as the rejection of Jewish self-determination, Holocaust revisionism and denial, and the application of double standards toward the Jewish state and people.

. . .

Jews today, like many other minority communities, are being targeted and attacked in record numbers. They experience physical violence, harassment, and discrimination offline and online. Jews overwhelmingly report that online antisemitism is the most acute form of Jew-hatred they experience.

Facebook’s Community Standards Recent Updates (italics denote additions), 11 August 2020:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

. . .

Tier 1

Content targeting a person or group of people (including all subsets except those described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses) on the basis of their aforementioned protected characteristic(s) or immigration status with:

. . .

Designated dehumanizing comparisons, generalizations, or behavioral statements (in written or visual form)- that include:

. . .

Jewish people and rats

Jewish people running the world or controlling major institutions such as media networks, the economy or the government

Facebook announces new policy combating anti-Jewish stereotypes – Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 12 August 2020:

Facebook announced that it would ban posts about Jews controlling the world among several other efforts to combat hate speech.

The announcement comes following a monthlong boycott of advertising on Facebook spearheaded by a coalition of civil rights groups led by the Anti-Defamation League. More than 1,000 companies participated in the boycott, which was meant to protest Facebook’s lack of action against hate speech.

In an announcement Tuesday issued by Guy Rosen, the social media platform’s vice president of integrity, Facebook said it would ban posts about Jews controlling the world, as well as those containing blackface. Rosen also wrote that Facebook has removed 23 “banned organizations” from the platform since October, half of which were white supremacist.

. . .

Responding to the announcement, an ADL spokesperson called the changes “welcome yet overdue.”

“It’s distressing that it took this long for the platform to crack down on these particular forms of hate, when it’s quite obvious they should not have been allowed to proliferate in the first place,” the ADL statement said. “It’s equally as disturbing that Facebook still doesn’t view Holocaust denial as violative of their terms of service.”

Facebook banned stereotypes of Jewish global domination – The Forward, 13 August 2020:

In May, Peter Stern, Facebook’s director of Content Policy Stakeholder Engagement, said in a conversation with a representative of the AJC they have “mapped” some elements of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism onto their own policies, but not the parts that relate to Israel, since the site does not want to penalize people for criticizing Israel.

. . .

Greenblatt, of the ADL, criticized Facebook for not taking a stronger stand on Holocaust denial, and called it “disturbing” that the company classifies such posts as “misinformation,” and not a form of hate speech against a protected group.

. . .

Facebook still permits inaccurate and false statements about the Holocaust, but takes down posts that in any way celebrate or defend the Holocaust, or mock the Holocaust or survivors, Cutler said. When asked if there is content on Facebook that denies the Holocaust but is not otherwise anti-Semitic, Cutler said the site moderates such pieces of content on a case by case basis.

Here we see jews, obsessively organized and acting collectively as jews, setting themselves apart from and above non-jews, shamelessly proclaiming themselves the arbiters of what non-jews can say, instructing the world’s most powerful corporations how to better serve their tribe, bragging that governments of 40-odd countries have already codified special privileges for jews, as spelled out by jews.

Note how they screech as if anyone else’s bigotry or “application of double standards” could ever be more obnoxious than their own, and how they respond to any concession with more demands. Note too how their usual identity fraud, their outrageous “fellow white” shtick, is conspicuously absent here. Instead they present themselves like “other minority communities”, as a “protected group” per civil rights law, as non-White.

Indeed, with jews so openly dictating who can speak and what they can say, and doing so under color of a jew-defined and jew-driven moral imperative to combat “White supremacism”, jews could hardly make it more obvious that they see themselves as the utter opposite of Whites – morally, politically, socially, legally.

Blog

Anti-Masking Unmasked

7 Comments

shlomo_says_take_off_your_masks

A new anti-mask bill, H.R.6054 – Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018, is causing some controversy, mostly because it includes the word “antifa” in its title. The body of the bill doesn’t mention “antifa”. The core of it is instead stated in seemingly neutral terms:

Ҥ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise

“(a) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

Anti-mask laws aren’t new. Dishonest discussion of them swirls around the judeo-liberal charade known as “civil liberties” or “equal rights”. Taken at face value, the bill only reinforces existing “rights” laws. These laws are interpreted to privilege “protected classes” over Whites. Critics of the bill use this same “rights” rhetoric, fretting that the law will somehow infringe these existing anti-White “rights”. Republican Congressmen Are Pushing Anti-Antifa Bill is a typical jewsmedia example:

The legislation, which could send people to prison for up to 15 years, mirrors controversial state laws originally designed at cracking down on the Ku Klux Klan. But unlike those state laws, Donovan’s bill is a direct shot at leftist protesters. And it might be unconstitutional, experts say.

“The thing I think is kind of funny is that the title is refers to ‘antifa,’” Ruthann Robson, a law professor at the City University of New York told The Daily Beast. “One issue there would be: is this law targeting a certain group of people?”

Just to be clear, these jewsmedia “experts” are concerned that anti-White/pro-jew thugs continue to enjoy their constitutional “rights” to use violent extralegal political terror tactics against Whites. These “experts” have some cause for alarm because even existing anti-mask laws, which were created by jews to target White groups, are nowadays sometimes hampering anti-Whites.

The screeching about the bill gives the impression that it might somehow set back the anti-White agenda on a federal level. But that’s not likely given the current anti-White/pro-jew interpretation of “rights” laws, never mind more recent explicitly anti-White/pro-jew legislation. Whatever its author’s intent and despite the title it is entirely possible that this bill, if it ever becomes law, would only make interference with anti-White/pro-jew “rights” a federal offense. For example, it could be used to prosecute someone for anonymously “oppressing” jews on the internet.

Blog

“Don’t Be Evil” is Code for “Be Anti-White”

73 Comments

based_caucasianJames Damore vs. Google: Class Action Lawsuit | Bias | Complaint

James Damore (“Damore”) and David Gudeman (“Gudeman” (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views … (ii) due to their male gender and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race

5. Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.

6. Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so.

8. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings.

27. Damore’s immediate supervisor was Cristian Tapus (“Tapus”). Tapus reports to Chuck Wu (“Wu”), Senior Director of Engineering for Google. Wu, in turn, reports to Ari Balogh (“Balogh”), Vice President of Engineering at Google. Balogh reports to Sridhar Ramaswamy (“Ramaswamy), the Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads. Ramaswamy, in turn, reports to Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google), who ultimately reports to Larry Page (CEO of Alphabet).

Google’s Diversity And Inclusion Summit

36. Google defined “diverse” individuals as women or individuals who were not Caucasian or Asian.

Specifically, Damore mentioned that it seemed like Google was elevating political correctness over merit.

There he asked questions about whether Google looked at viewpoint diversity with respect to hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. The answer he received was that Google only looked at demographic diversity (gender and/or race) when making hiring and promotion decisions—not at viewpoint diversity.

48. Damore ended his memo by addressing the problem in a constructive manner by advocating that Google should treat employees and potential hires as individuals, not members of tribes

60. At the in-person training, entitled “Bias Busting,” Google discussed how biases against women exist in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace. The training was run by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google, and there were approximately 20 Google employees present. Damore disagreed with this one-sided approach. When Damore verbalized his dissent and his concerns with the one-sided presentation, other employees, including managers, laughed at him derisively. They considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of disparagement.

66. After Damore’s memo went viral outside Google, Damore began receiving multiple threats and insults from his coworkers

67. On August 3, 2017 George Sadlier (“Sadlier”), a Director at Google, sent out a mass email condemning James’ essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an HR investigation into Damore. Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against Damore. Subsequently, On Friday, August 4, 2017, Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google in Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

72. Wu told Damore he was being terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

80. On or about August 20, 2015, Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), an L7 SWE Manager, drafted and published a document on a Google-employees only website, entitled, “Derailing.” This document discussed how individuals might attempt to silence someone’s opinions or distract from someone’s point of view. The document was aimed at Caucasian males, and conflated marginalization with white male privilege. The document essentially claimed through examples that any response but agreement to a statement about bias, prejudice, or privilege was a “derailment.” Reductio ad absurdum, the thesis of this document is that on this one particular set of topics, the left-wing political frame of systematic bias, must always dominate, and the receiver must accept that frame, and its associated worldview, in their response. 81.

Gudeman read this article, and disagreed with its premise, as did many other employees. Gudeman left a comment stating his belief that men “need to understand that [Caucasian males] are the victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.” 82.

Gudeman went on to state that “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.’”

85. Gudeman compared this document to that which “slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters,” in order to point out prejudices involved with the document

87. Ironically, other Google employees began to “derail” Gudeman’s point of view. Under the guise of advocating for an open dialogue, Burchett merely reported Googlers that disagreed with the thesis of her document, as Gudeman did, to Google management as being “un-Googley.” This further exemplifies the one-sided and flawed mindset of Google—that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong and hateful

93. On November 10, 2016, in response to many Google employee posting on different Google-wide forums regarding their fears about the new administration, Gudeman wrote that anyone “who believes President Trump will be out to get minorities, women or gays has absorbed a lot of serious lies from their echo chamber. And the echo chamber is entirely one sided. You can’t watch TV or go to movies without being constantly confronted with the leftist world view. Leftists can go their whole life never being exposed to the conservative world view except in shows written by people hostile to it.”

94. Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you truly think Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis [sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, then you are so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but are saying them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.”

101. Gudeman had another conversation with another Google employee on November 10, 2016, where he complained about being a conservative and a Trump supporter. Gudeman pointed out that “Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google. Googlers feel comfortable slandering them in a public forum and assume there will be no consequences.”

111. The Final Written Warning itself repudiated Google’s own policy: “We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups 2, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.” Ironically, the Google employee had provided ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted for severe written abuse and career sabotage.

156. Liz Fong-Jones (“Fong-Jones”), an L5 SRE Manager at Google, repeatedly discriminated against Caucasian males.

166. On November 15, 2015, a Google employee complained to Google HR regarding a highly offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated:

“If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!” (emphasis added.)

167. The Google employee stated that this statement was a violation of the Google Code of Conduct, and was creating a hostile workplace environment as it targeted Caucasians, males, and individuals over the age of 40.

168. Google HR responded: “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to [sic] violates our policies.”

169. Perplexed, the Google employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40-something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed to respond.

170. Google’s lack of response and engagement evidenced Google’s biases and its inability to even recognize them when someone pointed them out. As demonstrated above, Google allowed individuals to insult and discriminate against political conservatives, Caucasians, and males with impunity.

171. A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!” Further in the thread, Burchett highlights the divisiveness of her original post by noting that it was not fair even to talk about women when “POC” or “people of color” weren’t getting enough airtime in the discussion.

Here is a glimpse into the orwellian culture inside Google and similar tech corporations, which is in turn a reflection of the language and attitudes long incubated in academic weapons labs and dispensed by corporate media. The “diversity and inclusion” mask for the “anti-racist” agenda is slipping, exposing the anti-White racial animus which has always driven it. At it’s very root the “diversity” double-talk at Jewgle is anti-White, just as it is in most jewniversities and the jewsmedia. These institutions are so anti-White because they are thoroughly jewed.

Is there a single Google manager who explicitly identifies themselves positively as a White man? Has anyone ever counted the jews? Damore and Gudeman don’t claim to have done so. It is only for the purpose of this lawsuit that they now claim to be White, and what’s more, to speak for the interests of Whites as a legal class. Previously Damore minimized the importance of race. In his memo and in interviews immediately after his termination he made a point of disavowing “racism” and advocating individualism.

Damore’s memo was primarily concerned with opposing attitudes and policies he perceived as potentially punishing him for being a man. Beyond that he and his most vocal supporters have put special emphasis on ideology, complaining that they are “punished for their heterodox political views”. Their view on race is not heterodox, it’s passe. They prefer the older, less blatantly anti-White “anti-racism”. They won’t say it, but the problem is that version isn’t semitically correct enough any more. No doubt Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google, as Gudeman so knowingly puts it. What goes unsaid, even in this suit, is that the hatred is more racial than political, that it is so freely expressed because “Trump supporter” is understood to mean White.

The suit would have more value to Whites if Damore or Gudeman had been fired for saying something like “jews will not replace us” or “it’s okay to be White”. That would have made the who/whom nature of the hostility more plain. As it is Google’s lawyers can point at statements made by the plaintiffs themselves to make their case that race didn’t have anything to do with their terminations. And after all, they’ll argue, Google can’t possibly be anti-White because its management is stacked with (((fellow Whites)))!

Unfortunately, Damore, Gudeman, and their lawyers are not really trying to challenge semitical correctness. Like Weinstein at Evergreen or Bakke at UCal, they’re looking for some shekels for being mistaken for White.

Blog

How Jews Jewsplain Jewing

10 Comments

the_nose_knowsHow do you define anti-Semitism? It’s complicated.:

“[T]he JCC bomb threat hoax wasn’t just an isolated swastika daubing — it was an ongoing story affecting Jewish institutions in nearly every American Jewish community. It shaped a communal narrative that something ugly and insidious was happening out there. And it fueled a political crisis among most American Jewish organizations and the White House, with the former accusing the latter of taking too long to denounce anti-Semitism and to comfort Jews traumatized by the bomb threats and at least two major cemetery desecrations.”

Kadar, 18 at the time of his arrest in April, “deserves” the dubious distinction for another reason: He personifies a Jewish question, perhaps the Jewish question of 2017, which is, “How do you define anti-Semitism?” Kadar’s circumstances are of course peculiar to him, asking if a series of hoaxes that terrified Jewish institutions stop being anti-Semitism because the caller is Jewish. The question I am talking about is both semantic and political, pitting left against right on at least two battlegrounds.

“Anti-semitism” is defined by jews. In practice the term denotes anything one or more jews don’t like, as jews. They have difficultly acknowledging this, but it’s not because they can’t agree on what they don’t like. The difficultly arises from what they do agree on, which is that “anti-semitism” is entirely a goyim malfunction and has nothing whatsoever to do with jews jewing. This assertion of theirs is both essential to and contradicted by the way they acutally brandish the term, like a weapon, using their imagined victimhood to justify their aggression, to excuse whatever harm jewing causes non-jews.

Kadar is an excellent example. Jews screeched and jews profited, non-jews weren’t involved except as subordinates. The “anti-semitism” was nothing more than a supposed failure of the kikeservative-in-chief to service the jews when and how they expected. The only question jews ask is how far they can ride their loxism.

Left-leaning groups — on campus and on the outside — worry that labeling even hostile political rhetoric as hate speech puts Jews on the wrong side of the free speech debate. They say that a tool that has only recently been applied to anti-Semitic activity on campus — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — takes too broad a brush in defining anti-Semitism and ends up blaming legitimate critics of Israel of creating an “unsafe” environment for Jewish students.

Two of the most active groups in promoting the use of Title VI — the Zionist Organization of America and the Lawfare Project — are on the right.

The jews define “hate” too, primarily as a pretext to restrict what anyone else can say or do about what they don’t like. The cry-out-in-pain-as-you-strike nature of jew aggression becomes obvious whenever they try to formulate a precise meaning for “anti-semitism”, and especially when they read it into ostensibly secular liberal law.

The pantomime of left-jew versus right-jew serves as a thin disguise for the fact that Title VI is simultaneously promoted and exploited by jews. The upshot is that the supposed anti-discrimination law is interpreted to discriminate jews from Whites. Organized jewry wants Whites trying to be White criminalized as “hate”, while at the same time they demand their jewing be specifically privileged and protected. The courts, the schools, the corporations, all dance to jewry’s tune.

On the political front, the anti-Semitic debate broke in almost exactly the opposite way: The left was quick to label President Donald Trump as a fomenter of anti-Semitism and some of his aides and minions as anti-Semites outright. The failure of the White House to name Jews in its formal statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day — like Trump’s tepid condemnation of the racist and anti-Semitic marchers at Charlottesville — was not just an inadvertent mistake, many on the left reasoned, but a dog-whistle to the nationalist, and sometimes racist and anti-Semitic, right that supported Trump.

On the political front, the jews kick and the kikeservatives lick. White voters, deracinated and demoralized, too forgiving and forgetful, get only disingenuous dog-whistling. The jews, hyper-ethnocentric and ever-moralizing, never forgiving or forgeting, swiftly swarm to pillory any figurehead who steps over one of their many semitically correct lines.

Charlottesville demonstrated that Whites cannot freely assemble and speak, as Whites, in public. The swift and hysterical reaction from the local, state, and federal governments, officially condemning Whites because “anti-semitism”, demonstrated that Whites and jews are poltical opposites. Decades of phoney judicial dancing around race and privilege have suddenly been supplanted by explicit executive and legislative proclamations that the regime is officially anti-White out of deference to jews.

The ongoing chutzpathic attempt to invert this reality, to portray the kikeservative-in-chief as a tool of “anti-semites” rather than jews, merely reflects how thoroughly jewed the media and current political system are. Trump viciously counter-attacks anyone who attacks him. Everyone but the jews. When the jews kick, Trump licks.

Or maybe it’s not such a new phenomenon after all, because behind the debate are a familiar series of issues that have long divided the Jewish activist class: tikkun olam vs. “peoplehood”; universal justice vs. particularist priorities; a broad human rights agenda vs. a narrower focus on Israel. A polarized political climate only created the conditions for divides that were there all along.

Their toxic “communal narrative”, their hoax culture, their intersectional jewing, their left-vs-right dissembling, their constant screeching and gesticulating. No, none of this is new, only more blatant. To jewsplain their virulent collective behavior jews pretend it’s more complicated than it actually is, moaning about the divisiveness they themselves manufacture. Behind it all is the same old game – two jews, three opinions how to jew.

Blog

Organized Jewry Screeches About Jew Privilege

7 Comments

adl_barking_at_betsy_devos

Pictured is a screenshot of this twit from Jonathan Greenblatt, which in turn links an ADL blog post, New Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos: Promises Made, Promises to be Kept.

A search for the language in this twit brought up a more detailed account from a Jerusalem Post op-ed, US Jewish students now protected from anti-Semitic abuse, 17 November 2010:

After a six-year Zionist Organization of America campaign, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced an important policy benefiting Jewish students in elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools. In a letter issued on October 26, OCR declared that it will enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect Jewish students from harassment, intimidation and discrimination at federally funded schools.

This is a breakthrough. Until this announcement, OCR wouldn’t enforce Title VI to protect Jewish students, leaving them without the same civil rights protections that have been afforded to other ethnic and racial groups since Title VI’s enactment in 1964.

It was OCR’s policy denying Jews the protection of Title VI that largely accounted for the agency’s decision to dismiss the complaint the ZOA filed in 2004 on behalf of Jewish students at the University of California at Irvine. UCI students had been subjected to years of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation, described in detail in the ZOA’s 11-page complaint to OCR.

One of the authors of that op-ed was quoted saying something similar several years earlier. SPME: New Legal Tools Fight Anti-Semitism, CLJ’s Susan Tuchman Says, The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh, 5 July 2007:

“Campus anti-Semitism is a serious problem,” [director of the Zionist Organization of America’s Center for Law and Justice (CLJ), Susan] Tuchman said, “but the good news is there is a legal tool to address it.”

That legal tool is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thanks in part to the efforts of Tuchman, anti-Semitism can now be challenged under Title VI.

The good news, Tuchman said, is that the inclusion of Jews as a protected class under Title VI was recently endorsed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bi-partisan agency that investigates and studies discrimination, reporting its findings to Congress and the president. In 2006, the Commission recognized that anti-Semitism encompasses more than name calling and threats, and that sometimes it is expressed as “anti-Israelism” or anti-Zionism.

The Commission accordingly recommended that colleges and universities come out and condemn anti-Semitism, Tuchman explained. The Commission rejected the argument that universities could remain silent because of the perpetrators’ right to free speech; instead, the Commission said, the schools had a moral obligation to take a stand against anti-Semitic speech.

The Commission’s findings have sent “a powerful message to colleges and universities,” Tuchman said.

The OCR had already publicly conceded to jew demands for special treatment in 2004 – Title VI and Title IX Religious Discrimination in Schools and Colleges, 13 September 2004:

OCR has recently addressed two kinds of race and sex discrimination allegations commingled with allegations of religious discrimination. First, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, OCR has received complaints of race or national origin harassment commingled with aspects of religious discrimination against Arab Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish students. Second, OCR has recently encountered allegations of racial and sex discrimination commingled with allegations of religious discrimination against Christian students. OCR does not tolerate either of these forms of harassment, which are prohibited by Title VI and Title IX.

As we pass the third anniversary of September 11, 2001, we must remain particularly attentive to the claims of students who may be targeted for harassment based on their membership in groups that exhibit both ethnic and religious characteristics, such as Arab Muslims, Jewish Americans and Sikhs. President George W. Bush and Secretary Rod Paige have both condemned such acts of bigotry. As President Bush has said, “those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of their behavior.”

So the six-year campaign mentioned in the 2010 article appears to have actually been about cementing and/or broadening a special privileged status for jews. And now seven years beyond that organized jewry is still screeching as if at any moment jews might be treated as if they are White.

I touched on this particular point in Jews Versus Whites – Part 2. Behind the Orwellian language of civil rights – the disingenuous universalist moralizing against the evils of discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact – lies a fundamental distinction between protected classes and everyone else.

So what the jews have been screeching about all this time, as if they are victims, is that the government, under the false pretext that “jew” is a religion, discriminates in favor of jews and assigns them special legal privilege as a protected class.