G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
"Islamofascism": The Failure of a Concept
By Gary Leupp
Created Nov 1 2007 - 10:50am
The Louisiana politician Huey Long declared in the 1930s that "Fascism will
come to America in the name of anti-fascism" and "in the name of national
security." I don't think we're there yet, but there are some fascist-like
forces mobilizing, and they're doing so in the name of protecting American
Judeo-Christian civilization from a phantom they've conjured up called
"Islamofascism." (Variants include Islamo-Fascism, Islamo-fascism, Islamic
fascism, etc.)
They want to make it a household word, sliding easily off the tongue,
interchangeable with the more familiar "Islam" or inadequately frightening
"Islamism." (The latter alludes to specifically political Islam, including
variants of it that--like the political evangelical Christianity in this
country--are non-violent.) They want the media to embrace it, and
politicians beginning with president Bush to routinely incorporate it into
their rhetoric. They want academics to promote the concept of a specifically
Muslim form of that evil phenomenon that emerged in war-exhausted Europe in
the 1920s-30s and which in its principle expressions (in Italy, Germany,
Spain, Hungary) had some distinctly Christian features. They're throwing
millions of dollars into a propaganda effort to popularize a concept that
isn't just politically and intellectually tendentious but calculated to
vilify more targets (indeed any Muslim target) for attack.
The real (Americo-)fascists staged an early Halloween event last week, all
dressed up as anti-fascists, made up as compassionate conservatives deeply
disturbed by Muslim misogyny. They went door to door--or rather campus to
campus--trick-or-treating, trying to scare. Their so-called "Islamo-Fascism
Awareness Week" undertaken by well-funded, extreme-right ideologues,
featuring such cartoon characters as Ann Coulter and Rick Santorum and
deploying student brown shirts to lead their way, was amusing in its
childishness but like most Halloween events rather spooky. They want to
scare. That's the whole point.
The scare tactics involve the promotion of the notion that we're back in the
1930s, and a Hitler is again undertaking a program of genocide. The
fear-mongering propaganda program includes the following components:
1. The promotion of a certain interpretation of modern history, according to
which, having defeated fascism in World War II, and communism in the Cold
War, the West now in Bush's "War on Terror" confronts a new, terrifying
global "ism"--Islamofascism--that must meet with the same sort of heroic
resistance. Some pronounce this most recent war as World War III, others
World War IV. (Bush personally seems to want to apply the "World War III"
designation to an upcoming confrontation he apparently seeks to provoke with
Iran.)
2. The disparagement of those questioning this view of the past and present,
and those inclined towards a level-headed response to the various forms of
Islamic militancy, as "appeasers" analogous to those who failed to challenge
Hitler during his rise to power.
3. The specific vilification of Iran, involving
1. the depiction of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the new Nazi Germany
2. the depiction of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the new Hitler,
and
3. the representation of the Iranian nuclear energy program as a primarily
military one,
4. the accusation that Iran's nuclear energy program is designed to inflict
a "nuclear holocaust" and "wipe Israel off the map."
One finds this fear-mongering mix of loaded terms, fringe theorizing,
unsubstantiated accusations and deliberate disinformation among other places
in Norman Podhoretz's recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal praying for
the bombing of Iran. It's nonsense--but frighteningly influential nonsense,
peddled by right-wing think tanks and articulated by pundits treated with
respect on mainstream news channels. (It may be having an effect. A recent
Zogby poll shows 52% of Americans now favoring an attack on Iran.)
Podhoretz and fellow neoconservatives have George Bush's ear, and the
president has not only used the term "Islamofascism" but warned of a
"nuclear holocaust" if Iran continues to enrich uranium, and in one of his
most bizarre press statements to date suggested that Iran might by such
activity provoke World War III.
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy
Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War
III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having
the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
He is speaking of a country with cordial ties to all its neighbors,
including U.S. client-states Afghanistan and Iraq, and which has not
provoked a war in many centuries. Iran's president has actually not said
that he personally, or Iran, wants to destroy Israel, a country with two or
three hundred nuclear weapons. Iran according to both the IAEA and CIA is
years from having nuclear weapons even if it planned to produce them, and if
it used them against Israel the latter and/or U.S. would respond by
eradicating the regime responsible along with much of the Iranian civilian
population. But no matter that Bush's charges make no sense (actually
prompting Dennis Kucinich to question his mental health). He can depict a
regime of pretty much anything having vilified it as Islamofascist.
Some very well-funded and highly energized proponents of the Iraq invasion
and upcoming attacks on other Muslim countries conducted their
"Islamofascism Awareness Week" October 22-26. The organizers have
predictably claimed that the events on some 114 campuses (down from the 200
they'd earlier predicted) constituted a glorious victory. Extreme right-wing
ideologue and principal organizer David Horowitz on his website boasted that
the week "witnessed the largest, most successful campus demonstrations by
students not associated with the anti-American left in the history of campus
protests." Actually, I've seen no evidence for any "campus demonstrations"
by Horowitz-inspired, Islamophobic students at all. Rather, I've seen
reports of reasonable people responding with appropriate revulsion to a
campaign based on fear and hate.
Take Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, for example. When antiwar
activists got word--just a few days before the event--that Daniel Pipes
would be speaking on campus, posters appeared everywhere exposing this
neocon's history and calling on students, faculty and staff to attend and
protest. The Tufts Democrats and progressive faculty members added their
names to the flier, and on the evening of the talk a poster protesting hate
speech endorsed by practically every religious organization on campus, plus
the Tufts Coalition Opposed to the War in Iraq, was circulated and
positively received by the great majority of persons in attendance. The
student brownshirt introducing Pipes was noticeably shaken by the hostile
reception, and Pipes himself seems to have abbreviated his remarks and
availability for questions. Almost all of the latter were confrontational.
Pipes began somewhat disarmingly by stating that he personally did not think
the term "Islamofascism" useful, nor did he think Islam itself was the
problem. Rather, he targeted "Muslim extremism," while noting that often
Muslim extremists posed as moderates--another way of saying all Muslims are
inherently suspect. Among the extremists he included a disparate array of
movements and governments, including the Palestinians against whom Israel
must not compromise but win "victory."
I've tried to determine what the necessary components of "Islamofascism" or
even "Muslim extremism" might be in the minds of those using the terms so
glibly. I wind up with the following:
1. Islam (of any sort).
2. Willingness to use violence to obtain certain ends, not even necessarily
religious but maybe political or nationalist (such as ending occupation).
3. Opposition to U.S. policy, particularly towards Middle Eastern countries
including Israel
4. Opposition to Israel, particularly Israeli occupation of Arab land
Notice how minimalistic these components are.
One might include support for the implementation of Sharia law, but among
the states and movements labeled "Islamofascist" by those promoting the
concept there are a wide range of views on that issue. Some like Syria are
pointedly secular (as was Saddam's Iraq) and have harshly suppressed groups
they consider extremist. One might include under component 2 specific
reference to suicide bombing, but that's not a feature of all the groups and
states targeted by the terminology. Some, Bush included, want to associate
the vilified with the idea of a revived Caliphate, but according to the
authoritative Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press,
1997), "in practice, there is little sign of any desire to return to the
Caliphate" among Muslims. In any case, note that the four characteristics
listed above are hardly "fascist" or even "extreme" by definition.
Lebanon's Hizbollah is a political party that controls a large bloc in the
national parliament, owns broadcasting stations, and provides a range of
social services. One can say this of many political parties. It has an armed
wing. But so do Lebanon's Christian Phalangists. It is a Shiite party but
has enjoyed widespread support among non-Shiites as well, obtaining enormous
popularity during Israel's attack last summer. It's often accused of trying
to impose Sharia law, but a secular Christian journalist, Joseph Samaha,
wrote in 2004, "One would have to be blind not to notice the changes
Hezbollah has undergone. Has Hezbollah tried to ban books or impose sharia?
Not once. Their electoral program is [an] almost social democratic [one]. So
we're confronting a very different kind of Fundamentalist party." Hardly
sounds "fascist." Where is the racial theory, the drive to expand territory?
(Don't tell me the drive to recover the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms is an
effort to obtain Lebensraum.)
The Palestinian group Hamas is Sunni. Israel initially encouraged its
formation as a Muslim alternative to the secular PLO. It evolved into a
violent movement in resistance to occupation, employing such extreme methods
as suicide bombings. But it observed unilateral ceasefires with Israel from
January 2005 to June 2006, and November 2006 to April 2007, and has offered
a 10-year ceasefire if Israel agrees to withdraw to the 1967 borders.
Brought to power (if we can speak about power under occupation) in a free
election, it is widely respected among the oppressed Palestinians as a moral
and efficient alternative to corrupt PLO politicians. Last month leader
Ismail Haniyeh's spokesman stated the group's willingness to negotiate with
Israel, declaring, "The principle of negotiating with the enemy is not
legally and religiously rejected" and "Hamas is ready to sit at the
negotiating table if it is convinced that a political achievement can be
made. But the general impression manifested by the current Israeli policy
doesn't give any positive sign." These seem like moderate rather than
extremist remarks.
Al-Qaeda is a collection of clandestine cells plotting spectacular acts of
violence designed to produce a general all-out war between the (Sunni)
Muslim world and the U.S. and its allies. It may succeed in that--in tandem
with the neoconservatives in Washington who want to conquer Southwest Asia,
encircle China, establish permanent military bases and control the flow of
oil from the region.
If these movements have little in common, neither do the demonized states.
The governments of Syria and Iran (those most in the neocons' crosshairs)
are strategically allied, but very different; one a hereditary secular
dictatorship that deals harshly with political Islam, the other a Shiite
theocratic state with some democratic features such as competitive
elections. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan that fell in 2001 was another
very different phenomenon; it had features in common with Saudi Arabia, one
of the few countries that recognized the Taliban regime. Both apply Sharia
law, notoriously stoning women for adultery. But Saudi Arabia is a close
U.S. ally, generally exempt from vilification. Even the Taliban regime was
initially welcomed by some in Washington, including the Afghan-American
Zalmay Khalilzad, in recent years U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq.
This neocon, as a Rand analyst in October 1996, wrote a Washington Post
op-ed urging ties with the regime (in connection with oil pipeline
construction) and nothing that it "does not practice the anti-U.S. style of
fundamentalism practiced by Iran."
No demonization of the Talibs as "Islamofascists" then. No great fuss about
the burqa, the ancient female garment in Afghanistan that isn't specifically
Muslim and may indeed have Byzantine origins. (And which, you notice, has
not disappeared under the Karzai/warlord regime placed in power by the U.S.)
Recall that the Taliban toppled the Northern Alliance forces who had been
funded by the CIA all through the 1980s to "bleed the Soviets" and overthrow
a secular regime pitted against Muslim extremists. U.S. policy had been to
encourage jihadist mentality to defeat a government promoting modern public
education, health clinics, and gender equality. Mujahadeen of the Taliban
had been involved in that effort too, as well as the Saudi volunteers led by
Osama bin Laden!
The Taliban, even while stoning women in soccer stadiums, blasting away
ancient Buddhist statues, and hosting bin Laden (who left Sudan for
Afghanistan in a U.S.-backed arrangement in 1996) were receiving aid from
Saudi Arabia and the U.S. up to 2001. The forms of "extremism" based on
rigid interpretations of Islamic law were seen in Washington (appropriately
enough) as internal affairs rather than cause for American fears and
military intervention. But these days, allegations of Muslim maltreatment of
women and cultural intolerance (which could have been made centuries before
the western/capitalist phenomenon of fascism appeared) are being used to
demonize and essentialize over a billion people in a heavily warlike
atmosphere.
Designed for that purpose, Islamofascism is a failure as a concept. But it
may yet be a success as a propaganda tool--rather like the concept of the
"Jewish conspiracy for world domination" widely promoted in the 1930s.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Gary Leupp
Created Nov 1 2007 - 10:50am
The Louisiana politician Huey Long declared in the 1930s that "Fascism will
come to America in the name of anti-fascism" and "in the name of national
security." I don't think we're there yet, but there are some fascist-like
forces mobilizing, and they're doing so in the name of protecting American
Judeo-Christian civilization from a phantom they've conjured up called
"Islamofascism." (Variants include Islamo-Fascism, Islamo-fascism, Islamic
fascism, etc.)
They want to make it a household word, sliding easily off the tongue,
interchangeable with the more familiar "Islam" or inadequately frightening
"Islamism." (The latter alludes to specifically political Islam, including
variants of it that--like the political evangelical Christianity in this
country--are non-violent.) They want the media to embrace it, and
politicians beginning with president Bush to routinely incorporate it into
their rhetoric. They want academics to promote the concept of a specifically
Muslim form of that evil phenomenon that emerged in war-exhausted Europe in
the 1920s-30s and which in its principle expressions (in Italy, Germany,
Spain, Hungary) had some distinctly Christian features. They're throwing
millions of dollars into a propaganda effort to popularize a concept that
isn't just politically and intellectually tendentious but calculated to
vilify more targets (indeed any Muslim target) for attack.
The real (Americo-)fascists staged an early Halloween event last week, all
dressed up as anti-fascists, made up as compassionate conservatives deeply
disturbed by Muslim misogyny. They went door to door--or rather campus to
campus--trick-or-treating, trying to scare. Their so-called "Islamo-Fascism
Awareness Week" undertaken by well-funded, extreme-right ideologues,
featuring such cartoon characters as Ann Coulter and Rick Santorum and
deploying student brown shirts to lead their way, was amusing in its
childishness but like most Halloween events rather spooky. They want to
scare. That's the whole point.
The scare tactics involve the promotion of the notion that we're back in the
1930s, and a Hitler is again undertaking a program of genocide. The
fear-mongering propaganda program includes the following components:
1. The promotion of a certain interpretation of modern history, according to
which, having defeated fascism in World War II, and communism in the Cold
War, the West now in Bush's "War on Terror" confronts a new, terrifying
global "ism"--Islamofascism--that must meet with the same sort of heroic
resistance. Some pronounce this most recent war as World War III, others
World War IV. (Bush personally seems to want to apply the "World War III"
designation to an upcoming confrontation he apparently seeks to provoke with
Iran.)
2. The disparagement of those questioning this view of the past and present,
and those inclined towards a level-headed response to the various forms of
Islamic militancy, as "appeasers" analogous to those who failed to challenge
Hitler during his rise to power.
3. The specific vilification of Iran, involving
1. the depiction of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the new Nazi Germany
2. the depiction of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the new Hitler,
and
3. the representation of the Iranian nuclear energy program as a primarily
military one,
4. the accusation that Iran's nuclear energy program is designed to inflict
a "nuclear holocaust" and "wipe Israel off the map."
One finds this fear-mongering mix of loaded terms, fringe theorizing,
unsubstantiated accusations and deliberate disinformation among other places
in Norman Podhoretz's recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal praying for
the bombing of Iran. It's nonsense--but frighteningly influential nonsense,
peddled by right-wing think tanks and articulated by pundits treated with
respect on mainstream news channels. (It may be having an effect. A recent
Zogby poll shows 52% of Americans now favoring an attack on Iran.)
Podhoretz and fellow neoconservatives have George Bush's ear, and the
president has not only used the term "Islamofascism" but warned of a
"nuclear holocaust" if Iran continues to enrich uranium, and in one of his
most bizarre press statements to date suggested that Iran might by such
activity provoke World War III.
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy
Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War
III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having
the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
He is speaking of a country with cordial ties to all its neighbors,
including U.S. client-states Afghanistan and Iraq, and which has not
provoked a war in many centuries. Iran's president has actually not said
that he personally, or Iran, wants to destroy Israel, a country with two or
three hundred nuclear weapons. Iran according to both the IAEA and CIA is
years from having nuclear weapons even if it planned to produce them, and if
it used them against Israel the latter and/or U.S. would respond by
eradicating the regime responsible along with much of the Iranian civilian
population. But no matter that Bush's charges make no sense (actually
prompting Dennis Kucinich to question his mental health). He can depict a
regime of pretty much anything having vilified it as Islamofascist.
Some very well-funded and highly energized proponents of the Iraq invasion
and upcoming attacks on other Muslim countries conducted their
"Islamofascism Awareness Week" October 22-26. The organizers have
predictably claimed that the events on some 114 campuses (down from the 200
they'd earlier predicted) constituted a glorious victory. Extreme right-wing
ideologue and principal organizer David Horowitz on his website boasted that
the week "witnessed the largest, most successful campus demonstrations by
students not associated with the anti-American left in the history of campus
protests." Actually, I've seen no evidence for any "campus demonstrations"
by Horowitz-inspired, Islamophobic students at all. Rather, I've seen
reports of reasonable people responding with appropriate revulsion to a
campaign based on fear and hate.
Take Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, for example. When antiwar
activists got word--just a few days before the event--that Daniel Pipes
would be speaking on campus, posters appeared everywhere exposing this
neocon's history and calling on students, faculty and staff to attend and
protest. The Tufts Democrats and progressive faculty members added their
names to the flier, and on the evening of the talk a poster protesting hate
speech endorsed by practically every religious organization on campus, plus
the Tufts Coalition Opposed to the War in Iraq, was circulated and
positively received by the great majority of persons in attendance. The
student brownshirt introducing Pipes was noticeably shaken by the hostile
reception, and Pipes himself seems to have abbreviated his remarks and
availability for questions. Almost all of the latter were confrontational.
Pipes began somewhat disarmingly by stating that he personally did not think
the term "Islamofascism" useful, nor did he think Islam itself was the
problem. Rather, he targeted "Muslim extremism," while noting that often
Muslim extremists posed as moderates--another way of saying all Muslims are
inherently suspect. Among the extremists he included a disparate array of
movements and governments, including the Palestinians against whom Israel
must not compromise but win "victory."
I've tried to determine what the necessary components of "Islamofascism" or
even "Muslim extremism" might be in the minds of those using the terms so
glibly. I wind up with the following:
1. Islam (of any sort).
2. Willingness to use violence to obtain certain ends, not even necessarily
religious but maybe political or nationalist (such as ending occupation).
3. Opposition to U.S. policy, particularly towards Middle Eastern countries
including Israel
4. Opposition to Israel, particularly Israeli occupation of Arab land
Notice how minimalistic these components are.
One might include support for the implementation of Sharia law, but among
the states and movements labeled "Islamofascist" by those promoting the
concept there are a wide range of views on that issue. Some like Syria are
pointedly secular (as was Saddam's Iraq) and have harshly suppressed groups
they consider extremist. One might include under component 2 specific
reference to suicide bombing, but that's not a feature of all the groups and
states targeted by the terminology. Some, Bush included, want to associate
the vilified with the idea of a revived Caliphate, but according to the
authoritative Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press,
1997), "in practice, there is little sign of any desire to return to the
Caliphate" among Muslims. In any case, note that the four characteristics
listed above are hardly "fascist" or even "extreme" by definition.
Lebanon's Hizbollah is a political party that controls a large bloc in the
national parliament, owns broadcasting stations, and provides a range of
social services. One can say this of many political parties. It has an armed
wing. But so do Lebanon's Christian Phalangists. It is a Shiite party but
has enjoyed widespread support among non-Shiites as well, obtaining enormous
popularity during Israel's attack last summer. It's often accused of trying
to impose Sharia law, but a secular Christian journalist, Joseph Samaha,
wrote in 2004, "One would have to be blind not to notice the changes
Hezbollah has undergone. Has Hezbollah tried to ban books or impose sharia?
Not once. Their electoral program is [an] almost social democratic [one]. So
we're confronting a very different kind of Fundamentalist party." Hardly
sounds "fascist." Where is the racial theory, the drive to expand territory?
(Don't tell me the drive to recover the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms is an
effort to obtain Lebensraum.)
The Palestinian group Hamas is Sunni. Israel initially encouraged its
formation as a Muslim alternative to the secular PLO. It evolved into a
violent movement in resistance to occupation, employing such extreme methods
as suicide bombings. But it observed unilateral ceasefires with Israel from
January 2005 to June 2006, and November 2006 to April 2007, and has offered
a 10-year ceasefire if Israel agrees to withdraw to the 1967 borders.
Brought to power (if we can speak about power under occupation) in a free
election, it is widely respected among the oppressed Palestinians as a moral
and efficient alternative to corrupt PLO politicians. Last month leader
Ismail Haniyeh's spokesman stated the group's willingness to negotiate with
Israel, declaring, "The principle of negotiating with the enemy is not
legally and religiously rejected" and "Hamas is ready to sit at the
negotiating table if it is convinced that a political achievement can be
made. But the general impression manifested by the current Israeli policy
doesn't give any positive sign." These seem like moderate rather than
extremist remarks.
Al-Qaeda is a collection of clandestine cells plotting spectacular acts of
violence designed to produce a general all-out war between the (Sunni)
Muslim world and the U.S. and its allies. It may succeed in that--in tandem
with the neoconservatives in Washington who want to conquer Southwest Asia,
encircle China, establish permanent military bases and control the flow of
oil from the region.
If these movements have little in common, neither do the demonized states.
The governments of Syria and Iran (those most in the neocons' crosshairs)
are strategically allied, but very different; one a hereditary secular
dictatorship that deals harshly with political Islam, the other a Shiite
theocratic state with some democratic features such as competitive
elections. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan that fell in 2001 was another
very different phenomenon; it had features in common with Saudi Arabia, one
of the few countries that recognized the Taliban regime. Both apply Sharia
law, notoriously stoning women for adultery. But Saudi Arabia is a close
U.S. ally, generally exempt from vilification. Even the Taliban regime was
initially welcomed by some in Washington, including the Afghan-American
Zalmay Khalilzad, in recent years U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq.
This neocon, as a Rand analyst in October 1996, wrote a Washington Post
op-ed urging ties with the regime (in connection with oil pipeline
construction) and nothing that it "does not practice the anti-U.S. style of
fundamentalism practiced by Iran."
No demonization of the Talibs as "Islamofascists" then. No great fuss about
the burqa, the ancient female garment in Afghanistan that isn't specifically
Muslim and may indeed have Byzantine origins. (And which, you notice, has
not disappeared under the Karzai/warlord regime placed in power by the U.S.)
Recall that the Taliban toppled the Northern Alliance forces who had been
funded by the CIA all through the 1980s to "bleed the Soviets" and overthrow
a secular regime pitted against Muslim extremists. U.S. policy had been to
encourage jihadist mentality to defeat a government promoting modern public
education, health clinics, and gender equality. Mujahadeen of the Taliban
had been involved in that effort too, as well as the Saudi volunteers led by
Osama bin Laden!
The Taliban, even while stoning women in soccer stadiums, blasting away
ancient Buddhist statues, and hosting bin Laden (who left Sudan for
Afghanistan in a U.S.-backed arrangement in 1996) were receiving aid from
Saudi Arabia and the U.S. up to 2001. The forms of "extremism" based on
rigid interpretations of Islamic law were seen in Washington (appropriately
enough) as internal affairs rather than cause for American fears and
military intervention. But these days, allegations of Muslim maltreatment of
women and cultural intolerance (which could have been made centuries before
the western/capitalist phenomenon of fascism appeared) are being used to
demonize and essentialize over a billion people in a heavily warlike
atmosphere.
Designed for that purpose, Islamofascism is a failure as a concept. But it
may yet be a success as a propaganda tool--rather like the concept of the
"Jewish conspiracy for world domination" widely promoted in the 1930s.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson