Jun 042013


IRAN has dismantled a “terror network” backed by Israel’s Mossad intelligence services which planned to disrupt the upcoming presidential election in the Islamic republic, the state broadcaster says.

“The intelligence ministry has identified and arrested the members of this terror network, and confiscated their weapons,” IRIB said on its website on Sunday, quoting a statement by the ministry.

It said the arrested group was made up of 12 members, but did not say when it had been busted.

The ministry neither identified any of those arrested nor mentioned their nationality, but said the cell leader originated from an unnamed “regional Arab” country.

On June 14, Iran is to hold its first presidential election since massive street protests, stifled by a brutal state crackdown, marred the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

Iran accuses its arch foes Israel and the United States of waging a deadly campaign of sabotage against its disputed nuclear program, announcing from time to time the arrest of suspected Israeli or US spies, but provides little or no public evidence supporting the accusations.

The statement on Sunday said the group had been instructed “to conduct terrorist acts ahead of, and in particular, on election day” as well as “creating ethnic and religious divisions” in restive areas of Iran.

It said the group had already “hit several targets in a town,” and that “its main culprit was in contact with a headquarters in Britain”. It did not elaborate.

Last month the Islamic republic said it had hanged two convicted spies, one found guilty of working for Israel, and the other for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Continue reading »

May 072013

Global Research
Elisabeth Woodworth


Nearly 12 years after the event, the official account of 9/11 continues to be actively studied by academics around the world.  The idea of 9/11 as a false-flag operation to build support for an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East is steadily gaining ground, suggesting that a policy change is overdue.

This essay provides a brief overview of recent academic evidence, high-level conferences, and media documentaries that raise fresh questions regarding the official account of 9/11.  It then describes the 9/11 Consensus Panel as an up-to-date source of evidence-based research for any investigation that may be undertaken to settle 9/11′s  unanswered questions.

Finally, this essay argues that mortality from all terror events combined lags far behind annual mortality from preventable common causes such as obesity, smoking, and impaired driving.  More importantly, all these causes together will be dwarfed by the mortality from predicted “business as usual” global warming events — which cry out for a unified emergency response.

Today is the second anniversary of the day the United States announced the destruction and disposal of Osama bin Laden during a special military operation.

In spite of this announcement, worldwide skepticism and research continue to dog the official account of 9/11.

Had the United States Government called an immediate investigation (it did not form the 9/11 Commission until late 2002) and provided consistent and transparent proof of its claims against Osama bin Laden and the 19 alleged hijackers, things might have been different.

In the wake of the officially failed evidence, NGO’s continue to dig into the disturbing and unanswered questions that haunt this world-changing event.  Year by year, these research bodies have been delving ever more deeply into new photographic, FOIA, and witness evidence.

Recent high-level conferences in Kuala Lumpur,[1] Bremen, Germany,[2]  and Toronto, Canada,[3] have raised public awareness of the urgent need to revisit the watershed event behind the global war on terror.

An issue of the international magazine Nexus, which sold on news-stands across France in March and April this year, devoted 12 pages to the work of the 9/11 Consensus Panel (www.consensus911.org) and its 28 peer-reviewed Consensus Points of evidence against elements of the official story.[4]

In late 2012, PBS aired one of its most-watched documentaries, “Experts Speak Out,” in which 40 architects and engineers demonstrate that the structural collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 could only have been caused by controlled demolition.[5]

Indeed many serious investigations have been undertaken by the major media, including Canada’s flagship CBC program, The Fifth Estate.[6] These explorations were summarized in my 2010 essay reporting that “eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.[7]

In February, 2010, the American Behavioral Scientist published six articles introducing the concept of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCADS), including “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crimes in American Government.”[8]

Why has all this effort to establish the truth about 9/11 persisted for nearly 12 years?

1.     First, because many high officials have cast doubt on the official story. To name just one, a dismayed General Wesley Clark reported in a 2007 interview with Amy Goodman that on September 20, 2001, and again later in November, his former Pentagon staff told him that the US was going to “take out” seven Middle East countries in the next five years, beginning with Iraq; then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.[9]

2.     In carrying out these operations, the “global war on terror” spawned by 9/11 has maintained an unprecedented degree of fear and divisiveness in the world;

3.     This war has been justified by a pervasive, shadowy enemy that can only be countered by flawless surveillance, suspension of civil rights, and unlimited military spending;

4.     This “forever war” has redefined world relationships (Muslim and Christian) and given the West a new kind of entitlement to occupy lands that might foster terror against it;

5.     It has virtually bankrupted the West through trillions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq that are roughly equivalent to the bank bailouts;

6.     September 11th and its offspring terror war have wrecked our confidence in the first principles of democracy.  Ever-reminded that terror lurks all around, we must cower and surrender freedoms to contain it.

7.     Worst of all, preoccupation with terror has taken our attention off the vital need to address global warming and planetary survival.  War-on-terror hawks have done quite the opposite, having manufactured public consent to occupy the very lands that house the cheap oil that is cooking the planet as it approaches 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.[10]

How do we get back to first principles and return to global, survival-oriented priorities?

The central question is:  “Do we choose to act from what we want our world to be, or from what we fear it might become?”

Do we design a harmonious world fit for all humanity, or do we stifle our vision and hopes for peace behind fear, prisons, martial law, and infinite military spending?

All great periods of history – the golden ages of optimism, learning, culture and prosperity — have been inspired by the creative, expansive human imagination.  This imagination is inspired by the belief that a civilized world is possible because we can make it so.  It is inspired by a vision of human beings as a world family whose spirits embrace justice, order, and decency.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his famous speech of 1963:

“If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.”[11]

Because of 9/11, however, our new century has been dominated by an obsessive fear of Muslim peoples.  This fear, fueled daily by the Western media, has persuaded America to compromise its fundamental democratic rights and principles in favor of a “security” that has not yet become evident.

Thus it is crucial to know whether 9/11 transpired as we have been told — and for this we need the means to identify the best evidence possible.
Continue reading »

May 072013
Richard FalkRedress Online
Lawrence Davidson
Shortly after the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, published an analysis of the episode entitled “A Commentary on the marathon murders.

Richard Falk tells the truth

In this analysis Falk pointed out that there are “serious deficiencies in how the US sees itself in the world. We should be worried by the taboo… imposed on any type of self-scrutiny [of US foreign policy] by either the political leadership or the mainstream media.” This taboo essentially blinds us to the reality of our situation. Falk continues: “The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world…. Especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations with others… starting with the Middle East.”

It seems obvious that if Washington wants to prevent future attacks, it is not enough to pursue alleged terrorists and beef up “homeland security”. It seems logical that one needs to also perform a foreign policy review, preferably in a public manner, to determine if any American policies or behaviors are unnecessarily provoking animosity. For instance, will continued unqualified US support of Israeli oppression of Palestinians increase or decrease future violent anti-American episodes at home or abroad?

As long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy. (Richard Falk)


Yet, this critical aspect of any response to terrorism has apparently never been performed. As regards the administration of George W. Bush, this comes as no surprise. Bush and his neoconservative supporters were (and still are) ideologically driven and so are incapable of the objectivity necessary for such a self-critical review. That is why Bush came up with a range of cockamamy reasons, including the famous “they hate our values”, for the 9/11 attacks. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, seemed, at least at first, capable of corrective insight.

Back in 2009 Obama went to Cairo and made a speech which suggested that a rethinking of American relations with the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular was in order. Yet the theory represented in the speech was never turned into practice. Why not? Continue reading »

Apr 102013

Philip Weiss
Adam Horowitz

An important case in Britain, pointed out to me by Abdeen Jabara and Antony Loewenstein, who writes,

“Memo to British Zionists; being anti-Zionist [is] as human as oxygen: Witness the debacle within the British Zionist establishment, via Haaretz, and the increasingly desperate ways that so-called leaders there will do anything to defend Israeli policies without for a minute actually considering what the Jewish state has become; a brutish occupier.”

The case involves a suit brought against an academic union by an Israel-supporting professor who wanted the tribunal to condemn anti-Israel speech as anti-Semitism because, he claimed, an affinity to Israel was an intrinsic part of his and others’ Jewish identity.  Anshel Pfeffer in Haaretz says the ruling that such speech does not constitute anti-Semitism has produced “turmoil” in the ranks of British Jewry. I particularly like the bit at the end, where the judge told the plaintiff if he doesn’t want to get his feelings hurt, he should avoid political debate:

The case was to have been the culmination of 11 years of pro-Israel activism by [Ronnie] Fraser, a mathematics lecturer who had been fighting against what he saw as a virulently anti-Israel tide, with a distinct tinge of anti-Semitism, rising in the union to which he belongs.

Alongside him was Anthony Julius, one of the most prominent Jewish lawyers in Britain and a tireless opponent of anti-Semitism. Supporting the two were a cast of witnesses including Jewish and sympathetic non-Jewish activists, academics and politicians….

The lawsuit was backed both financially and in terms of considerable research resources by organizations linked to the central British Jewry leadership forums, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council.

But beyond the factual disputes in the case, the fundamental basis of the Fraser’s accusations was that Jews possess a strong feeling of affinity toward Israel that is an intrinsic part of their Jewish identity. Therefore, he claimed, when an organization to which they belong constantly attacks Israel in a manner they deem unfair, it constitutes a direct attack on their identity…
The defendants also had their own Jewish supporters. Fifty Jewish UCU [University and College Union] members signed an open letter praising their union and denying that there was any sort of institutional anti-Semitism within its ranks. Julius responded that it was simply a standard anti-Semitic ploy of dividing Jews into good-Jew/bad-Jew categories.
But the well-built and detailed case was shattered by the tribunal’s ruling. The panel, headed by Judge A.M. Snelson, accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a change in the laws.
Beyond that, it fundamentally disagreed with the central claim underpinning the complaints. The tribunal wrote in its judgment that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.”
And while many Jews would agree with that ruling, the tribunal did not stop there. At the end of its 45-page ruling, it launched into an extraordinarily hostile invective against the very nature of the case brought before it. Though the panel was generally sympathetic to Fraser himself, it stated that as an activist “he must accept his fair share of minor injuries. … A political activist accepts the risk of being offended or hurt on occasions.”

In addition, Ben White reports the case may have been supported by the Israeli government:

Was the Israeli government involved too? A senior official at Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently revealed that, “over the last six months Israel has taken on two (court) cases in partnership with UK Jewry” in fighting Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS). This very likely includes Fraser’s case, yet Anthony Julius had previously denied any such links, saying that to assume the case was “being supported by the Israeli government” is a “fantasy”. Continue reading »

Apr 022013

Oxford Journals
Eran Elhaik


The question of Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy for over two centuries and has yet to be resolved. The “Rhineland Hypothesis” depicts Eastern European Jews as a „population isolate” that emerged from a small group of German Jews who migrated eastward and expanded rapidly. Alternatively, the „Khazarian Hypothesis” suggests that Eastern European Jew descended from the Khazars, an amalgam of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries CE and converted to Judaism in the 8th century. Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews continuously reinforced the Judaized Empire until the 13th century. Following the collapse of their empire, the Judeo-Khazars fled to Eastern Europe. The rise of European Jewry is therefore explained by the contribution of the Judeo-Khazars. Thus far, however, the Khazar’s contribution has been estimated only empirically, as the absence of genome-wide data from Caucasus populations precluded testing the Khazarian Hypothesis. Recent sequencing of modern Caucasus populations prompted us to revisit the Khazarian Hypothesis and compare it with the Rhineland Hypothesis. We applied a wide range of population genetic analyses to compare these two hypotheses. Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis and portray the European Jewish genome as a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, thereby consolidating previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. We further describe major difference among Caucasus populations explained by early presence of Judeans in the Southern and Central Caucasus. Our results have important implications on the demographic forces that shaped the genetic diversity in the Caucasus and medical studies.

Full Study (PDF)

Continue reading »

Oct 262012

Editors Note: Join Richard Falk in attracting the ire of Canada!  Boycott Israel.

Toronto Sun
David Akin

OTTAWA – Canada joined the United States and Israel late Thursday night in calling for the resignation of a United Nations official charged with monitoring and reporting on human rights in the Palestinian territories.

That official, Richard Falk, the UN’s special rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, called for a worldwide boycott earlier Thursday of companies tied to Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

That recommendation was immediately condemned by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who called Falk’s call to action “irresponsible and unacceptable,” and said it would “poison the environment for peace.”

A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Rick Roth, said Falk’s intervention was “offensive and unhelpful but not overly surprising.”

In the past, Falk, a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, once compared the state of Israel to Nazi Germany, the Associated Press reported.

He also once wrote on his blog that there was “an apparent coverup” by the U.S. over the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He also once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his blog, though he later removed it.

“Richard Falk has a long history of making outrageous statements, and frankly, has only tarnished the reputation and integrity of the United Nations,” Roth said.

Falk listed 13 companies that ought to be boycotted — including Volvo, Caterpillar Hewlett Packard and Motorola — in his report to the UN General Assembly

“Mr. Falk has not only done a disservice to the United Nations, but also to the Palestinian people,” Roth said. “Canada calls on Mr. Falk to either withdraw this biased and disgraceful report – or resign from his position at the United Nations.”

Caterpillar said in a statement that Falk’s report was inaccurate and misleading, and “reflects his personal and negative opinions toward Israel.” The company said it sells products to the U.S. government, which are then sent to Israel.

Hewlett Packard said Falk was “far from an independent and unbiased expert in this matter,” and that the company has a strong human rights policy and complies with the highest standards in every market in which they operate.

— With files from Reuters http://www.davidakin.com

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account   Put it On Facebook   Tweet this post   Print it from your printer   Email and a collection of other outlets   Try even more services
Sep 172012
American Goy

No kidding.

Wikipedia on the subject.

The Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Affairs (DRL) at the United States Department of State. It is headed by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS). The office “advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the United States and internationally, develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.”

The Office was created by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. Gregg Rickman was sworn the first SEAS on May 22, 2006. The office has remained opened since the beginning of the Obama administration. On November 23, 2009 a new special envoy, Hannah Rosenthal was sworn into office by Obama administration. Rosenthal is former head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and former executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women.

There is no department to protect American interests and American citizens, however.

Not needed.

Interestingly, there is no department to protect african, European, moslem or any other ethnic or religious group.

Lets delve in, shall we?

Law web page at Cornell University, fragments (you are encouraged to read the whole short page at Cornell):

22 USC § 2731 – Monitoring and combating anti-Semitism

(a) Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism

(1) Establishment of Office

The Secretary shall establish within the Department of State an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism (in this section referred to as the “Office”).

(b) Purpose of Office

Upon establishment, the Office shall assume the primary responsibility for—

(1) monitoring and combating acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur in foreign countries;

(c) Consultations

The Special Envoy shall consult with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and multilateral organizations and institutions, as the Special Envoy considers appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this section.

What we have here is an office of State Department whose function is to support Jews worldwide. In pursuit of this function, its officials can meet and work with officials from other countries, independently from other State Department organizations.

State Department Official Page:

Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism advances U.S. Foreign Policy on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. The Special Envoy develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department’s annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and the Special Envoy provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

So what have they been up to?
Travel to Hungary

July 19-22: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal was in Hungary met with Hungarian Government officials, Parliamentarians and representatives from the Jewish and Roma communities

Yes, the poor gypsies, hated by all Europeans, for absolutely no reason at all other than bigotry and the general evilness of White people.

Travel to Germany

July 9-12; 15-19: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal visited Germany, where her father was honored by the City of Mannheim, she participated in the Centropa Teachers Academy, and met with German government officials, non-governmental organizations, and youth in Berlin.

Meeting the anti-fa and other assorted PC fascists in Germany and giving encouragement to youth organizations.


The previous head honcho was one Gregg Rickman (a non Jewish last name if I ever saw one, n’est ce pas?).

Here is his biography:

Gregg Rickman was sworn in as the Secretary of State’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism on May 22, 2006. In this position, he is responsible for the global monitoring of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement and the creation of policies to combat such acts.

From 1995-1998, he directed the three-year United States Senate Banking Committee investigation,

And what a good job he and his ilk have done investigating our (well, calling banksters “our people” is STRETCHING the truth a bit, as they themselves consider themselves NOT of our people and are a separate racial/religious cult) own beloved banksters!

including five Congressional hearings, into the disposition of assets of Holocaust victims held by Swiss banks since World War II, ending with a $1.25 billion settlement on behalf of the survivors.

Ah, the crux of the matter!

As to whether ANY Holocaust survivors have gotten any of these monies, please peruse my previous research, The Holocaust Industry.

He has served as the Director of Congressional Affairs at the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he worked on legislative issues of concern to the Jewish community including anti-Semitism, counter-terrorism, and immigration.

Got it!?

Got it!?

The issue that are the most important to elite Jews are anti-semitism, counter-terrorism AND IMMIGRATION.

How much clearer does it need to be spelled out?

Most recently, he served on the staff of the House International Relations Committee where he served first on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia and handled numerous issues including anti-Semitism and Holocaust restitution




Am shocked.

Please give me any other ethnic and/or religious group which has its own department concerned with its welfare at our(?) American (???) State Department.

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account   Put it On Facebook   Tweet this post   Print it from your printer   Email and a collection of other outlets   Try even more services
Aug 092012

Editor’s Note: Watch how groups make claims of Anti-Semitism and offer no substantive argument for their claims.

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account   Put it On Facebook   Tweet this post   Print it from your printer   Email and a collection of other outlets   Try even more services
Jul 262012

(Reuters) – Iran’s U.N. envoy accused Israel on Wednesday of plotting and carrying out a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Bulgaria a week ago in which five Israeli tourists were killed.

A suicide bomber blew up the bus in a car park at Burgas airport, a popular gateway for tourists visiting Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast, killing himself, the Israeli tourists and the Bulgarian bus driver and wounding more than 30 people.

Israel has accused Iran and the Lebanese Islamist group Hezbollah of the bombing. Iran has denied the accusations.

“It’s amazing that just a few minutes after the terrorist attack, Israeli officials announced that Iran was behind it,” Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee told a U.N. Security Council debate on the Middle East. “We have never and will not engage in such a despicable attempt on … innocent people.”

“Such terrorist operation could only be planned and carried out by the same regime whose short history is full of state terrorism operations and assassinations aimed implicating others for narrow political gains,” Khazaee said. “I could provide … many examples showing that this regime killed its own citizens and innocent Jewish people during the last couple of decades.

Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Haim Waxman said Iran’s fingerprints were all over the bomb attack in Bulgaria, as well as dozens of other plots in recent months around the world.

“These comments are appalling, but not surprising from the same government that says the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy theory and denies the Holocaust,” Waxman said in a statement.

Some analysts believe Iran is trying to avenge the assassinations of several scientists involved in its controversial nuclear program that it blames on Israel and the United States. Israeli diplomats have been targeted in several countries in recent months by bombers who the Jewish state maintained had struck on behalf of Tehran.

“The time has come for the world to put an end to this campaign of terror, once and for all,” Waxman said.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Jackie Frank)

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services
Jul 042012
Jay Knott

The following paper was submitted to The Journal of Hate Studies at Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, USA, on March 14, 2012. It was rejected without explanation. My paper criticizes the approach the discipline of Hate Studies had taken hitherto. It argues that Hate Studies has over-estimated the extent of white racism in the USA, and neglected Zionism as a source of hate. It backs up these criticisms with evidence, and a rigorous approach to evaluating it.


The Journal of Hate Studies asks for “cutting-edge essays, theory, and research that deepens the understanding of the development and expression of hate”. The following submission for the 2012 issue of the journal (Call for Papers, Tsai, R.L., 2012) is all of the above. It argues that Zionism  generates hate, and that hate studies writers have neglected it. Further, it produces evidence that hate studies researchers have exaggerated the amount of racism in white gentile America. In the process, it examines the methodologies which have led to this miscalculation, and suggests a more balanced approach.

I. Introduction

In his paper Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style, (2004), one of the founders of hate studies, Chip Berlet, defines the field as “inquiries into the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’ and the processes which inform and give expression to, or can curtail or combat, that capacity”. The current paper argues that Zionism includes examples of the above “human capacity”, but that no contributor to hate studies, until now, has noticed them.
Noel Ignatiev’s contribution to the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, (2007, pp. 240–244), describes the Zionist state of Israel as a “racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race”. Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, (2006), shows how Israel was initiated by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from their homeland, because they were not Jewish. I therefore argue that Zionism is a valid subject of hate studies.

However, a survey of the current publications of hate studies reveals a lack of concern with Zionism, in contrast to an emphasis on anti-Semitism and white racism. I illustrate this below with citations from the major works of hate studies, analyzing examples of alleged hate incidents to suggest a more scientific approach to the evaluation of hate. I cite the recommended works which allege there is an “epidemic” of hate crimes, and the one book currently in print which directly falsifies this hypothesis, Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., 1998). I make use of Steven Pinker’s recent work on the decline of violence, including hate crimes, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Pinker, S., 2011), and a number of newspaper and online reports of alleged hate crimes.

II. Inadequate attention to Zionism

The Zionist justification for expelling Palestinians has included expressions of “the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’” (Berlet, C., 2004). When Zionist leaders  recognize the Palestinians’ existence, they sometimes refer to them as “devil’s spawn” (Rachel Abrams’ weblog; 2011). Other representative epithets include “drugged cockroaches”, “two-legged animals” and “Arab scum” (according to the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, 14 January 2002, citing The New Statesman, June 25, 1982). Some Zionists go so far as to say it would be justified to kill gentile babies “if they would grow up to harm us” – Rabbi Shapira, reported by Roi Sharon in Maariv, 2009. The evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, in a book about self-deception, The Folly of Fools, the logic of deceit and self-deception in human life, (2011), in a section entitled “False Historical Narratives”, contrasts the Zionist myth with the reality:

a racialist (and then racist) country was shoehorned into the Middle East, so that Jewish people (half and quarter also) from around the world can immediately claim citizenship to this land but none of those who were so recently expelled could do so. (p. 236).

Nevertheless, only one of the papers for hate studies’ most recent conference mentions Zionism, and not to criticize it for racism, but to ask at what point criticism of it becomes racist – “Not every criticism of Israel and Zionism was viewed as antisemitic, but on many occasions such comment served to mask antisemitism” – Michael Whine, The Community Security Trust – Best Practice in Combating Antisemitic Hate, (2011), Journal of Hate Studies (vol. 9, p. 114).

Kenneth Stern, a founder of the discipline of hate studies, vigorously defends Zionism against the “racism” charge. In his first pamphlet on anti-Semitism for the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Zionism, the Sophisticated Anti-Semitism, (1990), Stern wrote: “This anti-Semitic slander – that Zionism was racism – first appeared at the United Nations in the early 1960s” (p. 6). Even the Jewish Agency for Israel says, of the right of return for Jews, “It has been suggested that an immigration policy which explicitly gives priority to one ethnic or religious group cannot be justified in liberal democratic terms” (2004). But Stern has consistently argued that describing the Law of Return as racist, is itself racist (Stern 2006). In an extensive survey of the literature, I have been unable to find anything recommended by the hate studies department at Gonzaga University’s Bibliography of Hate Studies Materials (Thweatt, E., 2002), which agrees with the United Nations that Zionism as a form of racism.

As well as the United Nations, Stern’s complaints about “anti-Semitism” are directed at rural political movements, known as “militias”, in the USA. In 1996, Stern wrote an article for USA Today entitled Militia Mania, a Growing Danger, and published a book called A Force Upon the Plain, subtitled The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate, claiming that anti-Jewish attitudes are central to these movements’ ideologies (p. 246). Concern about militias is a recurrent theme in the hate studies literature (Dees, M., 1997; Berlet, C. & Lyons, M, 2000; Thweatt, E., 2002).

An example is Public Eye journal – “Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers” – edited by hate studies pundit Chip Berlet. In her article for the journal, The Montana Human Rights Network, (2005), Abby Scher claims the following statement, from a leaflet produced by a militia in Montana, is an example of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory: “George Bush… cynically used the tragedy of September 11th to silence dissent and to launch the war for Israel his Zionist neocon handlers wanted.” Arguments for the claims that the neoconservative movement is overwhelming Zionist, and that it was instrumental in persuading the US government to attack Iraq in 2003, include scholarly ones such as those of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (The Israel Lobby; 2007). Deciding how much truth there is in this view is beyond the scope of the present essay – my point is simply that classifying this analysis as “anti-Semitic” may tend to discourage us from asking legitimate questions.

III. The influence of pseudo-science

The field of hate studies has made use of the evolutionary approach in understanding ethnic conflict, for example in publishing Harold Fishbein’s The Genetic/Evolutionary Basis of Prejudice and Hatred (2004), and James Waller’s Our Ancestral Shadow: Hate and Human Nature in Evolutionary Psychology (2004). However, less scientific ideas have also been given credit. For example Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt’s Hate Crimes, (1993), which is recommended in hate studies’ bibliography (Thweatt, E., 2002), and referenced in several papers in the field, relied on a 1950 treatise on hate and prejudice, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Stanford, R.N., 1950): “Decades ago, the authors of The Authoritarian Personality recognized that prejudice satisfies a deep-rooted psychological need to protect or enhance self-esteem” (p. 48).
In The Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues claimed to have found “quantifiable relations” between conservatism and anti-Semitism via the “Politico-Economic Conservatism” scale, the “Ethnocentrism” scale and the “Anti-Semitism” scale (p. 49).

The above diagram illustrates the general principle. If person A believes P and Q, and person B believes P, the likelihood that person B also believes Q is greater than the occurrence of belief Q in the general population. This is as true of any one class of beliefs as of any other. Yet the Frankfurt School believed it could derive “the determination of the potential fascist in childhood” (Adorno et al. 1950, p. 56) from this statistical banality.

The authors claimed that a German who joined the Nazis “can apparently never quite establish his personal and masculine identity; he thus has to look for it in a collective system where there is opportunity both for submission to the powerful and for retaliation against the powerless” (page 370); they did not apply this psychological explanation to Communist Party recruits of the same period.

The Frankfurt School’s approach still has influence. As a contemporary example of the use of psychoanalysis to reinforce political, and possibly racial, bias, consider Naomi Klein’s recent article about climate change for The Nation, Capitalism vs. the Climate (2011). She argued that “conservative white men” tend to disbelieve the theory of unprecedented anthropogenic global warming “because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview”.

Though work such as The Authoritarian Personality is taken seriously by some contributors, hate studies has also made some use of a truly scientific approach, such as the papers by Harold Fishbein and James Waller in The Journal of Hate Studies, (2004), which rely on evolutionary psychology. But no contributor so far has referenced Professor Kevin MacDonald, whose Separation and its Discontents – toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism, (2004) locates the genesis of anti-Semitism in genetic interests:

An evolutionary perspective is also highly compatible with the falsity and contradictory nature of many anti-Semitic beliefs. Evolution is only concerned with ensuring accuracy of beliefs and attitudes when the truth is in the interests of those having those beliefs and attitudes. (pp. 18-19).

Steven Jacobs may be right to say, in The Last Uncomfortable “Religious Question”? in The Journal of Hate Studies, (2008), that MacDonald’s work has “been almost universally condemned”, but, since science is not a democracy, this is hardly relevant to a scholarly evaluation of his work.

IV. An unscientific approach to hate crime claims

At the hate studies founding conference, in his paper Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style, (2004), Chip Berlet claimed there was “chronic underreporting” of hate crimes. There is evidence for this hypothesis. As The Leadership Conference states in the introduction to its Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America, (2009), some victims fail to report hate crimes. For example, illegal immigrants are concerned about deportation. People of color may not trust the police. Lesbian and gay victims may not want to “come out” to family members and co-workers by publicizing a homophobic hate crime.

But the scientific approach looks for refutation as well as confirmation. There is also over-reporting of hate crimes, which, if uncritically accepted, exaggerates the amount of hate in our society. I identify five variants of this phenomenon, and give examples below:

1. protected speech is sometimes listed with violent crimes under the broad label “hate incidents”;

2. the degree of hate involved in some actual crimes is exaggerated;

3. there are claims of hate crimes which didn’t happen;

4. there are “hate crimes” committed by the alleged victims themselves;

5. there are unsubstantiated assertions that hate crimes are on the increase.

As an illustration of type 1. above, consider Oregon’s Coalition Against Hate Crimes. This organization claims, on its website, to support the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, which declares that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. But the Coalition contradicts itself immediately; its list of “hate incidents” equates real crimes like the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant, with a talk by a “holocaust denier” (2010). In Hate Crimes (chapter 4; 1998), James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter found that the term “hate incidents” has been used by a number of organizations interchangeably with “hate crimes” to exaggerate the incidence of the latter.
Hate crimes happen. For example, in Texas in 1998, African-American James Byrd was dragged behind a truck by three white men, motivated by racial hatred, until his head came off.

Other notorious cases, such as the murder of Ethiopian Mulugeta Seraw by neo-Nazi skinheads in Portland, Oregon in 1988, and of gay student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998, were not quite what subsequent political campaigns made of them. According to Elinor Langer’s book, A Hundred Little Hitlers, (2003), the Seraw case was not a premeditated lynching. Had the skinheads murdered Seraw in Florida rather than Oregon, it would not have been a hate crime: the Florida Supreme Court explicitly excluded from that category “arguments over a parking space, which escalate into fist fights accompanied by racial or other slurs” – which is exactly what the Portland case was, except a baseball bat was used (Hate Crimes, Jacobs, J.B., & Potter, K., 1998; p. 32). An investigation by Elizabeth Vargas for the ABC News program “20/20″ on December 3, 2004, described by Virginia Heffernan in the New York Times, found the assumption that the murder of Matthew Shepard was homophobic to be unsubstantiated.

Another illustration of type 2., exaggerating the amount of hate in real crimes, is the 1996 panic about “black churches” being set on fire. President Clinton said “racial hostility” was behind the crimes. But according to statistical analysis in an article about the scare by Michael Fumento in Commentary magazine, (1996), confirmed in Hate Crimes (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., chapter 4; 1998),

1. the number of torched churches nationally was below average,

2. the ethnicity of the buildings had no effect on their risk of arson, and

3. there was no inverse correlation between convicted arsonists’ race and that of the churchgoers.

Type 2 is also illustrated by the one alleged anti-Semitic lynching in US history, which occurred in Georgia in 1915. It resulted in a boost in membership for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had been founded two years earlier. The victim, Leo Frank, had been convicted of child-murder, but his death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment; a mob abducted him from prison and hanged him from a tree. His conviction allowed the other suspect, who was black, to walk. The Anti-Defamation League’s evidence for the theory that it was an anti-Semitic lynching, in its People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide, (2009), such as shouts of “Hang the Jew” from the mob, is necessary, but insufficient, to prove it. If a convicted child-killer who was not Jewish would also have been murdered, anti-Semitism had no part to play.

The Anti-Defamation League is consulted by the federal Departments of Education and Justice, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, and other government bodies, according to Hate Crimes (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., chapter 4; 1998). An example can be found on the Department of Justice’s web page about the Sacramento “Hate Crimes Task Force” (2010). Some years ago, the ADL was found by the San Francisco DA to have spied illegally on dozens of people and organizations, fed information about South African dissidents to the apartheid regime, and committed numerous other violations of trust (Blankfort, J., 2002).

A comprehensive survey of examples of type 3. above, completely invented hate crimes, would be beyond the scope of this paper. A small sample can be found in the appendix, Hate Crime Hoaxes, along with some examples of type 4., fake hate crimes committed by pseudo-victims.

Type 4. was discussed by Gabriel Winant in an article for Salon.com, Fake hate crimes: not just for liberals anymore, (2008). She argued that the majority of fake hate crimes consist of minority persons manipulating sympathy for personal and political gain. She suggests this is why there is an epidemic on college campuses – in this milieu, a fake hate crime victim may find sympathy even after her hoax is exposed. In San Diego, a program was announced to “address diversity issues” after a “minority student” admitted hanging up a noose and a white hood in the library at the University of California in February 2010, an example of type 4. The program, entitled Racism – Not In Our Community, includes statements like “hurtful incidents” and “ensuring diversity”. The hypothesis that racism is a problem was so strongly entrenched that evidence known to be fabricated was used to attempt to confirm it (University of California at San Diego, 2010).

Some hate studies research falls into type 5. above, the allegation that hate crimes are increasing. Mari Matsuda wrote that “a marked rise of racial harassment, hate speech, and racially-motivated violence marks the beginning of the 1990′s” in Words That Wound (1993; page 44). Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt’s Hate Crimes complained of “a rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed” at that time (1993; p. xi). Morris Dees, co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote a book entitled Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat, in 1997. Kenneth Stern’s article Militia Mania, a Growing Danger, (1996), claimed that local officials in rural America were being intimidated by right-wing terrorists – “According to the Rural Organizing Committee, elected officials on the local level have been forced by armed militia members who pack their meetings to enact ordinances they know are illegal, under threat of death”. The National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence alleges there is an epidemic of “ethnoviolence” in higher education facilities, but its definition of the term includes any “perceived expression of insensitivity”, including denial of tenure to an Asian-American academic, and a piece critical of affirmative action in a campus newsletter (Hate Crimes, Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., 1998; p. 49).

In fact, the incidence of hate crimes in the USA declined during the 1990s, continuing a century-long trend. Steven Pinker’s history of violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, (2011; p. 385) used a chart from James Payne’s A history of force, (2004), which shows how racist lynchings declined steadily from 150 per annum in the 1880s to close to zero by the end of the 1960s. Another graph in his book covers racist murders, 1996-2008 (p. 386), using statistics from the FBI. Most of these murders were of African-Americans. The chart shows a decline from five victims per annum in 1996, to one in 2008. One is less than 0.006 percent of the total number of murders in the country per annum, approximately 17,000. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, in Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics, (chapter 4, Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic; 1998) also studied the evidence, and analyzed the politics, of the “rising tide” hypothesis:

This chapter explains how the hate crime epidemic has been socially constructed. We identify the leading proponents of the epidemic claim – advocacy groups, the media, politicians, and academic commentators – and show that this claim lacks any empirical basis. (p. 46).

The alarmist claims of Levin, McDevitt, Stern, Matsuda, et. al. (Levin, J. & McDevitt, J., 1993; Stern, K., 1996; Matsuda, M., et. al., 1993), cannot survive the gauntlet of attempted falsification by scientific methods. Examining why they are part of the hate studies canon is beyond the scope of the current paper, but I intend to return to that question in further research.

An opportunity to subject the beliefs of some hate studies writers to scientific scrutiny occurred at Duke University in North Carolina in 2006. When a black woman accused three white students of rape, the DA said it was a “hate crime”. Stuart Taylor Jr. and K.C. Johnson’s Until Proven Innocent: political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke lacrosse rape case, (2007), explains the political assumptions behind the credulity which greeted the woman’s claim. As the article Duke’s Reign of Terror by local journalist Arch T. Allen, in Metro magazine, (2007), explains, with few exceptions, the local and national media were biased against the accused. The rush to judgement of some of the faculty, students and outside activists, based on nothing more than the accused students’ sex, race, and alleged class, is a valid subject of hate studies research.

Angela J. Hattery and Earl Smith, in African American Families, (2007), said the case was about how “the class and race dynamics of the individuals involved (affluent white men and a low-income African American woman) shaped this incident differently from how it would have been shaped had they been absent”. The case does reinforce that view, but in the opposite direction to the one these theorists believe. Instead of doing empirical research into the difference between how the Duke three, and black students accused of similar crimes, were treated, they assumed that “members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that Kimberlé Crenshaw writes about – the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus”. Inspired by these words, and similar analyses (Matsuda et. al. 1993; Fish, S., 1994; Crenshaw et. al. 1996; Berlet C., & Lyons, M., 2000), eighty-eight academics signed a statement implying the students’ guilt by saying something “happened to this young woman”, but carefully avoiding saying what it was. The document in which they made this allegation subsequently disappeared, without explanation, from the African and African-American Studies website.

After the students’ lawyers uncovered the truth, the DA was dismissed, and his replacement said the students were “innocent”, rather than just “not guilty”, their academic accusers had an opportunity to reflect on the flaws in their methodology which led to their mistake. Instead, after the case, “I am less interested in trafficking through declarations of guilt and innocence in the case”, wrote one of the eighty-eight professors who had “trafficked” in the declaration of guilt (Taylor & Johnson, 2007).
I argue that hate studies should insist that a theory’s claims are subject to testing and reevaluation, and changing its predictions when they are falsified ought not to be acceptable.

V. Conclusion: a consistent and rigorous approach to understanding hate

“Whenever an ideology justifies baby-killing – even at the fringes of the fringes – that is an especially strong danger signal” – Kenneth Stern, A Force Upon the Plain. (1996, p. 249).

“There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us” – “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” – Yitzhak Shapira and Yossi Elitzur, rabbis in the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva, Yitzhar, near Nablus, reported by Roi Sharon in Maariv (2009).

The influence of Zionism extends beyond Israel. Consider Rachel Abrams, who is married to Elliot Abrams, an influential advisor to the US government, who served under presidents George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan, describing, in her weblog, the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from captivity by Hamas in October 2011:

Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you. Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshipping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women — those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others — and their offspring — those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god — as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose. (2011).

Hate studies would be enriched by studying how the influence of Zionism can produce this kind of hate. It would have more credibility if claims of the prevalence of white racism were evaluated more scientifically. It would also benefit by examining examples of hoaxes by which resentful members of minorities, encouraged by academic exaggerations of the extent of white privilege, contributed to a positive feedback loop, which appeared to confirm the hypothesis that the USA is suffering from a rising tide of bigotry and hate.

Appendix – Hate Crime Hoaxes

Associated Press (1998, November 22). Conviction in Phony Hate Mail Case. Sunday Star-News. NC: Wilmington.

Associated Press. (2004, April 20). Colleges perfect milieu for hate crime hoaxes. San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved  2012, January 29. http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040420-0247-ca-hatecrimehoaxes.html

Bensen, Jackie. (2010). Jewish student caught painting swastikas on her own door then claiming anti-Semitic attack. NBC News4. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt5U7VcHw8

Boyd, C. (2001, June 12). Woman Who Claimed to be Victim of Hate Crime Accused of Stealing Van. MN: St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Delgado, R. (1999, May 8). Man Admits Inventing Racist Assault in San Francisco. San Francisco Examiner.

Eskenazi, J. (2004, May 21). Arson at Chabad House. Jewish Weekly. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/22706/arson-at-chabad-house

Kansas City Star. (2001, December 12). Linda Man, Woman Pleads Guilty to Harassing Other Black School Bus Drivers.

Leinwand, D. & Alexander, A. (1993, December 30). Swastika scrawling thieves staged insurance scam, police allege. Highbeam Business News. Retrieved March 12, 2012.


Perez, M. (2003, November 20). Fake hate crimes not new: colleges experience recent rash of bogus hate incidents. Golden Gate Express.  Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/000424.html

Register-Guard. (2003, May 27). Coast Guardsman Admits False Report of Racism. OR: Eugene.
WBAL. (2008, October 7). Police ID 3 Charged in Synagogue Vandalism. WBAL TV. MD: Baltimore. http://www.wbaltv.com/news/17646190/detail.html


Abrams, Rachel. (2011). Rachel Abram’s webblog. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://badrachel.blogspot.com/2011/10/gilad.html

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., and Stanford, R.N., (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Allen, Arch T. (2007). Duke’s Reign of Terror. Metro magazine, Raleigh, NC, 2007, November. Retrieved  2012, January 29. http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=1448

Anti-Defamation League. (2009). People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.adl.org/leofrank/The-People-v-Leo-Frank-Teachers-Guide_ADL.pdf

Berlet, C. & Lyons, M. (2000). Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort. New York: Guilford Press, 2000

Berlet, C. (2004, March). Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style. Chip Berlet. Paper presented at the Conference to Establish the Field of Hate Studies. Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Blankfort, J., Poirier, A. & Zeltzer, S. (2002, February 25). The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues. Counterpunch. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/02/25/the-adl-spying-case-is-over-but-the-struggle-continues

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. (2002, January 14). Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and all Forms of Discrimination, citing The New Statesman, London. (1982, June 25). Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/d96d50d790ad4a47c1256b760047dac7

Crenshaw, K., (Author), Gotanda, N. (Author), Peller, G. (Author), Thomas, K. (Editor) (1996). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press.
Dees, M. (1997). Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat. New York: Harper Perennial
Department of Justice. (2010). Hate Crimes Task Force. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/hate_crimes/index.html

Fish. S. (1994). There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It’s a Good Thing, Too. Oxford University Press.

Fishbein, H. (2004, March). The Genetic/Evolutionary Basis of Prejudice and Hatred. Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Fumento, M. (1996, October). Politics and Church Burnings. Commentary magazine.

Group of 88. (2006). The “Listening” Statement. Duke University, Department of African and African-American Studies. Retrieved 2006, November 10, but no longer available: http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf
Hattery, A.J., and Smith, E.. (2007). African American Families. Sage Publications.

Heffernan, V. (2004, November 27). ‘20/20′ investigation challenges Shepard murder’s hate-crime label. New York Times, reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/27/DDGUEA1PVL1.DTL

Ignatiev, N. (2007). Zionism. The Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Macmillan Press.

Jacobs, James B., and Potter, Kimberly. (1998). Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics. NY: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, S. (2004). The Last Uncomfortable “Religious Question”? Monotheistic Exclusivism and Textual Superiority in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as Sources of Hate and Genocide. The Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Journal of Hate Studies. (2011). Table of Contents. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://journals.gonzaga.edu/index.php/johs/issue/view/18/showToc

Klein, N. (2011, November). Capitalism vs. the Climate. Naomi Klein. The Nation. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=full
Langer, E. (2003). A Hundred Little Hitlers. Elinor Langer. St Martins Press.

Leadership Conference. (2009). Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America, 2009. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes
Levin. J. & McDevitt. J. (1993). Hate Crimes. De Capo Press.

MacDonald, K. (2004). Separation and its Discontents: toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. Praeger Publishers.

Matsuda, M.J., Lawrence III, C.R., Delgado, R., Crenshaw K. (1993, June 4). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview Press
Mearsheimer, J. & Walt, S. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Oregon Coalition Against Hate Crimes. (2010). Portland State University. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.againsthate.pdx.edu

Pappe, I. (2006). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld publishing.

Payne, J.L. (2004). A history of force: Exploring the worldwide movement against habits of coercion, bloodshed, and mayhem. ID: Sandpoint. Lytton publishers.

Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking Publishers.
Scher, A. (2005). The Montana Human Rights Network. Public Eye Magazine. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n2/scher_montana.html

Sharon, R. (2009, November 9). Israel: Maariv.

Stern, K. (1990). Anti-Zionism, the Sophisticated Anti-Semitism. American Jewish Committee
Stern, K. (1996). A Force Upon the Plain. OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Stern, K. (1996, January). Militia Mania, a Growing Danger. USA Today.

Stern, K. (2006). Antisemitism Today. American Jewish Committee.

The Jewish Agency for Israel. (2004). The Law of Return. The Constitution for Israel Project. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.cfisrael.org/a608.html

Taylor, S. Jr. & Johnson, K.C. (2007). Until Proven Innocent: political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke lacrosse rape case. St. Martins Press.

Thweatt, E. (2002). Bibliography of Hate Studies Materials. Gonzaga University Institute for Action Against Hate.

Trivers, R. (2011). The Folly of Fools. the Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. Basic Books, 2011

Tsai, R.L. (2012). Call for Papers “Hate and Political Discourse”. Robert L. Tsai, J.D. (guest editor). Journal of Hate Studies. WA: Spokane. Retrieved March 6, 2012. http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/againsthate/journal.html

University of California at San Diego. (2010). Join The Battle Against Hate. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://battlehate.ucsd.edu

Waller, J. (2004, December). Our Ancestral Shadow: Hate and Human Nature in Evolutionary Psychology. Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Whine, M. (2011). The Community Security Trust. Best Practice in Combating Antisemitic Hate. WA: Spokane. Journal of Hate Studies, 9.

Winant, G. (2008, October 24). Fake hate crimes: not just for liberals anymore. Salon.com. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/10/24/crime_hoax