Trump’s America is fascist, says Bret Stephens, but Netanyahu’s Israel smells like a rose

Middle East
on 34 Comments

How does one make it on TV as an “expert” on prejudice? I have never seen any reference to a “degree” on prejudice or professorship of prejudice. And yet I see the same faces turning up on TV all the time. What does one put on one’s business card to get that invite, from CNN, to air your solemn opinions on “hate?”

It took a while before I realized it was no different than getting on TV for anything else; it was all about self promotion. You just have to advertise yourself as an expert and hope no one asks too many questions.

One of the biggest experts on “prejudice” is Bret Stephens, Pulitzer-winning columnist for the Wall Street Journal. He made his name as a “prejudice expert” during the confirmation hearing of former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in 2013. There had been many accusations of anti-Semitism thrown at Hagel but no solid evidence to convince the skeptics. Till Bret Stephens broke the impasse by proclaiming “Eureka!” in his column:

“Prejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations—has an olfactory element–“

And then he pronounced that with Hagel the smell was “especially ripe.” That performance gained Stephens quite the reputation in the “prejudice detecting” field. And this election season with Donald Trump and his movement going from one victory to the next, Stephens has been especially busy. In fact Stephens has likened Trump to Mussolini and other fascists of the ’30s. And he found Trump’s stench to be so bad that racists the world over were coming to him.

“With the instinct of house flies… [they] recognize the familiar smell, and they want more of it.”

Of course, for some the aroma coming from Donald Trump was redolent of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, in the wake of charges from Israeli military leaders that the government’s political culture is fascist or even Nazi-like. And articles with headlines like “Trump and Netanyahu, purveyors of hate” have been popping up (that one written by Chemi Shalev, the respected Haaretz columnist).

So it was especially appropriate that Bret Stephens was a guest on last Sunday’s edition of the CNN foreign policy show, GPS, to discuss the US and Israel’s emanation.

Peter Beinart, another guest on the show, made the Netanyahu-Trump comparison. He argued that the government in Israel has a kind of “hyper nationalist thuggish authoritarian politics… a little bit ala Donald Trump, and the military is pushing back.”

Stephens responded that Beinart had missed the point. Israeli fascism was not the thing to focus on here, the only issue worth discussing was the military’s overreach:

The basic issue is, does — do the civilians control the military? Whether you like the policies or views of those civilians. And that seems to me fundamental in any democracy …Douglas MacArthur was probably a better general than the people who succeeded him. He still deserved to be fired.

The “basic issue” — said Stephens– was that General Yair Galon, the deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army, gave a speech on Holocaust day that warned Israeli society was reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s. Of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies did not like that speech. Netanyahu summoned the Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon to condemn the speech. But Ya’alon refused, quit his job, and himself gave a speech saying that fascistic elements were on the rise in Israel.

Stephens said that whether or not you like the “policies” and “views” of the civilian leaders (the “fascists,” in Ya’alon’s view), there are larger principles here than just fascism.

In a democracy the principle of civilian control over the military — of a military staying away from politics is very important. It’s what Obama asserted with [Gen. Stanley] McChrystal. Harry Truman with Douglas MacArthur– and should be the case in Israel.

The storyline Stephens is selling as to what the “basic issue’ is really about, is that civilians need to control a too assertive military. Netanyahu is just defending democracy from the generals, like the way Truman needed to stop MacArthur from having an independent foreign policy in Asia. This is how Truman described the “basic issue” with MacArthur:

By his repeated public statements he was not only confusing our allies as to the true course of our policies but, in fact, was also setting his policy against the President’s… If I allowed him to defy the civil authorities in this manner, I myself would be violating my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

As for McChrystal, this was how President Obama justified his firing of the general: his behavior “undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system.”

What are the Israeli generals’ “public statements” that if Netanyahu countenanced them would undermine the civilian control of the military and violate his oath of office?

First it was the Golan speech in which the general talked about echoes of Nazism, in a clear reference to the politicians’ approval of an Israeli medic who had murdered a Palestinian man accused of an attack on an Israeli soldier as the man lay incapacitated on the ground:

If there is something that scares us about the memory of the Holocaust, it is identifying nauseating processes that occurred in Europe in general and Germany in particular, 70, 80 and 90 years ago, and finding evidence of their presence here among us, today, in 2016.

Additionally, there was this statement from Golan’s boss the chief of staff, following the same shooting by the Israeli medic:

Israel’s military chief, Gadi Eisenkot, publicly cautioned troops to use only “measured and considered force” against a wave of Palestinian street attacks and said those who deviate from orders would face punishment.

An opinion poll, however, showed 57 percent of Israelis believed the soldier should never have been arrested. And Mr Netanyahu took the unusual step of telephoning the conscript’s father to say “I understand your distress” and assure him of a fair investigation.

So maybe it is this Eisenkot statement that reminds Stephens of other cases of military overreach: one that “undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system.” That Eisenkot statement– reminding his soldiers that in spite of Netanyahu’s phone call to the family, in spite of Avigdor Lieberman visiting the killer in court, in spite of the widespread support of the murdering medic by the Israeli public, — If you murder a Palestinian you will be punished. Or maybe it’s the combined threat of the Golan speech and the Eisenkot “political” statement  that Netanyahu and Stephens feel make them such  a threat to Israeli democracy.

I wonder how Stephens would react to the identical situation here. Let us say this past Memorial Day an American general gave a speech like Golan’s speech about fascism:

[T]here is nothing easier than hating the alien. Nothing is easier and more simple than provoking anxiety and horror. Nothing is easier and simpler than brutalization, jadedness and self-righteousness.

On memorial day, it is appropriate to discuss our own ability to uproot from our midst signs of intolerance, signs of violence, and self-destruction on the path toward moral deterioration. In fact, Memorial Day is an opportunity for introspection. …. Memorial Day to be a day for national soul-searching. And in this national soul-searching we must include some unsettling phenomena.

And what if Donald Trump would demand this general be fired? Trump would espouse the very same principles Stephens is so very concerned about in Israel:

in a democracy the principle of civilian control over the military — of a military staying away from politics is very important.

I’ll leave it to the reader to imagine which  side of that fight Bret Stephens would be on, no doubt using only  the very highest of principles.

I would say, as I have written here, that rather than fearing for Israeli democracy, Golan’s speech was particularly annoying to Netanyahu because of all his portfolios the  “interpreting the Holocaust’ portfolio was the one he feels the most  possessive about. And so he thought it breached some “separation of powers” when a lowly Israeli deputy chief of staff, who has an entirely different lesson of the Holocaust, dared to share his opinion publicly on the subject.

But this wasn’t just Golan or Peter Beinart, his old punching bag, who Stephens was disagreeing with. A parade of right wing ex colleagues of Netanyahu have come out and said that Netanyahu, his government and a growing number of supporters are fascistic, and that is now the basic issue in Israeli political life. One of these men is the former Defense Minister Ya’alon, from Netanyahu’s own party, and even by Stephens’s standard a right winger, who announced that he was “fearful for Israel’s future” under the current leadership. His warning has so resonated on the center left that there is talk of overcoming political differences to try to save Israeli democracy, by forming a coalition that would include right wingers like Yaalon and Benny Begin as well as Meretz on the left. (See columns by Uri Avnery and Akiva Eldar.)

Thankfully, on CNN the subject turned from Israel to one that Stephens has a much better nose for: non Jewish fascism. And as usual Stephens was at his principled best. He said:

It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents, this kind of ethnic.. conservatism, or populism be decisively rebuked…

 

How righteous Stephens is when it comes to the American scene. He has been warning for a long time in his Wall Street Journal columns (here and here) that Trump affirms “his supporters’ most shameless ideological instincts.” He has cautioned us about why “vulnerable” people are drawn to “strong” leaders:

Then again, the pain you’re in is the pain you tell yourself you’re in. Or, at least, the pain you’re told you’re in, usually by political doctors who specialize in hyping the misery of others…… Which leads to the hysteria, the penchant for histrionic rhetoric, the promise of drastic measures, the disdain for civility, the combination of victimhood and bullying…

Well that sounds pretty terrifying, doesn’t it? And Bret Stephens has taken upon himself, as a “decent conservative” (in his own words ) and one of the few intellectuals capable of it, the great responsibility of interpreting history for the American people and drawing what to him are its obvious lessons.

“In the work of preserving civilization, nine-tenths of the job is to understand the past and stress its most obvious lessons.”

Now maybe it was the case that with the whole country watching him on CNN Stephens was uncharacteristically taciturn about Jewish fascism, but to the affluent and educated readers who flock to the WSJ he would be more forthcoming. Yet one discovers that in his column, “Netanyahu and the Generals,” Stephens defends Israeli fascism in print as well. And as is his wont, he does so exactly the way he attacks American fascism: with the most hifalutin principles.

He tells us that the Israeli military is a “Sparta… in the service of leftist goals.” And a Sparta that exhibits great arrogance:

“that they should so brazenly dismiss the ideological, religious or electoral considerations that are the stuff of democracy.”

I remind you that Stephens on CNN denounced Trump for marshaling the same forces that in Israel Stephens extols: “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents, this kind of ethnic.. conservatism, or populism be decisively rebuked.”

And I think that any student of 20th century history would have to acknowledge that this “ideological, religious and electoral consideration” that Stephens so stoutly defends in Israel as the “stuff of democracy” sounds remarkably similar to what fascism’s defenders have exalted as “the volk” and the “people’s will.”

As for the thinkers and activists and writers and even Israeli generals who are calling attention to the fascist menace in Israel, Stephens has this to say,

“There’s a larger point here, relevant not only to Israel– about the danger those who believe themselves to be virtuous pose to those who merely wish to be free.”

“Those who merely wish to be free.” What a stirring phrase to describe people who defend a racial murder.

Maybe this “larger point” is also relevant to the United States and to the likes of Bret Stephens, Jennifer Rubin, Jeffrey Goldberg, et al, all who believe themselves to be the most virtuous, who always champion the highest principles (for others), who are the most judgmental (of non-Jews and non-kosher Jews) who are the most disingenuous and tendentious, who are the last to “smell” their own fascists but become bloodhounds with  anyone else’s.

Is the Stephens-Rubin group of “virtuous people” a danger to those who “merely wish to be free” in America, as well? Because that’s exactly what some Trump supporters think of Bret Stephens lecturing them, and exhibiting a gross double standard for American and Israeli political life.

How much resentment of Jews in this country does Bret Stephens cause, when on the same show that he tries to cover up his own ethnicity’s “fascism”, he virtuously and unselfconsciously calls on American populism to be decisively rebuked.

For those who are worried about rising antisemitism among Trump supporters, as I am, Let me make a recommendation that I am very confident will do more to combat anti-Semitism than will anything coming out of the forthcoming ADL’s anti-Semitism study:  tribal Jews who are sympathetic to their own ethnic fascists should not be the ones leading the very public and avowedly-principled war against Trump and his supporters.

 

About Yakov Hirsch

Yakov Hirsch is a professional poker player and dog trainer. His twitter handle is @Yakovhirsch and his articles are posted at yakovhirsch.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

34 Responses

  1. Marnie
    June 6, 2016, 12:08 am

    The lap dogs of the fascist israeli ‘state’ are missing the plot entirely and deliberately when they can see the bad in Drumpf, or in Stephen’s case, ‘smell’ it because of some super olfactory sense rather than common sense, but are completely oblivious to the ever encompassing fascism of their beloved mother of all lands. Yet they don’t live in this land they’d sell out their parents, children, friends, neighbors and fellow americans for.

    “How much resentment of Jews in this country does Bret Stephens cause, when on the same show that he tries to cover up his own ethnicity’s “fascism”, he virtuously and unselfconsciously calls on American populism to be decisively rebuked.”

    That’s an interesting question. I’d also ask the same question of Netanyahoo and his entire government’s effect wrt resentment of Jews globally.

    Maybe science has the answer to the question ‘Why doesn’t Bret Stephens smell fascism in america but not israel?”

    Science Explains Why You Can’t Smell Your Own House
    Kate Horowitz

    “Your house smells. Don’t feel bad—it’s not just you! Your neighbor’s house smells, as does the White House. Even Martha Stewart’s abode has a distinctive odor. But not one of you could pick your own home’s aroma out of a scent lineup.

    We adapt to smells very quickly. Within the space of just a few breaths, we can lose our ability to detect new odors. It’s called olfactory adaptation, and it’s the same reason you can’t smell your own breath, your body odor, or even your perfume after a few minutes. This, cognitive psychologist Pamela Dalton told New York Magazine, may be a good thing.

    Every object in our environment gives off scented molecules. When you inhale, the molecules pass through your nostrils and stick to a wall of mucus on the back of your throat. That mucus is home to receptor cells that tell your brain what it is you’ve just sniffed. Our brains watch out for danger. Any change in our surroundings could represent a threat, Dalton says, so the brain focuses on new sights, sounds, feelings—and smells. After a few sniffs, you should know what needs to be dealt with and what’s okay to ignore. Fresh-cut flowers? Nice, but not a problem. The smell of burning hair? You might want to check that out.

    Are you worried that your house reeks and nobody’s telling you? You may be able to find out by employing a few tricks of the perfume trade. Since familiarity is the key, you can give your nose a fresh start by leaving the house for a few hours. When you return, you should be able to get a good idea of what everyone else smells.”

  2. JLewisDickerson
    June 6, 2016, 2:23 am

    RE: And then Bret Stephens broke the impasse by proclaiming “Eureka!” in his column: “Prejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations—has an olfactory element” / “With the instinct of house flies… [they] recognize the familiar smell, and they want more of it.”

    ANNOUNCEMENT: A new, long-awaited male fragrance by world-renowned Parfumeur John Lewis-Dickerson of London, Paris and Atlanta is now available at many of the world’s finest men’s clothiers. Ask for it by name, if you dare. It is simply “Nasty!®”, because the world’s most desirable women like nice guys who discretely exude a whiff of the old Nasty!®

    P.S. Coming next year: “Hot ‘N’ Nasty!” (patent pending)

  3. WH
    June 6, 2016, 2:32 am

    I’ve really been enjoying Yakov’s articles – keep ’em coming!

  4. Brewer
    June 6, 2016, 2:51 am

    To narrate the thoughts this article inspires in me and the connection with what I begin to understand about the brain’s ability to hold utterly contradictory ideas would require a book-length diatribe. The outrage Stephen Erlich/Stephens inspires would require yet another.
    There is one possible explanation for a brain so devoid of intellect as his:
    “Slime that can ‘think’ its way through a maze could turn our idea of intelligence upside down”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2079394/Slime-think-way-maze-turn-idea-intelligence-upside-down.html#ixzz4AmOixOFD

  5. Krauss
    June 6, 2016, 6:21 am

    Stephens is not isolated.

    He is a good example of the fact that a lot so-called “liberal” Zionists(and neocons are essentially socially liberal) are only liberals in the USA because they are ethnic/religious minorities.

    In other words, they are liberals because it is in their ethnic interest to be so. That’s why they oppose Trump(soft white nationalism) but strongly support Zionism(hardcore Jewish nationalism).

    Their problem is not with nationalism per se. Their opposition is simply conditional on whether they are in a majority or in the minority.

    You can find a lot of similar examples on the so-called center(Jeff Goldberg) or even Beinart, who may be anti-Netanyahu but is still an avowed ethnic nationalist.

    The crisis in Israel is bringing out all this hypocrisy for all to see.

    • Citizen
      June 6, 2016, 11:04 am

      Maybe Goldhagen will write a best-seller about Israel’s willing executioners?

  6. Kay24
    June 6, 2016, 7:01 am

    It is strange that these pro Israeli Americans can be so selective in their criticisms of others who act like fascists, and yet are so ignorant or blinded about what is going on in the nation they adore and protect.

    We must start calling these shameless Americans like Stephens and Cuomo (and our Congress) Pro Occupation and Pro Illegal Settlements, for every time they ignore the plight of the Palestinians, show their bias, and utter such nonsense, they are simply endorsing the above crimes. In the US showing neutrality or fairness in this situation is a rare thing among these so called journalists, there is always that effort to make the victims the villains, and a word here and there to make the victims look the aggressors. They are the hasbara wearing makeup.

  7. Kay24
    June 6, 2016, 7:10 am

    Here Stephens shows how concerned he is that the next US President may not be pro Israel.
    Hope it is not keeping him up at nights.

    Bret Stephens: The next US president may not be pro-Israel

    http://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/Bret-Stephens-The-next-US-president-may-not-be-pro-Israel-444512

  8. Shingo
    June 6, 2016, 9:35 am

    So let me get this straight.

    If senior military figure speaks out against anti democratic and fascist policies and practices, that represents s threat to democracy. And when those political leaders advocating such policies prevail over those military leaders, that is democracy at work.

    A perfect example of the intellectual contortions Israeli apologist shave to resort to.

  9. Atlantaiconoclast
    June 6, 2016, 11:44 am

    Good points Mr. Hirsch. However, I take issue with the equivalency you make between Netanyahu and Trump. I find it mind boggling that anyone can think that there is an equivalency between the two men. One calls for a nation’s fairly generous and non discriminatory immigration laws to be enforced, and for a wall to be created on the nation’s actual border, The other supports and vigorously defends immigration laws that prohibit any Gentile from immigrating to Israel. Netanyahu also supports a wall that cuts through another people’s land. Unlike Netanyahu, Trump doesn’t have anyone in his inner circle who has called for the ethnic cleansing of legal and indigenous citizens from his nation. And unlike Netanyahu, Trump does not support colonies (“settlements” ) that are exclusively for one race or tribe.

    Trump’s “fascism” and “racism” is to Netanyahu’s fascism and racism what Britney Spear’s voice is to Paverrotti’s voice. One is very weak and timid and the other’s is very strong and powerful. Trump can only dream of being as fascist and racist as this Jewish supremacist Netanyahu.

    The reality is that mainstream media accepts Jewish tribalism and racism. When Jews do it, it isn’t wrong. How Nixonian.

    • Mooser
      June 6, 2016, 12:00 pm

      “The reality is that mainstream media accepts Jewish tribalism and racism. When Jews do it, it isn’t wrong.”

      Wow, I see your point. If only “the mainstream” could have learned to accept the tribalism and racism of the ante-bellum South, the Civil War need never have been fought!

      • Citizen
        June 6, 2016, 4:30 pm

        @ Mooser

        And the whole US could’ve benefitted from continued slave-produced King Cotton as number one American export for much longer!

      • MHughes976
        June 6, 2016, 5:13 pm

        I think that mainstream opinion did for quite some time accept Southern slavery as a ‘peculiar institution’. It was the efforts of the slaveowners to expand into new territories that caused reaction strong enough to bring on a crisis. What had seemed exotic and a bit romantic – the image that Gone with the Wind tried later to reconstruct – came around 1860 to seem like an economic threat. I think that Atlanta has a point, in that Israel seems exotic, a bit romantic and of course a bit sacred – the image that Exodus constructed still being powerful.

      • Chu
        June 7, 2016, 11:59 am

        Media doesn’t say jack when it comes to Jewish racism, and their pork pie Israel. Netanyahu and Israel as a whole, are much more racist and vile than Trump. Why the reference to the South? is that even valid today.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        June 7, 2016, 12:07 pm

        There were five Union states with slaves. General Grant’s family owned slaves, even after the war started. Lincoln did not resist Southern secession to free one slave. Try again.

    • Yakov Hirsch
      June 6, 2016, 2:37 pm

      Atlantaiconoclast, In my article, I don’t give an opinion on the “fascism” equivalency between Trump and Netanyahu. I am only reporting that some people like Beinart and shalev etal. do. And others like Stephens don’t. I give my opinion of that contrast.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 7, 2016, 1:23 pm

        brilliant article yakov, my favorite part, excuse my bold:

        I remind you that Stephens on CNN denounced Trump for marshaling the same forces that in Israel Stephens extols: “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents, this kind of ethnic.. conservatism, or populism be decisively rebuked.”

        And I think that any student of 20th century history would have to acknowledge that this “ideological, religious and electoral consideration” that Stephens so stoutly defends in Israel as the “stuff of democracy” sounds remarkably similar to what fascism’s defenders have exalted as “the volk” and the “people’s will.”

        As for the thinkers and activists and writers and even Israeli generals who are calling attention to the fascist menace in Israel, Stephens has this to say,

        “There’s a larger point here, relevant not only to Israel– about the danger those who believe themselves to be virtuous pose to those who merely wish to be free.”

        “Those who merely wish to be free.” What a stirring phrase to describe people who defend a racial murder.

        ….. Is the Stephens-Rubin group of “virtuous people” a danger to those who “merely wish to be free” in America, as well? Because that’s exactly what some Trump supporters think of Bret Stephens lecturing them, and exhibiting a gross double standard for American and Israeli political life.

    • Chu
      June 7, 2016, 11:54 am

      The double standard is glaringly obvious today. The point about one US wall reinforcing a border while the Jewish Wall that cuts through another inhabitants land is a good one! But the msm doesn’t look at the glaring hypocrisy, they only change the subject, cause they’ve got no leg to stand on.

      Even Fareed could have called out Bret on his hypocrisy, but they (the media agents) are all happy to get paid, and not challenging the corrupted status quo. Rick Sanchez was a reminder to any media shill that goes off script.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        June 7, 2016, 12:09 pm

        exactly, That is real privilege. Jewish privilege.

      • Yakov Hirsch
        June 8, 2016, 4:21 am

        TY Annie, no more impunity.

  10. Ossinev
    June 6, 2016, 3:10 pm

    @kay24
    Thanks for the link to the jpost article by this comedian. I was especially impressed by:

    “Obama will always say, ‘I’m a great friend of Israel.’ I think he’s a great friend of Israel when it’s easy, when it’s about providing planes to wipe out the forest fire or giving de minimis funding for Iron Dome – de minimis on the scale of the US budget,” he said.

    In other words JSIL has a God given right to special funding from the US taxpayer and Obama was effectively guilty of a betrayal of God`s commands by restricting that funding to the historical minimum.

    These people actually believe what they are saying – frightening,very very frightening.

    • Citizen
      June 6, 2016, 4:36 pm

      That reminds me, did Bibi get the minimal $50 billion new aid package he was holding out for, instead of Obama’s paltry increase to $40 billion? As hard to get this info as it is to get info on whether or not FBI has a grand jury deliberating on Hillary’s email…

    • Kay24
      June 6, 2016, 5:12 pm

      They have all drunk the cooled and are delirious.

  11. JLewisDickerson
    June 6, 2016, 7:16 pm

    RE: [Bret] Stephens responded that Beinart had missed the point. Israeli fascism was not the thing to focus on here, the only issue worth discussing was the military’s overreach: The basic issue is, does — do the civilians control the military? Whether you like the policies or views of those civilians. And that seems to me fundamental in any democracy… He tells us that the Israeli military is a “Sparta… in the service of leftist goals.” And a Sparta that exhibits great arrogance . . .

    MY SNARKCASM: “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!”* I can’t help but wonder whether Pulitzer-winning Bret Stephens would even go so far as to rationalize (in his own mind, if not publicly) a reaction to “the [Israeli] military’s overreach” similar to Operation Hummingbird**, as long as it was carried out strictly to enforce civilian control of the Israeli military (and not, heaven forbid, to attack or eliminate critics of the ruling regime, or to settle scores with old enemies of the regime). Enquiring minds mimes want to know!

    * ‘One People, One Nation, One Leader’ (Nazi Propaganda) – http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nazi_propaganda_gallery_03.shtml

    * ‘One nation, one state, one leader’ — frightening slogan at Tel Aviv protest – http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/nation-frightening-protest/

    ** FROM WIKIPEDIA (Night of the Long Knives):

    [EXCERPT] The Night of the Long Knives, sometimes called Operation Hummingbird or, in Germany, the Röhm Putsch (German spelling: Röhm-Putsch), or sometimes mockingly Reichsmordwoche[1] (Reich Murder Week), was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a series of political extra-judicial executions. Leading figures of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were killed, as were prominent conservative anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). Many of those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary Brownshirts.

    Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power. Hitler also wanted to conciliate leaders of the Reichswehr, the official German military who feared and despised the SA—in particular Röhm’s ambition to absorb the Reichswehr into the SA under his own leadership. Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm’s outspoken support for a “second revolution” to redistribute wealth (in Röhm’s view, President Hindenburg’s appointing of Hitler as German Chancellor on January 30, 1933 had accomplished the “nationalistic” revolution but had left unfulfilled the “socialistic” motive in National Socialism). Finally, Hitler used the purge to attack or eliminate critics of his new regime, especially those loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, as well as to settle scores with old enemies.[a] . . .

    SOURCE – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

  12. JLewisDickerson
    June 6, 2016, 7:42 pm

    RE: And I think that any student of 20th century history would have to acknowledge that this “ideological, religious and electoral consideration” that Stephens so stoutly defends in Israel as the “stuff of democracy” sounds remarkably similar to what fascism’s defenders have exalted as “the volk” and the “people’s will.” ~ Yakov Hirsch

    FROM “THE COORDINATION FORUM FOR COUNTERING ANTISEMITISM” (antisemitism.org.il):

    [EXCERPTS] Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) was a German agitator and theorist, who coined the term “antisemitism” as a euphemism for the German Judenhass, or “Jew-hate”.

    Marr was an unemployed journalist, who claimed that he had lost his job due to Jewish interference. A political conservative, he was influenced by the conservative pan-German movement, as expounded by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who developed the idea of the Volk, and the Burschenschaft movement of the early nineteenth century, which developed out of frustration among German students with the failure of the Congress of Vienna to create a unified state out of all the territories inhabited by the Volk. The latter rejected the participation of Jewish and other non-German minorities as members, “unless they prove that they are anxious to develop within themselves a Christian-German spirit” (a decision of the “Burschenschaft Congress of 1818”). While they were opposed to the participation of Jews in their movement, like Heinrich von Treitschke later, they did allow for the possibility of the Jewish (and other) minorities participating in the German state if they were to abandon all signs of ethnic and religious distinctiveness and assimilate completely into German Volk.

    Marr took these philosophies one step further by rejecting the premise of assimilation as a means for Jews to become Germans. In his pamphlet Der Weg zum Siege des Germanentums über das Judentum (The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism, 1879) he introduced the idea that Germans and Jews were locked in a longstanding conflict, the origins of which he attributed to race — and that the Jews were winning. He argued that Jewish emancipation resulting from German liberalism had allowed the Jews to control German finance and industry. Furthermore, since this conflict was based on the different qualities of the Jewish and German races, it could not be resolved even by the total assimilation of the Jewish population. According to him, the struggle between Jews and Germans would only be resolved by the victory of one and the ultimate death of the other. A Jewish victory, he concluded, would result in finis Germaniae (the end of the German people). To prevent this from happening, in 1879 Marr founded the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews and advocating their forced removal from the country. . .

    . . . Despite his influence, Marr’s ideas were not immediately adopted by German nationalists. The Pan-German League, founded in 1891, originally allowed for the membership of Jews, provided they were fully assimilated into German culture. It was only in 1912, eight years after Marr’s death, that the League declared racism as an underlying principle. Nevertheless, Marr was a major link in the evolving chain of German racism that erupted into genocide during the Nazi era.

    SOURCE – http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Wilhelm%20Marr

  13. JLewisDickerson
    June 6, 2016, 8:46 pm

    ALSO RE: And I think that any student of 20th century history would have to acknowledge that this “ideological, religious and electoral consideration” that Stephens so stoutly defends in Israel as the “stuff of democracy” sounds remarkably similar to what fascism’s defenders have exalted as “the volk” and the “people’s will.” ~ Yakov Hirsch

    SEE: “Herder’s Theory of the Volksgeist” | By Andrew Hamilton | Counter-Currents.com | Published: May 20, 2011

    [EXCERPTS] German philosopher and critic Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) developed the concept of romantic or organic nationalism, a form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives its political legitimacy from historic cultural or hereditary groups. The underlying assumption is that every ethnicity should be politically distinct. Herder’s ideas on the subject were expressed in his theory of the Volksgeist. . .

    . . . Herder and Biological Race

    Herder was a key figure in the development of two well-known philosophical-anthropological concepts.

    One is Zeitgeist (zeit time + geist spirit), “spirit of the time” or “spirit of the age,” signifying the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and political climate of an era. Herder reportedly coined the term in his 1769 critique of a work by German philologist Christian Adolph Klotz.

    The second concept, the one relevant here, is Volksgeist, usually translated as “national spirit” or “national character.” In German, however, Nationalgeist is the term for national spirit, and Nationalcharakter for national character. Volksgeist means “spirit of the Volk.”

    In a holistic sense, race consists of dimensions beyond physical anthropology or population genetics. Just as every distinct population shares common morphological and physiological traits, despite within-group variation they likewise express unique group psychology, intelligence, behavior, character, morals and, ultimately, culture and civilization. (Jared Taylor: “White Americans believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races differed in temperament, ability, and the kind of societies they built.”) In fact, such second-order phenomena are the aspects of race that preoccupy most “racists” most of the time.

    Herder’s Volksgeist is highly compatible with this modern understanding of race. This is why he is frequently viewed as a “racist” by modern academics (e.g., Cedric Dover, “The Racial Philosophy of Johann Herder,” British Journal of Sociology [1952]: 124–33) or as a forerunner of Nazism. It is easy to see why this is the case.

    German physical anthropologist Egon von Eickstedt maintained that Herder and Christoph Meiners (1747–1810) were the founders of the anthropological theory of history. Anthropologist Ilse Schwidetzky wrote that Herder “entertained the general conviction that the character of a people, and subsequently their history, is determined by their nature and heredity.”

    However, Herder’s implicitly racial or ethnic understanding of Volk was not predicated upon a biological worldview, at least not an explicit one. Moreover, it reflected the biological confusion and limited scientific understanding of the time. . .

    . . . It can be said that Herder inserted a full-blown, de facto racial-ethnic view of history and mankind at a level one step above that of biology (race). In Herder’s treatment, at least, the consequences are much the same as they would be for a more biologically-oriented approach.

    Still, rejection of, or lack of clarity about, basic raciology is best avoided. It leads whites badly astray, as witness the consequences of the petty but internecine nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    The Volksgeist

    The Volksgeist, the spirit of the folk, is a manifestation of the people; it animates the nation. “There is only one class in the state, the Volk (not the rabble), and the king belongs to this class as well as the peasant.” The Volksgeist is as old as the Volk, and evolves with the national group. There is a life of national groups, and withering and death marks the end of a Volk.

    Every human group is, as an empirical matter, different from every other group, each nationality (or Volk) is characterized by its own unique spirit. Each people possesses its own cultural traits shaped by ancestral history and the experience of a particular physical environment, and mentally constructs its social life through language, literature, religion, the arts, customs, and folklore inherited from earlier generations. The Volk is the family writ large.

    Law, too, must be adapted to the spirit of each nation, for rules applied to one nation are not valid for another. The only effective and legitimate governments are those that develop naturally from within particular nations and reflect, in their differences from other polities, the cultures of the people they govern.

    It follows that two nations cannot have the same Volksgeist. Therefore, Herder rejected the French revolutionary (and contemporary) dogma that man is everywhere the same, whether he lives in Africa or England, or that every nation is fundamentally identical with every other nation, and thereby should be made homogeneous with them. Herder, Godechot writes, is staunchly opposed to all that is cosmopolite and universalist in character: “In contrast, he believes in particularism.”

    Herder constantly likened the Volksgeist, “singular, marvelous, inexplicable, ineffable,” to a plant that grows, blooms, and withers. Just as the “botanist cannot obtain a complete knowledge of a plant, unless he follow it from the seed, through its germination, blossoming, and decay,” so too must the historian seek to understand the uniqueness of the present by reference to its roots in the past.

    In other words, the Volksgeist can best be understood through the phenomena of history. Therefore, the study of history must play a central role in education. The objective of historical instruction, which should be nationalistic in character, is to teach how the Fatherland evolved over time.

    Rather than giving priority to the study of ancient and modern history, as was common in the 18th century, Herder redeemed the history of the Middle Ages, feeling that it had been given short shrift. He also refused to restrict history to the study of politics, wars, and dynasties. For Herder, history was primarily the history of the Volk: its language, culture, customs, religion, literature, law, and folklore. (A writer and collector of poetry, folk songs, and legends, and an early student of comparative literature, Herder published a collection of folk songs in 1773 entitled Voices of the People in Their Songs [Stimmen der Völker in ihren Liedern].)

    Herder’s views of both the German and the Slavic Volksgeist did not match existing territorial borders, but were pan-national in character.

    Despite being Prussian, Herder rejected Prussian nationalism as too narrow. An intense German nationalist, he was imbued with the spirit of the entire German Volk: “He is deserving of glory and gratitude who seeks to promote the unity of the territories of Germany through writings, manufacture, and institutions.” Herder believed that Austria, too, should be part of Germany.

    Likewise, he conceived of Slavs as a Volk, rather than extolling specific polities. Thus, he wrote of the Slavic, as opposed to the Russian, Polish, or some other politically-defined Volksgeist. Herder predicted the Slavic nations would one day be the real power in Europe, as western Europeans would reject Christianity and rot away, while the eastern European nations would adhere to their religion and to their idealism. Through his concept of Volksgeist, which directly influenced Slavic intellectuals, and his high praise for the Slavic people and culture, Herder became an intellectual godfather of Pan-Slavism.

    Herder rejected the mixture of Völker, each of which he believed was adapted to a particular ecological niche. Ideally, “if every one of these nations had remained in its place, the Earth might have been considered as a garden, where in one spot one human national plant, in another, another, bloomed in its proper figure and nature.” But just “as men are not firmly rooted plants, the calamities of famine, earthquakes, war and the like, must in time remove them from their place to some other more or less different.” Almost every people on Earth “has migrated at least once, sooner or later, to a greater distance, or less.” . . .

    . . . The Jews

    In terms of religion, for Herder there was no continuity between (for him, legitimate) Old Testament Judaism and the Pharisaic Judaism of Jesus’ time, which he regarded as degenerate in form.

    As far as ethnicity goes, Herder did not think of Jews primarily as individuals, but as a Volk. The Jews, he wrote, “in the land of their fathers, and in the midst of other nations . . . remain as they were; and even when mixed with other people they may be distinguished for some generations downward.” His view of Völker compelled him to regard Jews as alien to Germany and Europe:

    For thousands of years, since their emergence on the stage of history, the Jews were a parasitic growth on the stem of other nations, a race of cunning brokers all over the earth. They have caused great evil to many ill-organized states, by retarding the free and natural economic development of their indigenous population.

    In another passage reflective of Herder’s racial-ethnic worldview, he says:

    The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which, according to its confession, it cannot do away with . . . [Emphasis added.]

    How many of this alien people can be tolerated without injury to the true citizens?

    A ministry in which a Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has the key of the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a department or commissariat in which Jews do the principal business, are Pontine marshes which cannot be drained.

    However, in the opinion of some Jews, Herder’s greatest sin was his formulation of the theory of the Volksgeist itself. David Isadore Lieberman, an anti-white publicist, writes:

    Herder’s most important contribution to the intellectual history of antisemitism was entirely unintended: his novel argument for the organic development of national cultures, which incorporated elements of geography, language, kinship, and historical continuity. Although Herder maintained (with occasional lapses) that no culture enjoyed a privileged position with respect to any other, his model of the organic natural culture left Jews living in the Diaspora exposed, susceptible to charges that their culture was “inorganic” and therefore inauthentic.

    This last sentence is dishonest or possibly ignorant. To Herder, Jews definitely constituted an organic, “authentic” Volk. (See Frederick M. Barnard, “The Hebrews and Herder’s Political Creed,” Modern Language Review [Oct. 1959], 533.) It would be correct to say that Herder’s model leaves Jews exposed to the charge of subverting and destroying—and today, committing genocide against—other authentic cultures and peoples. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/herders-theory-of-the-volksgeist/

    • JLewisDickerson
      June 6, 2016, 9:13 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Zionism and the Ethnic Cleansing of Europe”, by Siddhartha Shome, Stanford University, 2014

      [EXCERPTS] The Holocaust was by far the worst genocide in human history and has understandably attracted much scholarly interest. However, the Holocaust did not happen in isolation. As the term ‘final solution’ indicates, it was intended as the culmination of a broad effort to ethnically cleanse(1) Europe of its Jews – an effort that preceded the Holocaust and continued even after it ended. This paper argues that in a curious ideological relationship, Zionists(2) and their supporters embraced much of the ideological framework of European anti-Semitism, and, except for its most intense manifestation in the form of genocide, implicitly endorsed the effort to ethnically cleanse Jews from Europe and make Europe judenrein (free of Jews). . .

      . . . Zionism arose in Europe within the milieu of völkisch and ethnic nationalism and in reaction to the racist anti-Semitism that accompanied it(6). Instead of directly challenging the core ideological assumptions and narratives of völkisch nationalism, mainstream Zionists(7) sought to find an accommodation that would carve out a secure niche for Jews within the overall framework of völkisch nationalism. In so doing, Zionists, whether out of genuine convictions or otherwise, seem to have accepted and even internalized some of the core values and assumptions of völkisch nationalism. Jews, claimed the Zionists, constituted a nation, or a ‘Volk,’ united by ties of blood, with its national homeland located in Eretz Israel (the land of Israel). The solution to the ‘Jewish problem,’ they declared, lay in transferring the diaspora Jewish population to their national homeland, the only place where Jews could establish the organic blood-and-soil links necessary for any nation to flourish. Theodor Herzl, considered by many to be the father of the Jewish state, believed that European anti-Semites and Zionists would cooperate with each other to advance their mutually complementary goals of cleansing Europe of its Jews and transferring the Jewish population to Eretz Israel. Partly quoting Herzl, one author describes Herzl’s reasoning,

      [Herzl] predicted that the anti-Semites would be Zionism’s best supporters: “the Government of all countries scourged by anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want.” … Furthermore, “honest anti-Semites … will combine with our officials in controlling the transfer of our estates.” … He unapologetically affirmed: “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” (Massad 178)

      In the early years of the Third Reich, Zionists were quite eager to cooperate with the Nazi regime, even though its anti-Semitic credentials were never in doubt. The most famous example of the Nazi-Zionist cooperation is the Haavara Agreement, which facilitated the transfer of German Jews to Palestine. There were many other avenues for cooperation as well. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt quotes Hans Lamm, a leading member of the German Jewish community, “it is indisputable that during the first stages of their Jewish policy the National socialists thought it proper to adopt a pro-Zionist attitude” (Arendt 58). Arendt then goes on to explain why this was so:

      It was in those years a fact of everyday life that only Zionists had any chance of negotiating the German authorities, for the simple reason that their chief Jewish adversary, the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith, to which ninety-five percent of organized Jews in Germany then belonged, specified in its bylaws that its chief task was the “fight against anti-Semitism”; it had suddenly become by definition an organization “hostile to the State.” (Arendt 58)

      What is unsaid, but implied in Arendt’s comments, is that the Zionists did not consider the “fight against anti-Semitism” their chief task, and perhaps, not their task at all.

      According to the logic of Zionism, the root cause of Jewish suffering was not anti-Semitism per se, but the Jewish exile from their national homeland. In this view, anti-Semitism was no more than the inevitable consequence of the Jewish exile, which had severed the organic bond between the Jewish people and their homeland, and had eroded the Jews’ moral fiber, reducing them to a ‘parasitic’ existence, thereby arousing the ill-will and hatred of their ‘host nations.’ The Zionists thus accepted and endorsed the notion, advanced by völkisch anti-Semites, that Jews in Europe were alien parasites. The Zionists then called upon Jews to rectify this dire situation by ‘returning’ to their homeland, shedding their ‘parasitic’ disposition, and becoming self-reliant and valorous farmers and warriors. David Ben-Gurion describes the task at hand:

      The very realization of Zionism is nothing else than carrying out this deep historical transformation occurring in the life of the Hebrew people. This transformation does not limit itself to the geographical aspect, to the movement of Jewish masses from the countries of the Diaspora to the renascent homeland – but in a socioeconomic transformation as well: it means taking masses of uprooted, impoverished, sterile Jews, living parasitically off an alien economic body and dependent on others – and introducing them to productive and creative life, implanting them on the land, integrating them into primary production in agriculture, in industry and handicraft… (Avineri, 200) . . .

      Works Cited

      ● Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin, 2006. (First published 1963.) Print.
      ● Avineri, Shlomo. The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Print.
      ● Bassin, Mark. “Blood or Soil? The Völkisch Movement, the Nazis, and the Legacy of Geopolitik.” How Green Were the Nazis. Ed. Franz-Josef Brüggemeier, Mark Cioc, and Thomas Zeller. Athens, OH: Ohio UP, 2005. 204-242. Print.
      ● Berkowitz, Michael, and Brown-Fleming, Suzanne. “Perceptions of Jewish Displaced Persons as Criminals in Early Postwar Germany.” We are Here: New Approaches to Jewish Displaced Persons in Postwar Germany. Ed. Avinoam Pratt and Michael Berkowitz. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 2010. 167-193. Print.
      ● Cohen, Rich. Israel Is Real: An Obsessive Quest to Understand the Jewish Nation and its History. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009. Print.
      ● Harutyunyan, Arus. Contesting National Identities in an Ethnically Homogeneous State: The Case of Armenian Democratization. Diss. Western Michigan University, 2009.
      ● Massad, Joseph. The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
      ● Mosse, George. The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1964. Print.
      ● Segev, Tom. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust. Trans. Haim Watzman. New York: Henry Holt, 2000. Print.

      Endnotes

      1 – “Ethnic cleansing” is used here to mean the forced or induced removal of people belonging to a particular ethnic group from some territory, by virtue of their ethnicity.
      2 – “Zionist” is used here to mean someone who actively supports the establishment of a Jewish national home in Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) and endorses the notion that ethnic Jews should make Aliyah, i.e., move to this national homeland.
      3 – Before the establishment of the state of Israel, “yishuv” was a term used to refer the body of Jews living in Palestine.
      4 – Anti-semitism in other European countries was based on similar assumptions and narratives as in Germany, but nowhere was it as intense.
      5 – While völkisch nationalism, as described here, was specific to Germany, it may be viewed as the most extreme expression of a broader phenomenon: ethnic nationalism. Many countries in Europe experienced their own versions of ethnic nationalism, which shared many features with German völkisch nationalism, such the glorification of a national folk culture. Like German völkisch nationalism, these other forms of ethnic nationalism were influenced, directly or indirectly, by German Romantic thinkers of the eighteen and nineteenth centuries.
      6 – This is not to suggest that the development of Zionism was an exclusively German phenomenon. Zionism, in its early stages, was greatly influenced by German völkisch nationalism and was dominated by German speaking Jews (the official language for the first few Zionist congresses was German). However, Zionism was also embraced by Jews in other places, particularly those living in Eastern Europe, where local versions of ethnic nationalism influenced early Zionists. It is interesting to note that Theodor Herzl’s seminal book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) received a much more enthusiastic reception in Eastern Europe than in German speaking areas. An example of an early Eastern European Zionist is Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who grew up in Odessa in Ukraine. Jabotinsky was an ardent admirer of Ukrainian ethnic nationalism, even though it promoted anti-Semitism, and praised Ukrainian ethnic nationalist leaders including Symon Petliura, thought to have been involved in anti-Jewish pogroms. In a tribute to the Ukrainian nationalist poet Taras Shevchenko, Jabotinsky recognized that Shevchenko had “all the defects involved in nationalistic attitudes, including explosions of wild fury against the Poles, the Jews and other neighbors,” but praised him nevertheless, for having “given to his people, as well as to the whole world, a clear and solid proof that the Ukrainian soul has been endowed with talent for independent cultural creativity, reaching into the highest and most sublime spheres” (Avineri 170-171).
      7 – There were many varieties of Zionism. The term “mainstream Zionism,”, as used here, includes what are commonly known as Labor Zionism (David Ben-Gurion) and Revisionist Zionism (Ze’ev Jabotinsky).
      8 – Many scholars have challenged the historical validity of notion that all modern Jews are closely related by descent to the Biblical Jews of Eretz Israel. For instance, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand has argued that today’s Jews are much more closely related to non-Jewish Russians, Poles, etc., than to the Biblical Jews, and that Palestinian Arabs are likely to be much more closely related by descent to the Biblical Jews than most Israeli Jews.

      ENTIRE PAPER (PDF) – http://www.academia.edu/16928242/Zionism_and_the_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Europe

      • yonah fredman
        June 7, 2016, 12:01 am

        J Dickerson – first it should be emphasized that the Zionist movement was primarily an eastern European phenomenon, in terms of where the “Jewish problem” was most self apparent, which was in czarist russia. Not to oversimplify but there were 3 responses to Russian oppression of the jews: 1. Universalism 2. Nationalism and 3. Individualism. The universalists said, here is jerusalem. Here in Europe we will build the new world of justice. Nationalism is another name for zionism. And individualism is another word for immigration to america.
        Hitchens mocked the back to the land aspect of zionism, something to the effect that it was silly to propose turning a watchmaker into a farmer. As far as regurgitating the motifs of jew hatred, such as parasite, one must include psychology in analyzing this tendency, we know that black children during Jim crow chose white dolls and not black dolls-the ingestion and recapitulation of jew hating motifs must be included in any sensible analysis of zionism. But aside from that just by sheer numbers, millions of jews moved out of eastern Europe between 1881 and 1914 and only tens of thousands chose Palestine or zion as their destination, it was a thematic leap into an unknown and concepts of land and identity were part of the zeitgeist and jews are not immune to the zeitgeist.

      • JLewisDickerson
        June 7, 2016, 8:18 am

        P.S. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, FROM ENDNOTE #6 (ABOVE):

        . . . An example of an early Eastern European Zionist is Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who grew up in Odessa in Ukraine. Jabotinsky was an ardent admirer of Ukrainian ethnic nationalism, even though it promoted anti-Semitism, and praised Ukrainian ethnic nationalist leaders including Symon Petliura, thought to have been involved in anti-Jewish pogroms. In a tribute to the Ukrainian nationalist poet Taras Shevchenko, Jabotinsky recognized that Shevchenko had “all the defects involved in nationalistic attitudes, including explosions of wild fury against the Poles, the Jews and other neighbors,” but praised him nevertheless, for having “given to his people, as well as to the whole world, a clear and solid proof that the Ukrainian soul has been endowed with talent for independent cultural creativity, reaching into the highest and most sublime spheres” (Avineri 170-171).

  14. Mooser
    June 7, 2016, 11:32 am

    ” As far as regurgitating the motifs of jew hatred, such as parasite, one must include psychology in analyzing this tendency, we know that black children during Jim crow chose white dolls and not black dolls-the ingestion and recapitulation of jew hating motifs must be included in any sensible analysis of zionism “

    That’s right! The only way the US can make up for black slavery and Jim Crow is by giving Palestine, river to sea, to the Jews!
    Makes perfect sense, “Yonah”.

Leave a Reply