Communism leads to despair, poverty, hunger, and death. For a century now, they have experienced firsthand the destructive power of communism that demolishes economies, kills and maims the people, and pushes everyone into misery and poverty.
Nevertheless, when it comes to scourge that is communism, we can now say the science is settled.
Via The Sun:
Communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades, scientists prove in landmark study
Researchers testing historical connections between cultures found if a country had been under communism was the biggest factor for those with lower health, income and educational levels
LIVING under communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades, according to scientists publishing a landmark new study.
Researchers testing historical connections between cultures found that whether a country had been under communism was the biggest factor for those with lower health, income and educational levels.
In the first undertaking of its kind, they analysed the fortunes of 44 countries across Europe and Asia and looked at geography, faith, systems of government and a more intangible quality called “deep cultural ancestry”
Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science they matched these factors against where they ranked on the United Nations Human Development Index, which measures per capita income, life expectancy at birth and the number of years its citizens spend in education.
Most of the issues they looked at appeared to have little or no effect on the disparities between the countries, except for Islamic countries scoring a little worse on education.
Instead, the single strongest predictor for a country’s health, and the second strongest for its wealth turned out to be whether its rulers had embraced communism.
Many in the media say there’s a conservative war on science. Is this true?
No, says John Tierney, Contributing Editor at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. Tierney says “the real war on science is the one from the left.”
John Stossel points out that people on the right are more likely to believe in creationism. Tierney answers, “creationism doesn’t… affect the way science is done. I can’t find examples where the right-wing stopped the progress of science… whereas you can look on the left and you see so many areas that are taboo to research.”
Gender differences, IQ trends, genetically modified foods.
Tierney says the left stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. People who study gender difference have leaned to keep quiet, says Tierney. “You can’t say that there are more men are more aggressive, more risk-taking, that status matters and making money matters more to them.”
Finally, Tierney complains that Universities are utterly dominated by leftists. In the social sciences, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least eight to one. In some fields like sociology it’s 44 to one. Students are more likely to be taught in sociology by a Marxist [25%] than by a Republican [2%]. Tierney says “once an academic department gets a majority of people who are on the left, they start hiring people like themselves, and pretty soon the whole department is that way. They start to think that their opinions and that their interests are not only the norm, but the truth.”
He didn’t know Pulse was predominately a gay nightclub and had never been there before the shooting.
The shooting was not a homophobic hate crime.
He was obsessed with ISIS.
Every mass tragedy begets a frantic search for answers, for a common understanding of what happened, for a narrative, and the 2016 Pulse massacre was no different.
Not long after Omar Mateen opened fire inside a bustling gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the media scrambled to understand his depraved actions. Almost overnight, a narrative emerged that until now has been impossible to dislodge: Mateen planned and executed an attack on Pulse because he hated gay people.
There was compelling evidence of other motivations. Mateen had pledged allegiance to the self-described Islamic State during the shooting, and explicitly said that he was acting to avenge air strikes in the Middle East. “You have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq. They are killing a lot of innocent people,” he told a crisis negotiator over the phone while at Pulse. “What am I to do here when my people are getting killed over there. You get what I’m saying?”
But this was a tricky thing to get a handle on — 49 dead and another 53 wounded, so many of them members of a historically marginalized and persecuted group. How could they not have been targeted? To say that the attack was not “rooted in homophobia,” one commenter wrote in USA Today, was to “erase the LGBT community … causing only more pain by invalidating their experiences.”
Over the past two weeks in Orlando, Mateen’s widow, Noor Salman, was tried for having allegedly helped him plan his attack. The popular understanding of the Pulse shooting as a carefully targeted massacre was on trial as well. And in acquitting Salman, 31, on Friday, a jury also delivered a verdict on the story we’d told ourselves about the killings: We’d gotten it wrong.
In the wake of the shooting, the media and public focused on certain details, many of which were later determined to be unfounded, and discounted others, like Mateen’s own explanation for his actions. If Mateen had indeed been motivated by something other than homophobia, the grief and terror of the gay community were no less real and no less urgent for it. But the narrative that was repeated and turned into fact ― that Mateen had picked Pulse because of who its patrons were and what they represented ― had the effect of obscuring another, smaller injustice: the prosecution of Mateen’s wife.
A Muslim woman who by her family’s account was beaten by Mateen, Salman might have been a sympathetic figure in a different context. But I think now of Bob Kunst’s sign. A longtime human rights activist, Kunst was protesting outside the federal courthouse, just two miles from the nightclub where the tragedy occurred, as Salman’s trial began. “‘FRY’ HER,” his sign read, “TILL SHE HAS NO ‘PULSE.’” It didn’t seem to occur to many people that Noor Salman might have been a victim of Mateen, too.
“The media missed the story,” Charles Swift, one of Salman’s lawyers said, “because they depended on the government to tell it to them.”
Salman’s trial cast doubt on everything we thought we knew about Mateen. There was no evidence he was a closeted gay man, no evidence that he was ever on Grindr. He looked at porn involving older women, but investigators who scoured Mateen’s electronic devices couldn’t find any internet history related to homosexuality. (There were daily, obsessive searches about ISIS, however.) Mateen had extramarital affairs with women, two of whom testified during the trial about his duplicitous ways.
Mateen may very well have been homophobic. He supported ISIS, after all, and his father, an FBI informant currently under criminal investigation, told NBC that his son once got angry after seeing two men kissing. But whatever his personal feelings, the overwhelming evidence suggests his attack was not motivated by it.
As far as investigators could tell, Mateen had never been to Pulse before, whether as a patron or to case the nightclub. Even prosecutors acknowledged in their closing statement that Pulse was not his original target; it was the Disney Springs shopping and entertainment complex. They presented evidence demonstrating that Mateen chose Pulse randomly less than an hour before the attack. It is not clear he even knew it was a gay bar. A security guard recalled Mateen asking where all the women were, apparently in earnest, in the minutes before he began his slaughter.
In her news conference on June 21, 2016, then-U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch called the attack “an act of terror and an act of hate” and pledged to examine all possible motivations for Mateen’s actions.
Seven months after the shooting, Salman was hit with federal terrorism charges for allegedly aiding and abetting her husband. But hate crime charges never came — “and now you know why,” said Swift. Despite the overwhelming public consensus, there apparently wasn’t enough evidence for a hate crime classification. In fact, the 2016 Hate Crimes in Florida Report does not include the 49 victims of the Pulse shooting in its official total. “These crimes were not classified as hate crimes by the Orlando Police Department in the Uniform Crime Reporting Information System,” the report noted.
From the start, the evidence against Salman was paper-thin and hinged on a “confession” that an FBI agent hand-wrote for her after an 11-hour interrogation in the immediate aftermath of the massacre that was neither filmed nor recorded. Her lawyers maintain the statement was coerced.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
How will Trump’s administration impact you?
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
In it, Salman claimed she knew Mateen was headed to Pulse that night, and that they’d scouted the location together. But within a few days of the massacre, the government had reason to believe her statement was false. Based on data from their cell phones, neither Mateen or Salman had ever been in the vicinity of Pulse before. On the night of the attack, Mateen first went to Disney Springs and EVE Orlando ― both of which had heavy, visible security ― before ending up at Pulse after a Google search for “downtown Orlando nightclubs.” Notably, his search did not include the words “gay” or “LGBT.”
The evidence suggested it was a crime of opportunity, the location chosen at random. If Mateen didn’t know where he was going that night, how could his wife have known? How could she, in the words of the June 15, 2016, New York Post cover, “have saved them all”?
Prosecutors decided to pursue charges against Salman anyway, knowing full well that the statements she gave the FBI could not be corroborated. It was as if authorities were drawing up an indictment to fit the public’s conception of the crime, even if their strongest proof was at odds with other evidence they’d collected.
“[T]he agents had coerced Noor into agreeing that Omar Mateen had cased the Pulse and selected the nightclub as his target,” said Swift in an email, “and it was not in the government’s interest to contradict that narrative.”
Beyond the courtroom, the narrative had taken on a powerful dimension in Orlando. All over town, in bars and restaurants, you could see signs reading, “We will not let hate win.” During the trial, I spoke to one LGBT community leader there who said he would always know, in his heart, that Mateen picked Pulse to kill gay people, and that Salman knew of his plans. No amount of evidence would change his mind, he said.
Despite the thinness of the case against her, there was no public reckoning over whether the aggressive prosecution was warranted, or just. In my conversations with dozens of people in Orlando, I did not encounter a single person who thought Salman might be innocent.
In May of 2017, Jacquelyn Campbell, a leading expert on domestic violence who evaluated Salman at the request of her attorneys, confided in me that she was extremely concerned about the case, and wanted to make sure it was on my radar. But where was everyone else? Where were the sort of liberal pressure groups that normally could be counted on to bang the drum about domestic violence, Islamophobia, overzealous terror prosecutions?
There was an undeniable sadism in how the government went about its case. Salman had originally been granted bail by a magistrate judge in California, but prosecutors appealed, asking a federal judge to keep her behind bars. They pointed to her confession that she had scouted Pulse with her husband ― even though by this point they had strong evidence to the contrary ― as a sign she was a danger to society. At the time, Judge Paul Byron sided with the government and kept Salman imprisoned before her trial.
During the trial, when an FBI agent testified that he had determined “within days” of the massacre that Salman had never been in the vicinity of Pulse, based on her cell phone data, Byron stopped him.
You knew within days? he asked.
Yes, the agent responded.
Did you tell anyone?
Yes, the agent said.
Whom did you tell?
My superiors, the agent replied. Byron asked for their first and last names. Later, after excusing the jury, he asked prosecutors to explain themselves. Why had they misled him when they asked him to deny Salman bail?
“I’m very concerned by that,” Byron said. It seemed he had taken it personally. His decision on Salman’s bail, based in part on faulty information, was responsible for her long separation from her child. By the time of the verdict, Salman had spent 14 months in jail.
The judge’s scolding of the prosecution was perhaps the most dramatic moment in the trial. It suggested to those listening that the government’s tactics were shady and not to be trusted. It was something many of us in the courtroom, myself included, were already starting to suspect.
Between the lines, a different story from the government’s was being told in the courtroom, about a different sort of quintessentially American crime. “She was not his partner, she was not his peer, and she certainly was not his confidant,” one of Salman’s lawyers, Linda Moreno, said. Mateen was a domestic abuser who treated Salman with disrespect and violence. “Her only sin was that she married a monster,” she said.
Although Salman is now free, the human toll of the decision to prosecute her is very real. The trial itself was a kind of punishment.
For two weeks, Salman, who did not testify, sat in court with dark circles under her eyes, shifting nervously in her seat and speaking quietly to her lawyers. At least once, she was heard protesting that the FBI was lying. She listened as she was described by prosecutors as a cunning, callous woman who would go along with a plan of mass murder for a sparkly diamond ring, and by her defense team as a simple-minded dupe victimized by her philandering husband.
She missed things, important things, while she was locked up. Her grandmother died during jury selection for the trial; Salman did not get to say her goodbyes or attend the funeral. Most painfully, she was separated from her son for over a year, unable to hug or kiss him.
Salman’s acquittal was historic; the government rarely loses terrorism cases. But her victory hardly felt like one. Right away, it was circumscribed by the very jury that had set her free. In a statement sent to the Orlando Sentinel after the trial, the foreman of the jury said jurors suspected Salman knew her husband was planning something, even if she didn’t know the date or location.
After the verdict came in, Salman’s lawyers stood in front of the federal courthouse and berated the media ― the same media that had gotten the story so very wrong.
“A year and a half ago, you believed she dropped him off at Pulse!” Swift, one of Salman’s attorneys, said to the gaggle of reporters. “You believed they scouted Pulse!”
On the same steps, Salman’s uncle thanked the judge and jury, and said the family looked forward to getting Salman the best therapist money could afford. They just wanted to get her home to her son as soon as possible. Too much damage had already been done.
What do we now see? The Last Stages of Cultural Marxism
The American common sense public, that is the majority of non ideological citizens that just want to raise a family and/or live constructive lives, looks with astonishment at the so called left and what they perceive as their peculiar and or absurd ideas, including political correctness and a bevy of artificial grievances.
Instinctively they reject them and wonder how they came to gain such prominence. If you are doing your job you are not interested in terms such as Cultural Marxism and you can’t be blamed. It’s not a theme for common sense people but it has infected the American universities and found its way into societal mores and public policy. That is why you should know something about it. We will try to give you a succinct review of several decades of the history of this movement because one of its tenets is to go slow and unnoticed until the proper time arrives.
It started with Antonio Gramsci an Italian communist who in the 1920s returned from a visit to Stalin’s Russia convinced of two things. The proletarian revolution had never taken hold in the west or in Russia for that matter, and that soviet methods were not going to succeed in Italy.
Why? Because the proletarian class believed in patriotism, religion and the family. Patriotism defended the concept of nation state while communism wanted a world without frontiers united under one idea and one rule. Religion posited the concept of an after life and opposed communism’s atheistic earthly paradise. The family was the cradle where children learned patriotism, religion and respect for paternal authority. Communism wanted control of the children’s minds. They were the future new men and women.
For Gramsci these institutions produce “hegemony”. It is in this way, said Gramsci, that the ruling class maintains societal control. Marxist success requires a radical change of ideas and values.
Mussolini put Gramsci in jail where he died in 1937 but not before he had written 3,000 pages of essays and developed his theory of cultural hegemony. To turn the culture around he proposed several things the most important being:
a) The organic intellectual who would grow and work with the neighborhood and indoctrinate it. The community organizer of Saul Alinsky is simply its American version.
b) University intellectuals were to be recruited.
c) Figures of influence such as sportsmen, artists, scientists were to be gained for the cause even if they did not fully comprehend the doctrine and its political ramifications. A simple spousal of some of the ideas would be sufficient. That is why you see so many Hollywood figures and the like talking with great pomposity about topics way beyond their sphere of competence.
d) Infiltrate the churches and get them to support selected causes.
e) Infiltrate the judiciary through ideas planted at the university level and through peer review papers. Eventually some of the professionals so formed would gain access to judgeships.
All of this must be done with patience and as subtly as possible because otherwise a counter revolution would be provoked. When the time comes and power centers fall under Marxist control then the clenched fist can be shown.
A man convicted of killing two police officers in the 1970s was granted parole after serving 44 years, upsetting members of the New York police community who believe he should spend life behind bars, according to WCBS-TV.
Herman Bell, who was a member of the Black Liberation Army, was convicted in the 1971 murder of Officers Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini.
The Black Liberation Army was an offshoot of the Black Panther Party, involved in numerous violent crimes and police officer killings.
In an apparent trap by Bell and co-defendant Anthony Bottom, Jones and Piagentini were shot multiple times while responding to a domestic dispute call in Harlem.
Bell and Bottom maintained that they were framed by the FBI for years, but later admitted to the murders in parole board interviews.
Why was Bell released?
The parole board said Bell had paid his debt to society by admitting to his crime and being productive in prison, and that his release will “denote rehabilitation as core to our system of criminal justice.”
Bell earned a bachelor’s and master’s degree in prison, and counseled other prisoners.
The son of one of the officers, Waverly Jones Jr., supported Bell’s release and said in 2014 that the only reason to keep Bell in prison would be for revenge.
Was there any opposition to the decision?
Diane Piagentini, the widow of one of the officers, came out strongly against the parole board’s decision to free Bell.
“How can we ask our police officers to risk their lives to protect society when society fails to appropriately punish their animalistic killers?” she asked in a statement.
Piagentini said the decision devalues her late husband’s life.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was also against the decision.
“I’m very troubled by it,” de Blasio said. “This was a premeditated killing of a police officer. That should be life in prison, period. There’s nothing else to discuss. I don’t understand how there was a possibility of parole in that situation.”
What about police officer outrage?
NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill called the decision to release Bell “indefensible.”
Today’s decision by the NYS Parole Board to release admitted cop-killer Herman Bell — who carried out the premeditated assassinations of #NYPD Officers Joseph Piagentini and Waverly Jones — is indefensible. My complete message to the brave men and women of @NYPDnews is attached:
Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said union members are “disgusted, offended and extremely angry with this parole board’s decision.”
At his annual Savior’s Day conference in Chicago last weekend, the Nation of Islam leader boasted, “And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”
Farrakhan is as immodest as he is anti-Semitic. He may seem like yesterday’s Jew-hater, since he could never gather the kind of crowds he did for the so-called Million Man’s March in Washington, DC, 20 years ago. Yet he still has a following. Thousands showed up to hear him spew his usual garbage during his Savior’s Day speech, including one of the organizers of the Women’s March.
The CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, calls Farrakhan “quite possibly the most popular anti-Semite in America today.” Certainly, the haters of the alt-right don’t measure up. The white nationalist Richard Spencer would surely love to get Farrakhan’s crowds and have such a relatively robust institutional presence and publishing operation, let alone manage to maintain influence with more mainstream figures.
Tamika Mallory, the Women’s March organizer, wasn’t abashed about her attendance at the rally. She posted a photo on Instagram of herself at the event, and showed no sign of distress at Farrakhan’s greatest hits (“the powerful Jews are my enemy”; Jews are “the mother and father of apartheid”; “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door”; the Jews control Mexico, and a swath of Europe; and any number of other vicious lies).
Called out on her presence at the speech, Mallory tweeted a response worthy of a fellow-traveler with the Nation of Islam, “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!”
She added that the black community is “complex.” So is any community, but that doesn’t justify tolerating rank hatred.
And it wouldn’t be an argument with a left-wing activist if she didn’t cite the buzzword of the hour, explaining that she has “done intersectional work for 20+ years.”
He has updated this theme slightly to account for transgenderism — “the Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.”Ah, yes, intersectionality. Farrakhan has his own notions of that. In 2007, he declared that “it’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality.”
Mallory isn’t the only Women’s March organizer with a soft spot for the lunatic minister. Carmen Perez is another admirer. “There are no perfect leaders,” she explains, although there is a lot of daylight between normal human imperfection and Farrakhan’s paranoid rantings.
Yet another organizer, Linda Sarsour, took part in a Nation of Islam event in 2015.
Are these activists too minor to bother about? Well, if Tea Party organizers 10 years ago had been friendly toward David Duke, we would — understandably — have heard no end of it.
Just as mainstream conservatives must ostracize the alt-right, the center-left should guard against progressives making excuses for Farrakhan. With the exception of Jake Tapper of CNN, though, the media has ignored the latest eruption of the Farrakhan story.
As a reminder of how much this hygiene is necessary, Rep. Danny K. Davis of Illinois popped up to justify his relationship with Farrakhan. He told the Daily Caller, “The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth.”
Could anyone say this about David Duke and remain in office?
Farrakhan’s time should be up, but it never quite is.
Some experts are calling attention to recent developments in the Castro Colony of Venenozuela (a.k.a. Caracastan).
It seems that Venenozuela is preparing for war, possibly on two fronts: against Colombia and Guyana.
Such a move would — of course — follow all the guidelines of The Castro Playbook.
Castronoid General Abelardo Colome Ibarra, and other senior Cuban military officials pose with their Venezuelan pupils
Abridged from INQUISITR:
During the last few months, the Venezuelan government has been positioning troops along the border with the small South American nation of Guyana. This has raised the concern that Caracas may be intending to take the Essequibo territory through military force…
… It is hypothesized that Nicolas Maduro may use military action as a way to unite the Venezuelan people against a foreign foe. Additionally, the occupation of Guyanese soil could become a bargaining chip against the ICJ and the United States.
The fact that Guyana lacks any credible military force makes the country an optimal target for the relatively well-equipped, but logistically barren, Venezuelan military…
… It should be noted that another front has recently opened in this crisis.
Last Friday, the Venezuelan Minister of the Interior, Néstor Reverol, advanced the possibility of military action against Colombia, the Globoreports. He accused Bogotá of providing Venezuelan citizens Colombian identities and military training, which would be a reason for a military intervention. Reverol also added that the recruitment is characterized by the presence of “paramilitary personnel, partisans, and criminal bands.”
The website Poder Aéreo reported the deployment of Venezuelan F-16 fighter jets on the border with Colombia…
… As all the factors are put together, the question remains: Will Venezuela invade its neighbors?
This week, The Guardian, one of the most left-wing newspapers in Great Britain, published a 2,300-word piece describing the problem of terrorism in cities across the world. It name-checked London, Berlin, Manchester, Paris, Nice, Brussels, and Barcelona; it mentioned Algeria, Italy, Brazil, Kuwait, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nairobi and Oklahoma City. It mentioned Israel but once — and only in order to mention the Irgun’s bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. As Yair Rosenberg notes, not a single terrorist attack against Israelis made the article.
All of which raises a question: Why is it that whenever Western leaders talk about terrorism, they seem to leave terrorism against Jews off the list?
This isn’t a rarity. It’s regular and it’s predictable. When President Barack Obama spoke about the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, for example, he brushed off the simultaneous attack on a Jewish supermarket as “random” (he later backed down). When President George W. Bush spoke about global terrorism, he rarely mentioned terrorism inside Israel. When the media list terror attacks against Western targets, Jerusalem never earns a mention.
There’s no true excuse for leaving dead Israelis off the list of terror victims.
There are two possible explanations. Neither is good enough.
First, there are those who claim that terrorism against Israelis is part of a broader political conflict — that such terrorism isn’t religious in nature, but rather a tactic in a territorial war. That’s absolute nonsense. This week, 29-year-old Itamar Ben Gal, a teacher at a yeshiva in Ariel, was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist while waiting by the roadside; he left four children behind. That follows the murder of Rabbi Raziel Shevach, a father of six, in the same area, as he drove along the highway. These are civilian, not military targets. These were family men murdered for no reason other than their Judaism.
And no, this isn’t about settlements. In 2017, Israel saw a wave of terror attacks across Israel; most of those attacks were perpetrated inside so-called Green Line Israel: stabbings on the streets, truck attacks on civilian crowds. The Palestinian leadership celebrates such killings and offers the families of terrorists financial incentives to pursue them. And the Palestinian leadership is clear about the rationale for such killings. That rationale is the same as the al-Qaida rationale or the ISIS rationale: a radical Islamic political viewpoint that sees the slaughter of non-Muslim innocents as a tool in the jihad against the infidel. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas isn’t a “moderate” leader seeking peace; he’s a radical who stated openly just weeks ago that “Israel is a colonialist project that has nothing to do with the Jews.”
Then there’s the second explanation for why the world would downplay terrorist attacks against Jews: an anti-Semitic attempt to separate off the Jews from the West. That’s certainly the tendency in Europe, where it’s convenient to view anti-Semitic attacks inside the continent by radical Muslims not as attacks on European citizens but as internecine warfare between two outsider groups. That’s convenient because it allows Europe to treat the rise in anti-Semitic crime as an aberration rather than a serious internal problem. But it also reinforces the lie that Jews cannot be full citizens of the West.
There’s no true excuse for leaving dead Israelis off the list of terror victims. But those who do it don’t need an excuse. They’ll keep on doing it so long as the Jewish community remains silent about the omission. And so long as that omission remains the rule rather than the exception, the West will continue to ignore a basic, simple truth: The Jews of Israel are the canary in the coalmine in radical Islam’s war against the West, not an outlier nation that can be cast aside for political convenience. What starts on the streets of Jerusalem usually finds its way to the streets of London. The non-Israeli West would be smart to recognize that fact, if only to protect itself.
Ben Shapiro is a best-selling author, editor-in-chief at The Daily Wire and host of the podcast “The Ben Shapiro Show.”
Travelers who are Jewish should take precautions when in the United Kingdom.
FACT: 1,382 hate incidents and 34% rise in violent assaults against Jewish people in 2017 logged [a report by by Community Security Trust].
Anti-Semitic hate incidents have reached a record level in the UK, with the Jewish community targeted at a rate of nearly four times a day last year, figures indicate.
There was no obvious single cause behind the trend, the trust said. “Often increases in anti-Semitic incidents have been attributable to reactions to specific trigger events that cause identifiable, short-term, spikes in incident levels. However, this was not the case in 2017. Instead, it appears that the factors that led to a general, sustained, high level of anti-Semitic incidents in 2016 continued throughout much of 2017.”
The report pointed to a rise in all forms of hate crime following the EU referendum as well as publicity surrounding alleged antisemitism in the Labour party. These factors may have caused higher levels of incidents as well as encouraged more reporting of anti-Semitic incidents from victims and witnesses in the Jewish community, the trust said.
The trust’s figures showed a 34% increase in the number of violent anti-Semitic assaults, from 108 in 2016 to 145 in 2017. The most common single type of incident in 2017 involved verbal abuse randomly directed at Jewish people in public.