This post has a tenuous relationship to its parent post: it's about a classic novel about racism in the South.

It's the fiftieth anniversary of To Kill A Mockingbird, the canonical novel about racism in the Deep South. Whereas Huckleberry Finn is under assault from the pc left, Mockingbird has been safe - until now - as a moral narrative for countering incipient homicidal inclinations in white children. No, I haven't read it yet - who says you have to read something before ranting about it? I did however read an article in The Guardian by an American journalist describing the injection of anti-semitism into a real story of racial oppression. Some secure, reasonably well-off people want a free ride, adding the moral capital of belonging to an oppressed ethnic minority to the real capital of not belonging to one. 

This article in the Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/29/to-kill-a-mockingbird-backlash

criticizes this article in the New Yorker

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/10/090810fa_fact_gladwell

which analyzes To Kill A Mockingbird from a Jewish perspective. You have to dig hard to find real examples of anti-semitism in American history, but the Zionist/anti-fascist guilt trip which keeps Israel untouchable depends on these stories, so the bulldozer keeps on digging. The New Yorker writer, Malcolm Gladwell, has the audacity to criticize a Southern liberal, Harper Lee, the author of To Kill A Mockingbird, for insensitivity to the Jewish question.

The Guardian commentator, Hadley Freeman, has no difficulty in answering Gladwell's complaint that one scene in the book has a white man ameliorating anti-semitic incidents - he is talking to a six-year old, and it is quite common to soften stories of extreme violence for childrens' consumption. One thing she misses is that the story isn't quite what it seems. Gladwell gratuitiously inserts a story of a man lynched in 1915 for allegedly murdering a child. Where mobs can get away with lynching alleged child-murderers, they will. The police are supposed to defend the defendant. According to Gladwell, they failed in this case because the defendant was Jewish. If he had been a white alleged child-murderer, Gladwell implies, he would have escaped lynching. This is unlikely. From one questionable anecdote, he deduces that 'Anti-Semitism of the most virulent kind was embedded in the social fabric of the Old South'.

He is horrified that the novel's hero says you shouldn't hate anyone, not even Hitler. Is he unaware of the ethical advance which Christianity made over Judaism? Even Christian forgiveness he labels anti-semitic!

It is not anti-semitism which is endemic in Western society, but crying wolf about it. To this day, Jewish leftists make out that Ethel and Julius Rosenburg were lynched by the WASP establishment because they were Jewish. The mere fact that the Russian government long ago admitted they were spies is of no interest to crypto-Zionists - truth is created by selecting evidence which advances Jewish interests.

When a couple of homeless people in Oregon got into a fight, and one of them allegedly used the 'J-word' to the other, the media made it a hate crime, harbinger of a holocaust. A lot of effort goes into making us believe that anti-semitism is a problem today. This nonsense helps Zionism. It permeates the media from The New Yorker to Indymedia.