Sick Societies Suffer the Anomie of Antisemitism

"The data presented in this report suggest that, despite all these efforts [conferences, training programs, legislative proposals to fight antisemitism], something has gone terribly wrong."

"[Of the 2,616 antisemitic incidents in the United Stats last year, 345 invoked Israel and Zionism; associating all 345 incidents with the left is an error; 68 represented] propaganda efforts by white supremacist groups to foment anti-Israel and antisemitic beliefs."

"[One of the most popular QAnon influencers, GhostEzra] is an open Nazi who praises Hitler, admires the Third Reich and decries the supposedly treacherous nature of Jews."

Report: Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry, Tel Aviv University

"We've never seen data like this before, ever."

"[Over 80 percent of the incidents documented in the A.D.L. report] cannot be attributed to any specific extremist group or movement."

Jonathan Greenblatt, national director, Anti-Defamation League

The Nazi death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated 77 years ago as the Second World War was coming to an end. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

 

Emile Durkheim, a father of modern sociology, in 1899 wrote an essay, "Antisemitism and Social Crisis", an effort he undertook as a French Jew to come to grips with antisemitism exploding at the time, leading to the conviction of French artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus accused falsely of treason. In Durkheim's explorations, he wrote of Jews being blamed for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 defeats. He tracked an economic crisis in 1948 leading to a burst of antisemitism.

"Our current antisemitism", he wrote, "is the consequence and the superficial symptom of a state of social malaise". In this academic's mind, social malaise was encapsulated by social dissolution. "Durheim understood France's social malaise in terms of a pathological dearth of moral and social regulation, a condition that he termed 'anomie'", wrote sociologist Chad Alan Goldberg contemporarily. Anomie as a chronic condition of industrial society, when traditional social bonds were eroded.

Anomie could become acute, according to Durkheim, when society was rent asunder through "painful crisis" or "abrupt transitions", and at these times society sought a reason and found one in the presence of Jews, as classic scapegoats for the venting of hateful frustration. "Antisemitism serves as a useful index of the health of society", Goldberg wrote, in interpreting Durkheim's conclusions.

Global society has just undergone, and is continuing to grapple with, a pandemic whose virulence has caused millions of deaths, social estrangements, industrial upheaval, mass poverty, financial losses, galloping price increases in lock-step with transportation and distribution problems, and a palpable sense of grievance and resentment between wealthy nations and those struggling to survive. Add the usual regional conflicts, and this is a world in crisis.

Even before the pandemic there was a stark confrontational and bitter political polarization between liberal and conservative national cliques. Israel, as a symbol of Jewishness globally, has become a target for increasing bigotry, that extends itself to Jews everywhere in the diaspora, and with that conflation of contempt has come an increase in antisemitism, aided and abetted by social media resources becoming a comfortable medium for conveying hateful slander.

In the United States in particular there has been a growth of Jew hate. The recent Tel Aviv University report  pointed out that antisemitic incidents saw a huge increase in the last several years in countries as diverse as Australia, Britain, Canada, France and Germany. Often the governments of those countries express their dismay at this turn of events, and strike committees and investigations while mounting education campaigns to combat deep-seated Jew-hate within their populations.

In the U.S. in particular the Republican Party underwent a radicalization under former President Donald Trump. Where the party embraced far-right thought and groups exemplifying that ideology incorporating white supremacists into their fold. While the Democratic party extended itself further left in an orgy of of defaming Israel and extending antisemitism expressed by their elected members with Middle East backgrounds bringing their searing hatred of Israel to the fore.

A combination of social disaffection, the growing polarization and de-civilizing effect of radicalism on the part of both the right and the left, the pandemic years and its isolating effect encouraging people to rely more heavily on social media for direction, have all played a part in the steady rise of victimhood- inspired anger toward Jews, accusing Jews everywhere for all the things that have gone and continue to go awry in the world; whatever it is, a conspiracy of Jews had to be the motivator.

When rabid antisemitism is on the rise and becomes a cause celebre, that is the signal that social guidance of decency and civil merit is wallowing in the gutter of disaffection and misery, allied with distrust of politics and science.

Yet Another Islamophobe, (sigh)

"[The Muslim School of Montreal was grooming] fundamental activists. [Offering a model of a society] where men are probably going to commit honour crimes against their sisters."
"[The school was institutionalizing] sexual apartheid [and as such was] very far from the values of our [Quebec] society."
Djemila Benhabib, author, feminist, critic of Islamist fundamentalism

Djemila Benhabib says she doesn't regret likening the Muslim Schools of Montreal to militant Islamic training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Radio-Canada)

"Certainly these remarks are severe and could have been hurtful. However, they have a place in a democratic society like ours."
"Everyone must be allowed to express themselves as freely as possible on these questions."
"[Djemila Benhabib's remarks] are at the heart of freedom of expression's raison d'etre, that is, to favour active participation in debate on subjects of public interest."
Superior court Justice Carole Hallee, Montreal

"I was devastated, appalled, horrified, insulted and worried. How was it possible that someone who had never set foot inside our school could make such damaging and insulting statements?"
Ahmed Khebir, president, Muslim School of Montreal board of directors

The Ecoles Musulmanes de Montreal is suing the secularist author for $95,000 in a defamation lawsuit. © EMMS website

Mr. Khebir chooses to overlook the reality that anyone may now access websites on the Internet to form their own conclusions from the very statements pertaining to the site and purpose such websites advertise of their own initiative. And when Ms. Benhabib found herself provoked with interest after perusing a brochure that the school produces which featured female students wearing hijabs, further investigation on their website informed her that the curriculum was heavy on memorization of Qur'anic passages.

One of which, evidently waxed poetic over the beautiful virgins in Paradise, at the service of male faithful choosing to believe in an afterlife where non-believers are consigned to the fires of hell while the faithful are wooed by nobile beauties. Subsequently, in an interview on a radio program, she made her statements that caused such personal and religious anguish to the school board that it felt justified in bringing a lawsuit against the woman, suing her for $95,000.

Her statements linking the school's curriculum to military camps, he insisted elicited fear within the board that an anti-Muslim backlash from the public was certain to erupt by fanatics who hate Islam. However, the justice hearing the case found logic and truth absent in the credibility of Mr. Khebir's statement of injured protest. The school, she pointed out, presented no evidence of reputational suffering resulting from that interview.

She did find acceptability to Ms. Benhabib's reasonable explanation that when she uttered the statement relating to military camps it was her intention to describe a rigid military mindset, and not reference to camps involved in terrorist training. Furthermore, Justice Hallee stated that there was no support in reality of the contention that enrolment dropped s a result of what the school board considered pernicious slander waged against it.

Her considered judgement was that Ms. Benhabib had not slandered the school or the school's students. She was merely discussing issues of contention in the wearing of the hijab and rote memorization of Qur'anic religious passages. "In this case, the court acknowledges the very important role of freedom of speech and freedom of expression", noted her lawyer, Marc-Andre Nadon.

The Marketing of Drug Wars

"These are not scientific issues, these are market-driven issues."
"Unfortunately, the victim is the 80-year-old woman who needs her blood-pressure medication, or arthritis medication and is subject to all this propaganda.... It's fear-mongering."
Fakhreddin Jamali, pharmaceutical sciences professor, University of Alberta

"[Those attacking generics .. are] undermining the system that Health Canada and the provincial regulators have put in place."
Jim Keon, head, Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association

"In most cases, there are differences in both inactive and active ingredients that may or may not be relevant for a particular patient."
"Patients should be empowered to choose the medication that best meets their needs."
Vincent Lamoureux, Pfizer Canada spokesman

Generic drugs are approved based on the scale of "bioequivalence" studies. Study groups are allotted either the original formula (Big Pharma) or the (generic, less expensive) copy The proviso is that the active ingredient in the generic drug must be detectable in the subjects' bloodstream reflecting a certain range of the brand drug. Critics of generic 'copy' drugs, less expensive than the original formula drug claim the generics may contain variations that can be problematic.

Some university-affiliated experts say that for the larger majority of medications that range is a non-issue. When brand-name-producing corporations produce their own generics or they decide to move production to another plant they themselves make use of similar bioequivalence tests to obtain the approval required from federal authorities for them to proceed under government-approved auspices.

Big Pharma make hefty investments in medical science to find drug combinations that work in alleviating the symptoms of various health issues. They seek a return on those investments by pumping up the retail costs to the consuming public. They first embark on a mission to advertise the presumed sterling properties inherent in the drug as a protocol for ameliorating a health condition to convince the medical community and patients alike of the need to use them.

And they make an impression in the gullible public through persuading medical professionals to use their singular products and to convince their patients that their use represents best medical practise preferentially to enable them to sweep the market and collect the profits they deem themselves entitled to. When their trademark monopoly on their formula has run its course, this is when the generic drug manufacturers step forward and lawfully produce their own versions to market.

Between 2010 and August of 2013, brand name drugs whose sales total $6-billion annually in Canada lost their patent protection and witnessed the resulting drop in sales as generics stepped in to produce much less expensive knock-offs of the original product. An increasing number of medical insurance companies managing private workplace drug plans look for less costly ways to run their business and generic drugs represent a substantial cost-saving, one used commonly by government drug plans.

"The doctors understand the differences and its the doctors who are actually raising this issue. The treatments are becoming so specific ... that the generics are not responding in kind, they're not being as effective in smaller patient populations", charged Gordon Polk of Mapol Inc. Yet according to Dr. Laszlo Endrenyi, a University of Toronto pharmacologist specializing in bioequivalence, the only exceptions remain a small group of medications such as anti-epilepsy treatments and the blood thinner Warfarin where insignificant alterations can become significant in their impact.

None of which has stopped the major name-brand pharmaceutical firms in mounting public relations efforts through conferences, paid studies, television appearances of physicians who allow themselves to be used as spokespersons for the industry and who have no hesitation in claiming that generics are not quite as reliable as brand-name products. The ordinary patient-consumer hasn't the scientific background to balance these charges, and nor does the average doctor.

• An article in the magazine Moods that was funded and distributed to 11,000 doctors by Lundbeck, manufacturer among other products of the anti-depressant Cipralex argued that fillers in generic drugs can cause side effects which "may require additional medications" to treat.
• A seminar conducted early this year organized by Mapol, funded by Astelas Pharma, suggested generic versions of transplant anti-rejection medicines might "increase the risk of poor outcomes."
• A report from Ottawa and from Montreal university professors, funded by Valeant, charged Health Canada's bioequivalence standards are too broad, that patients prescribed the generic version of Valeant's anti-depressant could risk serious setbacks.

Big Pharma doesn't take kindly to the wholesale diminution of their profit margin. Their attacks, though having little or no basis in actual fact, shunted aside as garbage by 50 years of reliable use of generic drugs, they figure that planting the little seed of suspicious concern over generics may profit them big time, in the end; that niggling little worry in the minds of conflicted doctors, of their dependent patients.

Generic drugs are copies of brand-name drugs that have exactly the same dosage, intended use, effects, side effects, route of administration, risks, safety, and strength as the original drug. In other words, their pharmacological effects are exactly the same as those of their brand-name counterparts.
An example of a generic drug, one used for diabetes, is metformin. A brand name for metformin is Glucophage. (Brand names are usually capitalized while generic names are not.) A generic drug, one used for hypertension, is metoprolol, whereas a brand name for the same drug is Lopressor.
Many people become concerned because generic drugs are often substantially cheaper than the brand-name versions. They wonder if the quality and effectiveness have been compromised to make the less expensive products. The FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) requires that generic drugs be as safe and effective as brand-name drugs.

Actually, generic drugs are only cheaper because the manufacturers have not had the expenses of developing and marketing a new drug. When a company brings a new drug onto the market, the firm has already spent substantial money on research, development, marketing and promotion of the drug. A patent is granted that gives the company that developed the drug an exclusive right to sell the drug as long as the patent is in effect.