Why So Much Jewish Fear And Loathing Of Donald Trump?

>

Kevin MacDonald

October 29, 2015, 2:03 pm

A+ | a-

Print Friendly

There has been extraordinary, almost unhinged anxiety among some Jews about Donald Trump’s campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination. It has no solid basis, but unfortunately it does speak to their profound neurosis and alienation from the historic American nation.

It’s worth asking how, from the general Jewish point of view, Trump departs from the ideal presidential candidate. This ideal candidate is (1) predictably and fanatically pro-Israel; (2) predictably liberal/Left on social issues, particularly anything related to immigration and multiculturalism; and (3) in need of big campaign money contingent on satisfying (1) and (2). Jeb Bush, who was the early favorite of Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition, filled the bill quite well. But Bush now seems to be fading, with Adelson leaning toward Marco Rubio—he of the Gang of Eight Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill and saying all the right things about Israel and the Middle East.

Trump could hardly be more acceptable on Israel, given his statement that “We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1,000 percent. It will be there forever.” [When it comes to Jewish ties, no GOP candidate trumps Trump, by Uri Heilman, Times of Israel, August 8, 2015]On the other hand, he does not come across as an ideal neoconservative candidate, having stated that he would not have invaded Iraq (strongly promoted by Israel, the neocons, and the Israel Lobby), opposes using US force for “nation-building,” another favorite neocon policy and one of the rationales for the Iraq invasion, and for his recent statements on Syria—that Putin’s support for Assad makes more sense than the US policy (“we don’t even know who we’re backing”)[Trump on Putin Controlling Syria: ‘OK, Fine,’ Him Fighting ISIS ‘Wonderful Thing,’ ‘Very Little Downside’, Breitbart.com, September 29, 2015

Additionally, of course, Trump has long-term business connections with Jews, Jews have highly visible positions in his campaign, his daughter has converted to Judaism and his grandchildren are being raised Jewish.

Nevertheless, despite all that, there have been many instances of well-connected, high-profile Jews expressing extreme anxiety about Trump. It seems to me that the common denominator here is nothing less than that they see Trump as undermining the elite consensus on immigration—even though his debate performance last night raised questions about how much—and, implicitly, on the moral imperative of euthanizing White America.

Or to put it less delicately, they see Trump as potentially leading to a fascist counter-revolution that would spell the end of the project, very much promoted by the Jewish community, of creating a multi-cultural, non-White America completely cut off from its pre-1965 moorings.

As often noted here, mainstream Jewish political attitudes and behavior in the US, from the far Left to the neoconservative right, has always been directed at lessening the demographic, political, and cultural power of White America. This is exemplified by the successful campaign to enact the 1965 immigration law and, even more significant, the continued support for high levels of immigration by the entire organized Jewish community.

There are two main reasons for this: a concern that a homogeneous White America could ultimately rise up against Jews, as occurred in Hitler’s Germany (see here for discussion of a recent American example involving economist Bryan Caplan); and historic antipathy toward Christian Europeans, an outgroup seen exclusively in the context of the Jewish preoccupation with anti-Semitism.

Obviously, these attitudes are not shared by all American Jews. But they do represent the thrust of Jewish power in the U.S. And we know this is not a principled stance, but rather is a form of ethnic strategizing in the diaspora, because the organized Jewish community also supports Israel as a Jewish state that restricts immigration of non-Jews and is actively involved in the dispossession of the Palestinians.

One example:

“There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump,” said Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant and principal at The Catalyst Group, who is Jewish. “It’s very off-putting and disturbing.”

[Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans, by Josh Nathan-Kazis, Forward, September 10, 2015]

The concern that “white racists” support Trump has been the focus of many articles, including Evan Osnos’ The fearful and the frustrated| Donald Trump’s nationalist coalition takes shape—for now (The New Yorker, August 31, 2015—the headline is yet another example of psychoanalyzing away legitimate White interests).

But why be concerned that Trump is supported by the tiny part of the electorate that explicitly voices White identities and interests? His policies may be supported by White advocates, but they also supported by most Americans. And, after all, there’s no parallel concern that Democratic candidates are regularly supported by Communists.

The reason in my opinion: a real fear that Trump might actually do something on immigration, legal and illegal, that would slow White dispossession, and that this could perhaps snowball into something far greater, with unknown consequences.

This is a huge concern for these Jewish activists. The fact is that Trump’s statements on immigration have tapped into a groundswell of popular sentiment, propelling his remarkable performance in the polls. As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has noted: “Objectively, Trump’s historical function is clearly to break the Washington Cartel and to bring the immigration issue into politics.”

Until Trump came along, there really was no mainstream politician and almost no Main Stream Media voices (Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan are exceptions) that were mentioning birthright citizenship, immigrant crime, or the effects of legal immigration on the labor market. White Americans are a sleeping giant, lulled to sleep by the MSM, by cuckservative politicians, and by the creation an atmosphere of fear where dissident opinions are severely punished by job loss, ostracism, etc., and there are huge rewards for going along with the status quo.

Jewish academic and media activists have spent the last century promoting the idea that White racial/ethnic interests do not exist. But they still appear to be well aware that a pro-white conflagration can be sparked quite easily. Even with all the propaganda, all the punishments for deviation, and all the incentives for going along with the system, politics are increasingly racialized in the U.S.—racial identity rather than social class is now critical for explaining voting behavior. There is clearly a significant segment of the White electorate that is disaffected with the Republican Establishment—and certainly does not see salvation with the Democrats.

When neocon Ben Wattenberg famously asserted in his book The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong] that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality”, he was speaking for very many American Jews and certainly for the organized Jewish community. But America has not yet been non-Europeanized—at least not completely and not irreversibly. The possibility that Donald Trump could begin the process of re-Europeanizing America is horrifying to these (n.b. Republican) Jewish activists.

Another example of Jewish Republican angst: Trump, Carson have Republican Jewish establishment worried| Longtime GOP Jewish donors and activists look on in dismay as the two presidential hopefuls lead the polls [by Rom Kampeas, The Times Of Israel, September 26 2015]:

[Support for Trump is] a disorienting experience for longtime Republican Jewish donors and activists, who have made inroads into the party’s establishment over the last two decades, and who have been at the forefront of advocacy for tolerance and pluralism within the party.

“The tone of what they’re saying, we get painted as a party of intolerance,” said [fundraiser Fred] Zeidman, who practices law in the Houston area and backs Bush’s candidacy. …

[Op-Ed editor of the New York Post Seth] Mandel said online that white supremacist backing for Trump—who has suggested immigrants from Mexico are predominantly criminals—has been unsettling. “That will always make Jews uncomfortable, that’s why there’s so much pushback” among some Jewish conservatives against the Trump candidacy. [Link in original]

For the last 35 years or so, the neocons have been pushing the GOP to the Left on social issues—and yes, neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. But notice that, as is so often the case, Kampeas’ article presents Jewish interests in a non-European America as fulfilling the loftiest of moral sentiments. It’s all about “pluralism” and “tolerance”—virtues that the great majority of Americans agree with (but of course are completely absent from Jewish rhetoric on Israeli policies). Whites are told they have a moral imperative to become a minority.

This is a rhetoric that is uniquely effective in the West, with devastating results. I believe we must understand such claims for what they are: expressions of Jewish ethnic interests that conflict with the legitimate ethnic interests of Whites in preserving their demographic and cultural dominance in societies they created and have dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, thousands of years.

Given this deep concern that Trump may imperil the project of dispossessing White America, it is not surprising that for some Jewish activists, even the most benign statements by Trump conjure up images of Hitler and National Socialism. For example, this statement by Ross Kaminsky writing in American Spectator that again focuses on Trump’s immigration plan:

His plan to require businesses to “hire American workers first” has the stench of xenophobia backed up by the fist of government. Perhaps as a Jew I’m overly sensitive, but when I hear Trump speak I can’t help but think of “Germany for the Germans.”

Trump’s Shameful Immigration Plan, August 18 2015

This is outrageous on its face—isn’t it obvious that US immigration policy should be about the interests of Americans? But actually, it’s not obvious at all. Indeed, it reflects a deep reality—that Jewish attitudes on immigration have a long history of being explicitly unconcerned with the interests of America or its traditional majority population. Rather, the Jewish view is that immigration policy should be based on moral principles, not the interests of Americans. Immigration of all races is a sacred value, far more important than the qualities of the immigrants or what they can contribute to America.

Thus in 1948, at a time when the 1924 immigration law favoring immigration from Northwest Europe was still in force, the American Jewish Committee submitted to a Senate subcommittee a statement simultaneously denying the importance of the material interests of the United States and affirming its commitment to immigration of all races:

Americanism is not to be measured by conformity to law, or zeal for education, or literacy, or any of these qualities in which immigrants may excel the native born. Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities.

Again reflecting the extraordinarily low threshold for linking Trump with National Socialism, Bethany Mandel, also writing in The Forward finds that for her, as with Kaminsky, Trump conjures up images of Germany in the 1930s:

Since his campaign has taken off, Trump has spent a good deal of energy playing dumb when it comes to the overwhelming nature of the support for his candidacy from white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Worse than Trump’s willful blindness is the rhetoric he uses to stoke racial unrest with a slogan—“Make America Great Again”—reminiscent of the Nazi Party of the 1930s.

Why Won’t Trump Stand Up to His Anti-Semitic Fans, October 6, 2015

Finally, at the most hyperbolic end of the spectrum: Donald Perlstein’s article Donald Trump, American hustler: The frightening fascist tendencies of his GOP rise, originally posted at the Washington Spectator but deemed so important that it was re-posted by Salon [October 7, 2015].

Perlstein’s intellectual roots can be seen in his quoting Philip Rahv, “a founding editor of the marquee intellectual journal Partisan Review.” PR was the flagship journal of the New York Intellectuals, an influential Jewish intellectual movement that was an early proponent of the idea that American democracy required a commitment, as Sidney Hook phrased it, to “a maximum of cultural [and ethnic] diversity.” This is a good example of Jewish intellectuals promoting the transcendent value of ethnic and cultural diversity as far more important than any material interests of the United States, much less the ethnic interests of White Americans.

(Likewise, Evan Osnos [Email him] in his New Yorker article on Trump and the White nationalists which was mentioned above, cites another famous New York Intellectual who pathologized legitimate White interests: “The crude tribalism that Richard Hofstadter named “the paranoid style”—and, over the summer, it replicated like a runaway mutation.” Note how Jewish media figures can easily and confidently plug into Jewish intellectual traditions that are fundamentally hostile to the legitimate interests of the traditional American majority.)

Perlstein all but accuses Trump of being the second coming of Hitler:

Donald Trump is not a fascist––probably.

His ex-wife Ivana once claimed he kept a volume of Hitler’s collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed, and read from time to time the fuhrer’s vision of human life as a pitiless war of all against all. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them,” he told Vanity Fair in 1990. But consider something the architect of Trump Tower, Der Scutt, once said on how to evaluate the truth value of Donald Trump claims: “divide by two, then divide by four, and you’re closer to the answer.”

Again, the crux of the issue is Trump’s immigration plan:

Trump has now provided more “specifics” about his immigration plan: a forced population transfer greater than any attempted in history, greater than the French and Spanish expulsions of the Jews in 1308 and 1492; greater than the Nabka of approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs from British-mandate Palestine; greater than the 1.5 million Stalin consigned to Siberia and the Central Asian republics; greater than Pol Pot’s exile of 2.5 million city-dwellers to the Cambodian countryside, or the scattering of Turkey’s Assyrian Christians, which the scholar Mordechai Zaken says numbers in the millions and required 180 years to complete. Trump has promised to move 12 million Mexicans in under two years––“so fast your head will spin.”

Interestingly, Perlstein omits the expulsion of 12 million Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II—by some estimates, the same as the number of illegals in the US now. I suspect that Perlstein sees the German expulsions as just fine even if they resulted minimally in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. No need complicate his simple narrative of moral righteousness with the horror of what actually happened to German civilians during and after the war. In fact, I don’t recall any Jews or Jewish organizations complaining about these expulsions.

Other signs of incipient American fascism noted by Perlstein:

Last fall, the Public Religion Research Institute found that a majority of whites believe “discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”

Link in original. But shouldn’t Perlstein at least link to a discussion of why this belief is wrongheaded, given the hostile attitudes towards Whites pursuing their legitimate interests that are so apparent among the Donald Perlsteins of the world?

And:

A brand new Washington Post/ABC poll finds 57 percent of Republicans support the most massive ethnic cleansing in the annals of humanity (or, what The Washington Post blandly calls “Trump’s tough positions on immigration”).

Actually, not just “Republicans” but most Americans support Trump’s immigration plan. But for Perlstein, Trump and most Americans are incipient fascists for wanting an immigration policy that serves their interests.

Personally, I doubt that Donald Trump would actually attempt, much less succeed, in rolling back the last 50 years. I see these expressions of Jewish angst more as a sign of Jewish political neurosis than anything rooted in reality. These writers and political operatives have an incredibly low threshold for denouncing incipient fascism. But make no mistake, this political neurosis is having and will continue to have very real effects on the 2016 race.

We can only imagine the deluge of propaganda if Trump is seen as having a real chance of winning. By comparison, the 1964 ads predicting nuclear Armageddon if Barry Goldwater was elected will be small potatoes.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He edits and is a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly. For his website, click here.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/why-so-much-jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29678726)

Jewish Fear And Loathing Of Donald Trump [2]: “New York Values” vs. Muslim Immigration

>

Kevin MacDonald

January 21, 2016, 11:58 pm

A+ | a-

Print Friendly

See also: Why So Much Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump?

The uproar over Sen. Ted Cruz’s jibe that Donald Trump reflected “New York Values” said a lot about contemporary American political debate.

Given New York is the deepest of blue states, Cruz was quite obviously insinuating liberalism. But commentators seized on it as veiled anti-Semitism e.g. By ‘New York values’ did Ted Cruz mean ‘Jewish’? by Mark Silk, Religion News Service, January 15, 2015.

As a child of the Heartland, I can testify that this interpretation simply didn’t occur to most Americans. And it’s particularly fantastic given that Cruz has assiduously courted the Israel Lobby, famously saying “those who hate Israel also hate America, that those who hate Jews also hate Christians, and that anyone who hates Israel and the Jewish people is not following the teachings of Christ” [Ted Cruz speech to Christian group cut short by boos after Israel comments, by Sean Sullivan, Washington Post, September 11, 2014].

But there’s a very low threshold for accusing someone of anti-Semitism.

Fortunately for Cruz, the anti-anti-Semites still have The Donald to kick around.

Indeed, we now have the anomalous situation where Trump is condemned by Jewish organizations for implicit anti-Semitism while also condemned for having the values of a typical New Yorker—liberal, and typical of the great majority of US Jews, wherever they live.

In my first report on Jewish reactions to the Trump phenomenon, I said:

The common denominator here is nothing less than that they see Trump as undermining the elite consensus on immigration … and, implicitly, on the moral imperative of euthanizing White America.

Well, even though that was only two months ago, events since then have only provided more support for the nexus between Jewish loathing of Trump and concern about Trump’s attitudes on immigration and multiculturalism—combined with a bit of neocon angst that he is insufficiently hostile to Russia and not on board with bombing Iran and deposing Assad in Syria.

The latest impetus for Trump terror: his statement “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This created a deluge of apoplectic outrage, complete with comparisons to Hitler—typically without the “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” qualification. [Media Push Trump As Hitler Meme, Breitbart.com, December 8, 2015]

The common denominator in many of the comments of Jewish organizations: hysteria about the singling out of a group. For example, Jeffrey Greenblatt of the ADL wailed “A plan that singles out Muslims and denies them entry to the U.S. based on their religion is deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values” [What Jewish groups have (and haven’t) said about Donald Trump, by Uriel Hellman, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 13, 2015]

And it’s not just the US whose “deepest values” are violated. Israel, that “Light Unto the Nations” and pillar of multiculturalism, also repudiated Trump’s proposal. Israeli PM Netanyahu’s office released this statement:

Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims. … The State of Israel respects all religion and strictly adheres to the rights of all its citizens.

[Trump: ‘Inappropriate’ of Netanyahu to slam plan on US ban of Muslims, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 13, 2015]

Trump was fairly nonplussed about this, noting only that Netanyahu’s comments were “inappropriate.” But he seemed to be quite aware of the hypocrisy involved:

Of course, given that Israel is an avowedly Jewish state, Muslims are by definition second-class citizens, with very different rights under law, including especially immigration policy, which, of course, is (energetically) restricted to Jews.

Ayelet ShakedAmazingly, even Dan Shapiro, the US Ambassador to Israel, recently acknowledged the differing legal practices vis-à-vis Palestinians and settlers on the West Bank (and was robustly denounced by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, right.)[Shaked demands Shapiro recant comments about ‘2 standards’ in West Bank,By Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, January 19, 2016

So in unsurprising fact, Netanyahu and the Israeli government go far beyond Trump by discriminating against all groups except Jews. Nevertheless, and weirdly, an Israeli NGO is actively involved in recruiting invaders to Europe—needless to say, casting its motives as entirely idealistic and humanitarian.

But I can see why Jewish organizations are upset. Singling out a group because members of the group are more likely to commit terrorist acts immediately reminds Jews that anti-Jewish attitudes have often resulted from Jews actually being likely to have attitudes or behaviors that the majority finds objectionable.

Thus ADL CEO Greenblatt continued his statement on Trump:

In the Jewish community, we know all too well what can happen when a particular religious group is singled out for stereotyping and scapegoating.

This is likely a veiled reference to the common perception among Jews (which I think is correct) that, although the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act did not refer specifically to Jews, it was motivated in part by the perception that Jewish immigrants were far more likely to be politically radical and sympathetic to Communism—at a time when the horrors of Bolshevism loomed large in public perception.

This perception was firmly rooted in reality, and commonly acknowledged by Jews and non-Jews alike. Political radicalism was then entirely mainstream in the Jewish community. Jews often made up high percentages of members in the Communist Party USA (e.g. in Philadelphia were nearly three-fourths of the membership was composed the children of Jewish immigrants who had come to the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—here, p. 271).

In response, Jewish organizations went to great lengths to alter the public stereotype of Jewish disloyalty. Jewish publications warned that the Leftism of Jewish immigrants would lead to anti-Semitism. As often occurs now among American Muslim organizations, Jewish organizations in the 1920s engaged in what Sheldon Neuringer calls “a near-desperation . . . effort to portray the Jew as one hundred per cent American” by organizing highly visible patriotic pageants on national holidays and urging the immigrants to learn English.

Nevertheless, in the 1920s, the fact that Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were viewed as “infected with Bolshevism . . . unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable,” contributed to restrictive immigration legislation. [American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953, By Sheldon Neuringer, 1971, p.165].

In my view, it is entirely rational and legitimate for a country to be concerned about the personal characteristics of its immigrants, including those that, as with Muslims currently, might predispose them to terrorism—but also to hostility toward the White, Christian majority, low ability for academic achievement, proneness to crime, welfare use, or even voting Democrat.

And in the case of Jewish radical immigrants in the early 20th century, this is especially relevant in light of the subsequent rise to intellectual dominance of the intellectual Left as an elite hostile to the White, Christian majority—the Jewish role in which was fundamental, and forms the subject of my book The Culture of Critique.

Notice that the 1924 law did not explicitly prohibit Jewish immigration. They continued to emigrate from Western Europe—for example, all-American luminaries like Nightline’s Ted Koppel and his friend Henry Kissinger. But the law severely restricted immigration from Eastern Europe, where the bulk of the Jewish population lived.

Nevertheless, let’s “interrogate” (to use a word that’s fashionable on the left) the idea that denying entry to the U.S. to a particular ethnic or religious group “runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values,” as the ADL’s Greenblatt put it.

Baloney! These “deepest values” only became enshrined in law and elite attitudes with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That legislation repealed the national origins provisions of the 1924 law, which had attempted to create an ethnic status quo as of 1890 by placing quotas on immigration based on the representation in the U.S. population at that time.

Before the 1965 law, there were strong strains in U.S. immigration law that were entirely congruent with Israel’s current practice of fashioning immigration policy to benefit the majority—at times by excluding particular groups.

For example, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted immigration to “free white persons of good character.” Almost a century later, there was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that prohibited immigration of Chinese (and unanimously condemned by the Jewish press, as Sheldon Neuringer reports in American Jewry and United States Immigration Policy, p.165—also the case with later attempts to restrict immigration).

Then came the Gentlemen’s Agreement, an informal agreement with Japan in 1907 limiting immigration of Japanese workers, and finally the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act that favored northwest Europe, severely restricted the immigration of Africans and banned outright the immigration of Arabs and all Asians. The 1924 law was essentially reaffirmed in the 1952 immigration law, passed over President Truman’s veto.

And it should be remembered that the 1965 law was passed only because of the pretense that, as then freshman Senator Ted Kennedy famously promised, it would not change the ethnic balance of the country.

The 1965 law therefore cannot be read as an endorsement by the traditional American majority for a demographic transformation that will, if unchecked, soon make Whites a minority in the country that they established.

In fact, the “deepest values” attributed to the U.S. by ADL’s Greenblatt are recent creations, stemming entirely from the cultural revolution of the 1960s that reshaped elite culture in America. The 1965 law was fundamentally a project of the organized American Jewish community( here, here, here )And these “deepest values” are still not held by non-elite White America—given that Trump’s proposals on immigration are actually majority viewpoints in the U.S. [Are Trump’s immigration views out of the mainstream?, by Byron York, Washington Examiner, August 16, 2015

Conservatism Inc. may argue that Trump is not a conservative.” But the reality is that Trump voters are focusing on his big issues—immigration first and foremost.

Unless we win the immigration battle, none of the other battles can possibly be won.

As Ann Coulter put it after Trump released his remarkable, Jeff Sessions-oriented, immigration plan:

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He edits and is a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly. For his website, click here.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump-2-new-york-values-vs-muslim-immigration

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29678730)

Donald J. Trump’s speech last week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] went astonishingly well. Once again Trump showed excellent political instincts, effectively attacking Obama and Clinton as insufficiently pro-Israel. [11 times Donald Trump won the AIPAC conference, by Ron Kampeas, JTA.org, March 21 2016] As a Trump supporter critical of the role of Israel in U.S. politics, I wrote off his pandering (softening his position on “neutrality” in brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace and on Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) as a marker of Jewish power and kept reminding myself that Trump—uniquely among the candidates—has made many sensible comments on Middle East policy, including especially condemning the Iraq war and US policy in Syria.

But the controversy over Donald Trump among American Jews rages on. (In fact the walkout at Breitbart over Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s alleged rough handling of reporter Michelle Fields—for which he has now, rather remarkably, been charged—seems to be driven at least in part by a Jewish anti-Trump faction).

It’s at the point now where the Hitler comparisons and over-the-top Op-Eds are literally too numerous list. As The Daily Beast’s Matt Wilstein wrote March 11, “this was the week that it became utterly acceptable to compare Donald Trump to Hitler.” [Sarah Silverman’s Adolf Hitler Rejects Trump Comparisons on ‘Conan’].

dailynewsishitler

Front page of Mort Zuckerman’s New York Daily News, March 6, 2016

But of course, that’s how the Main Stream Media has always worked: repetition, repetition, repetition—the hoped-for result being the creation of “Trump = Hitler,” “Trump = racist,” psychological reflexes that will engender guilt in enough voters to sway the election.

Abe Foxman, although no longer head of the Anti-Defamation League, continues to show the hair-trigger anti-Trump reflexes of the activist Jewish community. Thus at a rally in Florida, Trump simply asked the crowd to raise their hands if they intended to vote for him. So lots of people raised their hands in all sorts of ways, some outstretched, some with crooked elbow—the latter including Trump himself.

Obviously, if Trump really wanted to channel Hitler, he could have come up with a much better imitation. But all this was too much for Foxman:

“As a Jew who survived the Holocaust, to see an audience of thousands of people raising their hands in what looks like the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute is about as offensive, obnoxious and disgusting as anything I thought I would ever witness in the United States of America,” he told The Times of Israel.

“We’ve seen this sort of thing at rallies of neo-Nazis. We’ve seen it at rallies of white supremacists. But to see it at a rally for a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States is outrageous.”

raisehands

Foxman is absolutely positive that Trump was well aware that he was tapping into the latent Nazism of the crowd, because, as every American knows, raising your hand in a big crowd can only mean only one thing:

“It is a fascist gesture,” Foxman said. “He is smart enough—he always tells us how smart he is—to know the images that this evokes. Instead of asking his audience to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, which in itself would be a little bizarre, he’s asking them to swear allegiance to him.”

Ex-ADL Chief: Trump’s ‘raise-your-hand’ gambit was deliberate Nazi-style ‘fascist gesture’

By Eric Cortellessa, Times Of Israel, March 7, 2016

Right. Like every candidate ever, Trump wants people to vote for him, and getting them to commit to it by raising their hands is a smart move psychologically because it makes the hand-raiser feel a subtle sense of obligation to carry through with the pledge, which Trump reinforced by saying right after the pledge: “Don’t forget you all raised your hand, you swore. Bad things happen if you don’t live up to what you just did.”

Of course, there was a bit of humor here, but also an attempt to inoculate the crowd against the very well-funded ad campaign Trump was enduring. Trump was well aware that, when the crowd went home, they would be deluged with millions of dollars’ worth of anti-Trump ads—ads portraying him, as noted by the New York Times, as a “a liberal, a huckster, and a draft dodger.”[ Money Pours In as Move to Stop Donald Trump Expands, By Matt Flegenheimer and Maggie Haberman, March 6, 2016]

Trump, after labeling the accusation “ridiculous,” said “he would look into ending [the practice]” Maybe a good move, but it certainly won’t stop the “Trump-as-fascist” industry. What really scares activists like Foxman is that they sense that their power to shape public discourse is waning:

“What scares me is he’s broken all these taboos and it’s helped him. … That frightens me. It frightens me that there are all these things that we’ve worked so hard on, but one after another he breaks these taboos and the people applaud him and come back for more.”

And sure enough, Trump won Florida easily, despite Foxman playing the Holocaust victimization card.

New York Times columnist David Brooks, who is usually considered a neoconservative, saw Trump’s tactic the same way on Meet the Press (March 6):

If we’re going to get Trump, we might as well get the Nuremberg rallies to go with it. The number one trait that associates or correlates with Trump’s support is authoritarianism, a belief in authoritarian leadership style. [Nazi Card: David Brooks Suggests Trump Staging ‘Nuremberg Rallies’, By Mark Finkelstein, Media Research Center, March 6, 2016

(Brooks’ comment on authoritarianism have been called into question by a poll described by two political scientists, Wendy Rahn and Eric Oliver. They found that Trump voters are actually populists whose main characteristics are distrust of elites, like Brooks and his employer, and American nationalism—attitudes that make a lot of sense given the themes of Trump’s campaign. [Trump’s voters aren’t authoritarians, new research says. So what are they? Washington Post, March 6, 2016]

Besides the reactions of Jewish organizations, many prominent Jews who have used their media access to assault Trump. In my first article on Trump and the Jews, I noted “We can only imagine the deluge of propaganda if Trump is seen as having a real chance of winning. By comparison, the 1964 ads predicting nuclear Armageddon if Barry Goldwater was elected will be small potatoes.”

And indeed, media critic Howard Kurtz subsequently wrote “Media warnings against Trump shift from aggressive to apocalyptic”. [Fox News, March 8, 2016]

Speaking of apocalyptic, David Brooks, although not representing an official Jewish organization, is certainly a strongly identified Jew with a lofty perch in the elite media. His attack on Trump gave the impression that he searched a thesaurus for every possible negative adjective he could find:

Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. …

As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government. He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.[ No, Not Trump, Not Ever, NYT, March 29, 2016]

These last comments clearly refer to Trump’s comments on immigration—the common denominator of Jewish angst.

The theme, over and over again, is that Trump represents opposition to the post-1965 ideology that America should be open to immigration of all peoples and cultures as a moral imperative (often invoking “American values”) without regard to American interests—often with reminders that the immigration restriction enacted in the 1920s opposed Jewish interests because of the refugee crisis of the 1930s.

Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League’s new National Director Jonathan Greenblatt, made it clear that immigration/diversity issues are their main problem with Trump’s candidacy:

In light of Trump’s penchant to slander minorities, slur refugees, dismiss First Amendment protections and cheer on violence, some in the Jewish community have said that Trump should not be invited to speak or that attendees should walk out during his remarks in protest. This is not surprising, as the Jewish community has long placed a premium on promoting values of tolerance and building a pluralistic and more diverse society—values that seem at odds with Trump’s message on the campaign trail. …

We have decided to redirect the amount of funds that Trump contributed to ADL over the years [$56,000] specifically into anti-bias education programs that address exactly the kind of stereotyping and scapegoating he has injected into this political season.

Anti-Defamation League: We Are Redirecting All of Trump’s Donations, Time.com, March 20, 2016

To me as a connoisseur, the most interesting anti-Trump article was James Kirchick’s Why Donald Trump is turning me liberal. [The Tablet March 14, 2016] Again, Kirchick’s main problem is Trump’s violation of immigration orthodoxy, but here framed oddly as somehow violating the US Constitution:

I find Trump’s contempt for the basic functions of democracy—in particular the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—absolutely appalling. His call to ban all Muslims from entering the country is fundamentally evil. Naturally, Trump has also said he’s unsure whether President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was wrong, despite official condemnations by later American presidents.

trumpwatchRight, the Tablet’s Trump Watch Button—not too subtle invocation of the Trump=Hitler theme

Kirchick even has fantasies of a Trump-inspired military coup:

If Trump doesn’t get his way at the Republican National Convention this summer, that he will deploy some sort of organized paramilitary force—transforming Cleveland into a far-right phantasmagoria of Chicago 1968—is hardly idle speculation.

And of course the Hitler/Nazi comparisons:

Trump’s Nuremberg-esque rallies, where entranced audiences obliviously raise their right hands in impromptu loyalty oaths, evince a frisson of seething aggression. His unapologetic mockery of the physically disabled—one of the Nazis’ earliest victims—resembles a CliffsNotes’ Nietzchean will to power.

Kirchick rejects the idea that Trump is anathema to neocons because of his foreign policy.

I have a simpler, not to mention more charitable, explanation for why so many Jewish conservatives—er, “neocons”—viscerally oppose Trump: He’s a fascist demagogue.

I would split the difference on this one. The reality is that if Trump is elected, neocon hegemony in the Republican Party foreign policy Establishment and its commitment to endless wars in the Middle East would be finished—yet another reason to welcome a Trump administration. But Kirchick is doubtless correct that neocons also oppose Trump because support for liberal immigration policy and other liberal policy positions has been a staple of neocon thinking for decades.

But then Kirchick says what I thought was pretty much unmentionable in Jewish circles: that Jews have actively promoted policies on immigration and race that benefit them at the expense of the Historical American Nation:

A staple of anti-Semitic complaint from the Nazis to Donald Trump’s newfound friends in the Klan is that Jews are always and everywhere the devious orchestrators of racial integration. Rootless cosmopolitans, Jews allegedly promote immigration and miscegenation so as to bring about a more diverse society in which they can sublimate their own ethnic difference. Through this “mongrelization,” Jews will precipitate the demise of white, Christian communities, thereby destroying the last vestige of resistance to their assertion of pernicious control.

Unlike other anti-Semitic memes, there is truth in this observation, though not of course for the reasons that Nazis and white supremacists think. Jews have indeed played disproportionate roles in struggles for racial equality, from the movement against South African apartheid to the cause of civil rights in the United States. And while Jews felt called to these movements by faith, universalistic political commitments, or an innate sense of justice, doing so was also in their communal self-interest. A country that is politically pluralistic, open to new ideas and new people, ethnically diverse, and respectful of religious difference, is a country that will naturally be safer for Jews than a country that is none of these things. This, I believe, is why so many Jews, foreign policy hawks or not, innately fear Donald Trump. …

The fate of Jewish life in the West is inextricably bound to democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance and ethnic harmony. If there’s a silver lining to the resistible rise of Donald Trump, it’s that it has forced us to realize this truth. [Emphases added.]

Notice that Kirchick is saying that Trump is bad for Jews in the West where pluralism suits Jewish interests. Of course, Trump has not questioned pluralism—only the idea that immigration policy should be determined by a moral imperative rather than the interests of Americans. I suspect that Trump would also agree with me that US immigration policy should not be determined by Jewish communal interests.

Kirchick easily and unabashedly asserts Jewish interests in shaping American immigration policy, but implicitly rejects the idea that anyone else’s interests are important. This is a classic example of ethnic blindness—Kirchick is quick to condemn White Americans who reject the ethnic and cultural transformations of their countries, while ignoring the very different interests that Jews pursue in Israel which limits immigration to Jews and where 48% of Israeli Jews want Arabs out of Israel. [48% of Israeli Jews Back ‘Expulsion’ or ‘Transfer’ of Arabs, New Pew Survey Says, by Naomi Zeveloff, Forward.com, March 8, 2016].

Israeli immigration policy and attitudes toward the Arabs under its control shows there is nothing in Judaism that implies that Jews will be drawn to pro-immigration attitudes or pluralism as a result of what Kirchick claims are “faith, universalistic political commitments, or an innate sense of justice.”

Rather than the phony universalism advertised by Jewish apologists, real Jewish communal interests have always been central to my argument that Jews have been instrumental (a necessary condition) for the 1965 immigration law and the other cultural and demographic changes that have come in its wake. What makes Kirchick’s essay remarkable is that he is willing to acknowledge Jewish interests in these changes and at least hint at a major Jewish role in bringing them about.

I suspect that, from Kirchick’s point of view, Donald Trump as president is a nightmare not only because he would reassert American interests rather than Jewish interests in immigration policy, but also because Kirchick fears honest discussion of the Jewish role in shaping US immigration policy might be dangerous for Jews.

We are only beginning to see the profound changes inaugurated by this immigration revolution—especially the racialization of politics (as indicated by racially lopsided voting patterns), increases in ethnic stratification (resulting from differences in education and IQ of different immigrant groups), and social conflict (as shown by the violent, multiethnic, pro-immigration protests greeting Trump rallies, not to mention acts of terrorism).

Trump’s populist appeal is terrifying to many Jews because it threatens what has been a top-down revolution in which the moral and intellectual high ground has been seized by people hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. Strongly self-identified Jews have been and are at the heart of this revolution.

There was never a demand by a majority, or even something close to a majority, from any Western country for a complete transformation, to the point that White people will soon be minorities in societies they had dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, thousands of years.

The fact that Trump has continued to thrive despite the unrelenting hostility of the MSM and so many intellectuals is deeply worrying to the Jewish community because it identifies so profoundly with this revolution. If the MSM loses its effectiveness, it would be a major blow to the current status quo and to Jewish power generally. Jews are famously overrepresented in the elite media, and the elite media in turn has been a critical asset in the battle over the demographic future of the US. Because this has been a top-down revolution opposing fundamental interests of the majority of the population, the MSM strategy has been to keep immigration policy out of public consciousness.

But I want to close this survey by pointing out that this Jewish fear and loathing of Trump is now not unanimous—likely because, if in fact Trump does win, it is important for Jews not to be completely without influence. For any activist group operating in the US political system, it’s important to retain influence among all the players.

Even the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt has said No, Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler (New York Daily News, March 16, 2016). And Trump represents an especial problem for Republican Jews—including the notorious Sheldon Adelson:

There are signs that Trump may be getting a grudging second look from Republican Jews dedicated to the proposition of keeping a Democrat out of the White House. Israel Hayom, the Israeli newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate and kingmaker in GOP politics, plastered its Wednesday front page with a photo of Trump and the headline “Within Reach.” The newspaper is known to generally reflect Adelson’s political preferences in Israel and the United States.

With Trump’s latest wins, will Jewish conservatives finally embrace him? By Ron Kampeas, JTA.org, March 16, 2016

Make no mistake about it, we are in for some very exciting times indeed.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump-3-hitler-comparisons-rampant-but-also-weirdly-signs-of-second-thoughts

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#30323016)

Neocon Angst About A Fascist America

The reactions of anonymous people on Twitter criticizing Jews are now fodder for news stories by both “right wing” Jews like Ben Shapiro and more liberal journalists like Jonathan Weisman. [Trump’s supporters unleash anti-Semitic attack on New York Times editor, by Sophia Tesfaye, Salon, May 20, 2016] Somehow, all the death threats, vulgar criticism, and actual violence conservatives have received over the years never become a source of sympathy from the Main Stream Media!

One of the more spectacular examples of an MSM frenzy over supposed anti-Semitism: the reaction to the attack by David Horowitz against his fellow Jew Bill Kristol, leader of a campaign to destroy Donald Trump [Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew, May 15, 2016] The headline, written by Horowitz, alluded to Kristol being Jewish.

As Jonathan S. Tobin [Email him] notes in Commentary,

[T]he real offense here is … his attempt to wrap him in the Star of David and to somehow brand his opponents as traitors to the pro-Israel cause. …

[H]is invocation of “America First” and the use of a term like “renegade Jew” in the headline (though not in the text of the article) seems to echo the smears of the pro-Trump alt right racists who have attacked conservative critics of the candidate with an avalanche of anti-Semitic invective.

[Breitbart’s ‘Renegade Jew’ Disgrace, May 16, 2016]

Horowitz’s offense was not simply criticizing Kristol’s campaign against Trump. Lots of people have done that without incurring the wrath of Commentary. And even saying that Kristol’s views are not good for Jews and Israel is commonplace: Mondoweiss, J Street, and Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby argue that neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby have a tragically mistaken view of Jewish and Israeli interests—also discussed in Charles Bloch’s and Steve Sailer’s VDARE posts.

The unforgivable offense: implying Kristol’s being a Jew had something to do with his opposition to Trump. After all, there would have been exactly zero upset if instead the headline was “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Republican.”

But putting ‘Jew’ in the headline was guaranteed to bring out immediate charges of anti-Semitism by the likes of Michelle Goldberg [Email her] in Slate :

To define someone as a ‘Renegade Jew’ in a column about scheming elites written for an audience full of white nationalists is to signal to the sewers. … A narrative is taking shape, an American Dolchstoßlegende that will blame a potential Trump loss on conniving Semites.

[Breitbart Calls Trump Foe “Renegade Jew.” This Is How Anti-Semitism Goes Mainstream, May 16, 2016]

Of course, we are supposed to engage in the fiction that the opinions of Bill Kristol et al. have nothing to do with being Jewish or what is good for Israel, but everything to do with their perception of what is good for America.

And of course, this goes well beyond neocons to include Jews in the media generally. For example, the ADL condemns the idea Jews have an outsized influence in Hollywood by claiming that Hollywood Jews just “happen to be Jews”—that their Jewish identity does not affect the content of movies or television. [Alleged Jewish ‘Control’ of the American Motion Picture Industry, September 1999] As I’ve painstakingly documented over the course of my career, this is patently absurd. In fact, the Jewish identities and sense of Jewish interests of the neocons are obvious from a close reading of their careers [Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement, by Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Quarterly, August 2004].

While it’s obviously true that Trump has support among some Jews linked to the GOP, there is one Jewish faction that is all but apoplectic he might win [Where Jewish conservatives stand on Donald Trump: A running tally, by Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency, May 6, 2016]. And there can be little doubt that their opposition is fueled by their Jewish identity.

This mystifying to some. For example, Bill O’Reilly seemed genuinely bewildered when he interviewed (at 3:00) Charles Krauthammer—another ardent neocon opponent of Trump— about a Bret Stephens article in the Wall Street Journal.

Stephens was triggered by Trump’s use of the phrase “America First” and decried “the Republican descent into populism” [The GOP Gets What It Deserves, May 2, 2016]. O’Reilly couldn’t help but observe, “he’s really teed off, he’s really angry.”

maxbootcfrStephens’ outburst was nothing compared to the anti-Trump invective spewed by neocon stalwart Max Boot [email him]

Boot said:

I would vote for a conservative third-party candidate or for Hillary Clinton. I regard Donald Trump as an ignorant demagogue who is one of the most dangerous candidates ever to run for the American presidency and one of the least qualified. … He has shown that he doesn’t understand the basics of policy, he has shown that he is erratic, he is xenophobic, he is guilty of sexist and racist comments …

Let’s remember, this is the guy who wants to ban all Muslims from the country, he wants to send the police breaking into American homes to round up 11 million undocumented migrants; … He has hijacked the party. … He is not remotely conservative. He is a populist demagogue, xenophobic…[BBC NewsNight (YouTube) May 9, 2016]

This sort of anger is hardly likely to come from Trump’s supposed lack of concern about “limited government,” or “commitment to the Constitution,” “true conservatism,” or even his personal qualities.

In unpacking these talking points, it’s useful to separate the red herrings from more fundamental concerns. For real conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich, this election is a simple choice between someone who would be far better than Hillary Clinton on fundamental issues conservatives claim to hold dear. There is in fact a long list of Trump policies and proposals that are conservative by any reckoning—promising Scalia-like Supreme Court appointments, securing the border and deporting illegals, supporting the police against the Black Lives Matter movement, promising to end Obamacare, doing away with Common Core, taking strong pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands, and supporting the military and veterans. [Trump unveils his potential Supreme Court nominees, by Jeremy Diamond, CNN, May 28, 2016]

Neocons never threatened to run a third-party candidate against “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush even though he was far more liberal than Trump—proposing Amnesty for illegals, expanding Medicare entitlements, signing No Child Left Behind, and racking up huge budget deficits—what some have called “Big Government Conservatism” [The liberal leanings of George W. Bush, by John Ibbitson, The Globe and Mail, April 3, 2009]. Nor was Mitt Romney a small-government candidate. [Back to Bush’s Big-Government Conservatism, by Michael Tanner, National Review, November 30, 2011]

For neocons, the huge expansion of entitlements, promotion of culture-destroying immigration, and rampaging budget deficits were not offenses against “conservatism.” These policies didn’t even register as a problem. It was more important that Bush carried out their (disastrous) neoconservative foreign policy.

It’s impossible to take the dedication of self-styled “conservatives” like Stephens and Kristol to conservative principles seriously. After all, they refuse to acknowledge that unless we deal with the problem of importing millions of Third Worlders who both vote for and utilize welfare and “big government,” any kind of “limited government” will be impossible.

Another very basic principle actual conservatives support is freedom of speech. Immigration threatens this as well. Universities throughout the West are under siege by the intolerant Left, and one more liberal appointment to the Supreme Court could well be the end of the First Amendment. Intellectual rationales for curtailing First Amendment freedoms, and in particular speech critical of the multicultural ideal, are already common in liberal academic circles [Why we should ban “hate speech,” by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 24, 2012]. Continuing to import millions from intolerant Third World cultures does not bode well.

Yet Stephens and Kristol soft-pedal the effect the catastrophic impact of a President Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Kristol [Email him] is given to Pollyannaish tweets that a Third-Party candidate would actually win.

This is presumably to avoid the charge that he is really quite happy with Clinton and her pro-Israel donors, notably Haim Saban [Jane Harmon, Haim Saban, and AIPAC: The Disloyalty Issue in Multicultural America, by Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, April 25, 2009].

Indeed, it’s hard to see why Kristol would disapprove of Hillary’s neocon foreign policy advisers like Robert Kagan, [Email him]who advocates military intervention and democracy creation throughout the Middle East as a moral imperative [Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton, ConsortiumNews, February 25, 2016]. Needless to say, this doesn’t stop Kagan from portraying Trump as a fascist [This is how fascism comes to America, Washington Post, May 18, 2016].

So why are neocons so upset? Two reasons:

1.) Trump has rejected basic neocon foreign policy positions on the Middle East. Trump opposed the Iraq war which was promoted by the neocons, calling it a “complete disaster.” Amazingly, he stated:

“They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

[Trump vs. Bush: They Said There Were Weapons of Mass Destruction And They Knew There Were None. They Lied, Real Clear Politics, February 13, 2016]

Trump has also supported friendly relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia and supported an effort to achieve stability in the Middle East by propping up the Assad government in Syria. Assad and Putin are very high on the neocon hate list.

And Trump has given mixed signals on Israel, speaking about neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and avoiding money from the Republican Jewish Coalition. His most recent speech on the topic, at AIPAC, was intended to quell Jewish fears and mend fences, but the Washington Post’s token (neo)conservative Jennifer Rubin [email her]emphasized that this speech was recited from a teleprompter, implying that it didn’t reflect his real views [Trumpkins and the Jews, Washington Post, May 16, 2016]

Of course, Trump has received promises of support from Sheldon Adelson. He also hired ex-AIPAC official Michael Glassner and other prominent Jews to high positions in his campaign [Trump names Jewish financier, fixer to major campaign positions, by Nathan Guttman, Forward, May 7, 2016]

But Trump has given no indication that he would appoint any neocons to his administration. And, unlike George W. Bush, Trump is not a babe in the woods, ready to be dominated by a coterie of neocons. This would mean that the neocons would be deprived of their primary power base, with no choice but to defect to the Democrats (from whence they came).

2.) Trump represents the undoing of elite consensus on immigration, multiculturalism, and the moral imperative that white Americans become a minority in a country they created.

All of these radically Leftist positions have now been subsumed into “conservative” dogma.

The fact is neocons have never been true conservatives. They adopted conservative positions of convenience in order to appeal to the GOP base. The problem for them now: the base, energized by Trump, is finally ignoring the moral pronouncements coming from on high and voting on the issues that really matter to them, trade, jobs, and immigration. And yes, they also love Trump’s disdain for Political Correctness.

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal is well aware that what he calls “modern conservatism” is a departure from older conservative traditions, which have been the prime target of Jewish intellectuals throughout the twentieth century, including the neoconservatives (labeled as “modern conservatives” by Stephens).

Stephens [Email him] wrote

[Trumpism] is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes. [Emphases added throughout]

[Hillary, the Conservative Hope, May 9, 2016]

Or Jennifer Rubin, cited above:

Trump’s nativism and xenophobia make him toxic with a good deal of the American Jewish community for whom such sentiments have invariably been associated with governments hostile to Jews.

Or Robert Kagan, cited above:

[Trump’s] public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others”—Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees—whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

Contra Stephens, the neocons never respected tradition and gave only lip service to faith. Their only outreach was recruiting Evangelical Christians to the cause of a rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy.

Stephens is correct in that there was an older tradition of conservatism based on the ethno-national interests of the traditional American majority. This was purged by the neocons. They are now afraid it is returning, perhaps in the form of the Alt Right—the only recognizable intellectual constituency that supports Trump.

In fact, the intellectual antecedents of the Alt Right go back much further than the conservatives of the 1980s who were purged by the neocons. Their roots go back to Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Henry Pratt Fairchild, William Ripley, Gustave Le Bon, Charles Davenport, and William McDougall, and an updated version of the intellectual milieu of the early twentieth century when America was self-consciously a European, Christian nation and proud of it [Enemies of my enemy, by Kevin MacDonald, KevinMacDonald.com, Accessed May 20, 2016]. They go back to Charles Lindbergh and the America First movement that has received so much attention since Trump began using the phrase. Significantly, the ADL was among those urging Trump to abandon the phrase [ADL urges Donald Trump to Reconsider “America First” in Foreign Policy Approach, ADL, April 28, 2016]

This early conservative tradition was eradicated by the rise of Franz Boas and the other Jewish-dominated intellectual movements of the left discussed in The Culture of Critique—an intellectual framework that has been embraced by the neocons.

As Robert Kagan writes of Trump:

If he wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?

This is how fascism comes to America.

But perhaps fascism is in the eye of the beholder. After all, it’s in the West of today that certain ideas are illegal, certain political parties are banned, and the majority populations of white nations are openly despised, dispossessed, and have their public policy views dismissed by unelected judges.

How is resisting such tyrannical and genocidal policies “fascist?

It’s not that Trump is bringing “fascism,” it’s that there’s a chance he might be bringing freedom for European-Americans. And for all their talk of tolerance, that’s one thing the Culture of Critique will never allow.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump-4-neocon-angst-about-a-fascist-america

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#30592640)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29682647)

Suck my fucking BWC u kikes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29682686)

any sign of nationalism and they start kvetching and saying "oy vey not again goyim"

To be fair nobody else has been PWNED and CRUSHED repeatedly by nationalism than jews so its kind of understandable why they get UNHINGED at the first sign anybody might question mass immigration, open borders bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29684153)

nationalism is 180 for jews because they can be Americans first, Jews second. no more having to be smeared as a JEW anywhere they walk

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29696415)

West motherfuckin valley for you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29707848)

when a society turns nationalistic its starts looking at ppl as insiders vs outsiders - ex. look at anti-muslim sentiment in US even though most american muslims are citizens. its not so bad in america where jews have merged into the "white" milieu but not so in europe where its not about whites or skin color but about being german vs french vs swede etc

but the holocaust memory is so strong that these pundits dont want even an inkling of nationalism in US even though its not bad per se for them in america

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29707867)

Chicken and Egg argument though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29707878)

most jews don't think like you, remember that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3108125&forum_id=2#29921339)