There are plenty of committed antisemites out there who really believe that the Jews and Israel control the world and cause all its problems. These crackpots have always existed. Way back in the 19^th century, August Bebel characterized antisemitism as “the socialism of fools.” It is still that: Many socialist fools who know nothing about the Middle East have become virulent anti-Israel bigots, with some crossing the line to overt and unapologetic antisemitism. The Democratic Socialists of America requires its members to be anti-Israel, regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do. That is the blatant bigotry of fools, even if they, in their ignorance, actually believe it.

But some cynical self-servers who don’t really care about these issues have seen the increasing acceptability of Jew hatred as an opportunity to burnish their brands, increase their clicks, and make more money.

Take for example Tucker Carlson, who when he was at Fox News didn’t express the bigoted views he now promotes – at least not publicly. Before becoming the “antisemite of the year” (according to a monitoring group) and capitalizing on his newfound bigotry, Carlson had condemned antisemitism as an evil. I have no idea whether he was hiding his actual bigotry to keep his job at Fox. But after he was fired, he began to look for a new audience. He selected the rapidly increasing right-wing anti-Israel fringe of the Republican Party that shared some of the nativist and isolationist views he already held.

Turning those views into a full-blown anti-Israel and anti-Jewish ideology was not a long stretch. But by directing his nativism and isolationism squarely at the nation-state of the Jewish people and its supporters, Carlson guaranteed himself an automatic audience from hundreds of thousands or more Jew haters out there looking for a justification for their bigotry.

Similarly, Candace Owens has increased her clicks – and her income – by becoming more extreme in her anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bigotry. Other podcasters, comedians, and influencers have followed suit, recognizing that Jew hatred is good for business: David Chapelle, Michael Che, Tony Hinchcliffe, and Theo Von have faced criticism for either incorporating antisemitic tropes into their content or providing a platform to individuals who promote those views.

It hasn’t always been that way. Until recently, it was generally more advantageous to one’s brand and career to be pro-Israel or neutral. Today being even moderately pro-Israel is bad for business – especially if the business involves the media, academia, politics, or other public activities.

This change can be dated to Oct 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists and Gaza civilians broke down border fences and murdered 2,500 Israelis, nearly all civilians, and kidnapped several hundred more. Even before Israel responded to this brutal violation of an existing cease fire agreement by sending troops into Gaza to prevent threatened recurrences, the tide began to change. It began on university campuses, then in the media and eventually among politicians, especially Democrats. Now, it has come almost full circle. What used to be unprofitable to say and do has become good for business.

This change is not attributable solely to Israel’s military responses in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran. It probably would have occurred even if Israel had done nothing in response to the increasing threats to its very existence. Israel’s military actions have provided an excuse for the increasing Jew hatred throughout the world. But even critics of Israel’s actions cannot plausibly deny that the exponential growth in antisemitism and anti-Israelism reflects a disproportionate and double standard response to Israel’s self-defense military actions.

What we are experiencing has little to do with human rights in general. If it did, the primary focus would be on far more serious human violators, such as China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Sudan. Israel is being targeted because it is the nation-state of the Jewish people, not because of its human rights record – which is better than most countries faced with comparable threats. Israel is the only country whose very existence is challenged by so many enemies. It is condemned not because of what it does, but because of what it is.

The selective condemnation is getting worse, as is the antisemitism that accompanies it. And it will get even worse if it is rewarded by clicks, money, and acceptance. As long as Jew hatred remains good for business, as it did in Germany in the 1930s, in many Arab countries in the 1950s, and in Europe and parts of the United States today, it will get worse.

If John Kennedy Schlossberg‘s middle name were Smith, would anyone be voting for him? He’s done nothing to earn any votes. The only thing he’s done is make a fool of himself on social media. He may not be the first nonentity to seek elective office based on nothing more than clicks, but he is the most famous. Or infamous!

I’ve known him casually from Martha’s Vineyard, where he is seen as “Caroline’s spoiled brat kid.” No one takes him seriously.

I once gave him some advice about law school, and then he reciprocated by posting the following about me: “Alan Dershowitz if you can hear me I need your help, I’ve been trying to reach out to you. I’m in deep s­-­-­t, dude. I’m all over the Epstein documents, there’s all sorts of credible evidence. Everyone knows I killed my wife, I’ve got a thousand sexual assault cases against me, I look like a human penis. I’m completely irrelevant and I’ve never had consensual sex … Oh wait, s­-­-­t, that’s you.”

These were of course complete fabrications, as he later admitted to me privately. He tried to apologize — again privately — claiming it was intended as a joke. But it wasn’t funny; it was nasty and libelous.

I could have sued him for defamation and won, but decided instead to write this column, because the best answer to bad speech is good speech and the best response to lies is truth. So here is the truth about Jack the joke. Or Jack the jerk. And why he should never become Jack the nepo congressman.

As far I can tell, he never held a responsible job for very long. He apparently lives off his inheritance. I doubt he makes a living from his nutty social posts that include the following: “True or false: Usha Vance is way hotter than Jackie O” and implying that he’s having a “baby with the Second Lady.”

Trolling RFK Jr., Schlossberg previously wrote a recipe for a Make America Healthy Again “energy ball” cocktail, which he claimed should include: “2 oz of Jew blood (Ashkenazi not Sephardic), 4 cups of male jizz. Baked at 300 degrees until totally dry like your wife,” referring to actress Cheryl Hines.

His posts weren’t funny. They were sick and nasty. But even if they had been funny, that would not be a basis for running for Congress. He has simply done nothing to warrant being elected. Nor has he presented ideas that deserve serious consideration. They are platitudes and cliches not policies. They are simply done to get clicks by their very outrageousness.

With regard to the subjects on which he has sought to express views, such as Israel, he has been muddled and confusing. He seems uninformed on most issues, despite his Harvard law degree. He is campaigning on his face and name, not on his views and policies. He has ignored several invitations to participate in candidate forums, for understandable reasons.

Anyone thinking about voting for this name (that’s all you would be voting for) should look themselves in the mirror and ask why you have been duped. Is it because Nancy Pelosi foolishly endorsed him without giving any reasons, other than that he’s Caroline’s kid? Is it because you like the Kennedy name? It certainly can’t be on the merits, because there are several credible candidates running against him.

It would send a terrible message to young people about hard work, accomplishments and meritocracy if he were to beat these more qualified candidates, or even get a lot of votes while losing. So don’t vote for him. It would reflect poorly on you and our nation.

Was 1935 the worst year in history? Why 1935? What happened that year?

Very little of significance. And that is precisely why it was such a bad year. Not for what was done – but for what was not done that could have been done.

1935 was the year that Hitler began in earnest to try to conquer the world. He quietly reintroduced the draft and began to build up the German arms industry, both in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I.

The other signatories to that treaty, which included Great Britain and France, did absolutely nothing. Moreover, the Olympic Committee allowed Nazi Germany to host the 1936 Olympics; Harvard and other American universities invited and honored Nazi academics and diplomats; and most of the world conducted business as usual with a regime whose leader had sworn to end the Jewish presence in Europe and to expand German “Lebenstraum” – living space – by conquering areas of Europe with German-speaking populations. Winston Churchill later described the period including 1935 as “when England slept.”

What could the world have done in 1935 to prevent the catastrophe that happened between 1939 and 1945 – a catastrophe that ended in the death of more than 70 million people, including the genocide of 6 million Jews?

In retrospect it seems logical that Great Britain and France should have demanded enforcement of the Versailles treaty, and when Germany refused to comply they should have taken military action. This would not have been a preemptive war which requires an imminent threat. This would have been a preventive war designed to halt what would likely have been a future existential threat.

Had leaders of France and England engaged in such a preventive war, history would have treated them badly, accusing them of not waiting until the threat was imminent. But waiting until a threat is imminent is often too late to prevent the damage it would do.

Because history is blind and deaf to the future, historians would not have known that a preventive war in 1935 might have saved 70 million lives between 1935 and 1945. It would have taken a bold, courageous and forward-looking leader to have risked his reputation by engaging in a preventive war for which he would be condemned rather than praised. This is especially the case when the immediate damage caused by engaging in a preventive war is far more visible than the future damage prevented by such a war. This reality also makes preventive wars unpopular with voters, who may suffer immediate damage, such as higher prices, from a war that would have prevented far worse future damages that are currently invisible.

The important point is that inaction when action is warranted can be as bad or worse than action when inaction is warranted. Failure to take action when action was warranted is called a false negative. Taking action when none was warranted is called a false positive. Striking the appropriate balance between avoiding both is the difficult job of world leaders. Churchill understood that. Roosevelt less so.

What does the failure to take military action against Nazi Germany in 1935 tell us about the current situation in regard to Iran? That is the difficult conundrum today’s world leaders face.

Iran has declared its intention to destroy Israel, which it calls “the little Satan,” and perhaps the United States, which it calls “the big Satan.” There is no doubt that it has been trying to develop a nuclear arsenal for many years, despite its denials and fatwas. If the United States and Israel were to continue their military attacks against Iran causing the deaths of innocent civilians, we would know about the deaths these attacks would cause. What we would not know is how many deaths were prevented by military actions that completely destroyed Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear arsenal in the near future. Also what we can’t know is whether allowing this regime to survive and to continue trying to develop in secret a nuclear arsenal will eventually cause many more deaths.

So the question is, will 2026 be remembered by future generations for its inaction in failing to prevent the Iranian regime from developing and deploying a nuclear arsenal? Will a “deal” with Iran be viewed by future generations the way we now look at the deal Chamberlain made with Germany at Munich in 1938?

Or will 2026 be the year when action against Iran saved an indeterminate number of lives while those who took the action were criticized rather than credited?