The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Is Fascism Rising in Europe?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Having just finished a book on fascists and antifascists, I am now investigating the antifascist hysteria that has followed the elections for the European parliament last week. In those elections the “far right” Front National and its dynamic, attractive leader Marine Le Pen captured a quarter of the vote in France and helped limit the share of that vote won by Francois Hollande and his leftist coalition to 14%. In Britain the United Kingdom Independence Party gained more votes than the Labour, Conservative, or Liberal Democrat parties and, like the FN, garnered about a quarter of the votes that were cast. The UKIP, under its leader Nigel Farage, seeks to limit the social benefits awarded to immigrants, hopes to remove Britain from effective control by the EU and favors something like the school voucher system that is touted by Republican politicians in the US.

These elections change nothing internally in the countries where they took place. Although a barometer of changing public opinion, especially about immigration, they don’t alter the balance of power in England or France. Those who were in charge before the elections are still running governments. Moreover, the victory of the UKIP in Britain cannot possibly be seen as a triumph for what the media describe as the “far Right.” As neoconservative columnist Seth Lipsky points out, the just concluded election in England favored Thatcherite, pro-Atlanticist moderates, who should not be compared to those who support “hate parties” on the continent. When approached after the election by Marine Le Pen who asked him whether he would join the rightist alliance that had begun to crystallize in the European parliament and to which the FN belongs, Farage pointedly turned down his French interlocutor. The American media are quite right to view Farage and his party as a continuation of the Conservative Party before it lurched to the left after Thatcher and particularly during David Cameron’s tenure as prime minister. Farage’s party lacks the sharp social edge that one finds in more explicitly anti-immigration, explicitly nationalist parties that are flourishing on the continent.

The leftist-neoconservative media have noticed a pattern in the way such parties as Fidesz and Jobbik in Hungary and the Front National in France are gaining mass support by appealing to a national past and by combining reactions against the communist or multicultural Left with opposition to Third World immigration. Moreover these parties draw heavily on the youth vote, in contrast to the US where the young overwhelmingly favor the Left and what passes for popular culture. Since there is nothing like a politically noticeable, let alone comparable, Right in the US, except for such meager substitutes as Tea Party activists protesting the raising of taxes by the Obama administration, any signs of a rightist specter on the European continent drives intellectuals and journalists in the direction of certain unsettling connections. The nationalist Right means fascism, which means Nazis, which means Auschwitz.

This kind of simplistic thinking is not peculiar to the WSJ or New York Times, both of which have provided examples of it in the wake of the recent French election. It reflects anxiety about an enemy that the European and American Left conjure up to justify its far-reaching social engineering. Any deviation from the prescribed multicultural course pushed by politicians, the media and educators, as I show in my books on multicultural politics, may lead us, or so we are made to believe, into spinning off into a fascist (read neo-Nazi) ditch. It is in this spirit of antifascist caution that the German premier, Angela Merkel has assured the world multiple times that “Germany has no party on the right.” Indeed such a party could not survive for very long in the reconstructed society in which Merkel lives, because the German courts would have it banned, as a threat “to the liberal democratic order.”

Needless to say, former communist activists, including longtime Stasi informer Gregor Gysi, are allowed to enter German provincial governments and may soon be asked to join a federal coalition, as members of the Party of Democratic Socialists. A scandal that no one but rightwing politicians like Viktor Orban, the Hungarian premier, even bothers to notice is that Soviet stooges, even those who informed on their people, are allowed into European governments, as progressive democrats. This receives scant coverage in the Western press for obvious reasons. Such politicians once they join leftist coalitions in France, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Romania, etc. become happy campers on the multicultural bus. Like Gysi in Eastern Germany, they discover such trendy causes as expanded rights for gays and communal privileges for Muslim “new settlers.” These communists not only fit into the dominant progressive Western culture but are good for American corporations and offer markets with few if any restrictions. (Rightwing European nationalists are wary of an American empire and often support tariffs to protect their national work forces.)

Because of the growing deviations from settled electoral patterns (favoring the socialist and multicultural Left) on the European continent, journalists are increasingly alarmed. Perhaps the most frenzied reaction I’ve encountered came from an acquaintance of mine, Tim Stanley, who blogs for the Daily Telegraph in England. For Stanley the recent electoral results provide a confirmation of what he’s long feared: “European fascism has returned? It never went away and it probably never will.” What follows this cri de coeur is a list of characteristics that supposedly link the European electoral Right to interwar fascism. As a research scholar in this field, I have to gasp in wonder at Tim’s brief. Does the fact that wayward Catholic priests had boys castrated in Holland in the 1950s prove that fascism was on the march in that country?

ORDER IT NOW

What conclusions am I supposed to draw that the Austrian Freedom Party had roots in an Austrian classical liberal party that the Nazi government “subsumed” into its movement? The Nazis went around “integrating” everything they could into their party structure. That’s what “Gleichschaltung” was about. Another supposedly telling mark of the fascist presence that horrifies Tim is that Austria elected as President in 1986 Kurt Waldheim, “a lieutenant during the war who was attached to Germany (sic) units that killed partisans and deported Greek Jews.” Just for the record, Waldheim, who was UN General Secretary from 1972 until 1981 before he became Austrian President, was never a member of the Nazi party, although (unbeknownst to his passionately anti-Nazi family) he joined a Nazi youth organization after the Nazis occupied Austria. He was drafted into the German army and served in a Wehrmacht unit that shot Bosnian partisans who were fighting the occupying forces. Although Waldheim was not directly involved in the shootings, he probably knew they were taking place. It is hard to think all the same what he could have done to stop these executions. Moreover, the Communist partisans whom the Germans were then fighting were equally willing to execute their enemies. This included members of the monarchist anti-German resistance force, the Chetniks, with whom Tito’s partisans were then struggling for power. One may challenge Waldheim’s claims about being ignorant of his unit’s involvement in transporting Greek Jews from Salonika to Nazi death camps, but there is no evidence that he assisted in this operation, even if he knew this action was being carried out. In any case the Waldheim who later became Austrian president after having worked for the UN rose to office not as a Nazi-sympathizer, but as a leader of the very centrist Austrian People’s Party.

I’m also at a loss in reading Tim’s charges at how “neofascism” influenced the post-War Italian government dominated by the Christian Democrats. There was a neofascist party, the Movimento Sociale d’Italia created in 1946, the remnants of which merged with Gianfranco Fini’s Alleanza Nazionale in January 1995. This party was never permitted into any government and when it voted, was generally pro-Atlanticist, pro-capitalist and demonstratively pro-Israeli. With regard to the eruptions of rightwing “terrorism” in Italy that Tim rails against , the few sporadic examples I could unearth were as nothing in comparison to the massive violence unleashed by the Red Brigades in Italy in the 1970s.

The charges made against the coalition partner of Orban’s Fidesz Party in the Hungarian government, Jobbik (in Hungarian, an acronym for Jobbik Magyarországert Mozgalom, movement for a better Hungary), as a raging anti-Semitic force has been glaringly exaggerated, most notably in what may be Tim’s source for this accusation, the pro-corporate investment but socially leftist Economist. Even Wikipedia, which is hardly a far rightist propaganda medium, is underwhelmed by the evidence of anti-Semitism that could be linked to Jobbik. Although one of its members spoke out about the disproportionately high Jewish support for the former communist regime (this is a self-evident truth one should not express) the Jobbik official was quickly disciplined by the party leaders and his remark was repudiated by the premier. But alas Tim may have to get used to an obstinate Hungarian electorate. In the EU election Jobbik reached a new milestone by picking up 14.7 % of the vote.

It would take more space than I am willing to fill to refute all the questionable evidence Tim brings up to show that Europe has been teetering on the brink of a fascist takeover for decades. But there is one European government that Tim takes pleasure in. It is the one that the Americans imposed on the Germans after World War Two. And it is a government that we still oversee, together with obliging German officials. Here Germany-watchers are driven by the hope that Germany won’t ever again become what it was before we reeducated the population. The facts that the Germany “accepted personal responsibility for what it once did” together with the “willingness to allow the Americans to dictate the terms of German democratization” have been a blessing for the world. The only fly in the ointment, Tim explains, is the attempt to integrate into a West German society, one that is minutely protected against fascism, a former communist-controlled region, which was “fascist-influenced.” Apparently the communists weren’t as thoroughly PC as our guys and they permitted “a parody of Prussian militarism” to survive in their part of Germany. By the way, Tim is not against the Right entirely. He refers to the zealously antifascist regime of Angela Merkel as “center-right,” which may be an accurate way to describe the politics of a country in which no one even as far to the right as Karl Rove could be elected to national office.

Having clarified why I think all the screaming about fascism tells us precious little about European political life, I should now explain the causes for this alarm. One reason is so obvious that I’m almost embarrassed to give it. Antifascism, like anti-white racism in the US, is the ideological cement that holds together the political-cultural order in Western “liberal democracies.” It forms the ideological mission of the ruling class, in the same way that fighting for an uncorrupted Catholic faith provided a moral justification for the rule of their “most Catholic majesties,” the rulers of sixteenth-century Spain, or Marxist-Leninism furnished the religious basis of the Soviet Union. An attack on a hegemonic creed becomes an assault on the foundations of the regime, or what the Germans more properly characterize as the “Herrschaftsordnung,” the structure of command and authority in a particular society.

But there is something more at work here. What is caused by the victory of the European ‘far right” or by Vladimir Putin refusing to have Russian youth instructed (indoctrinated?) by gays is that an existing order of reality and its accompanying value structure have been called into question. Having recently heard on Fox-news a young neoconservative Ben Shapiro declare that because of his bigotry Putin no longer belonged to the “West,” I had to chuckle that anyone would limit membership in the “West” to supporters of the gay movement. Up until very recently the Western world, including the US, viewed homosexual behavior quite negatively. But that would not have been the young Shapiro’s experience and in his mind, being “conservative” and being for the gay and feminist agendas, or for some part of those agendas, were fully compatible and probably overlapping causes.

ORDER IT NOW

Here we have to look at what my book The Strange Death of Marxism defines as the dominant ideology of Western societies. This curious fusion, which I argue has nothing to do with traditional Marxism, combines Cultural Marxism with consumer capitalism. No major Western political party advocates any longer such onetime socialist schemes as nationalizing the means of production or is calling for a “workers’ state.” At the same time, no “right center” party challenges any longer the changes that have been introduced in recent decades regarding women’s rights, gay liberation, and expanded expressive freedoms. Moreover, any attempt to restrict immigration here or in Europe immediately evokes expressions of outrage from both the media and large business organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce. Those who take such an “intolerant” position, we are led to believe, must be narrow-minded, prejudiced and, as activist judges will soon show, wish to act unconstitutionally. The Left and the respectable Right (or what substitutes for a Right) seem to have accepted this expanded notion of tolerance almost equally and therefore the “conservative” side in the US restricts its main debating points to bread-and butter issues like Obamacare or electorally useful topics like excess spending and readily usable scandals that can be tied to the other party. Either the opposition is convinced of the rightness of the other side’s cultural values, or it has decided that it’s not worth opposing what all good people are supposed to believe about gender, race, alternative lifestyles, and continued Third World immigration. Perhaps most significantly, unlike what is happening in France and other European countries, this consensus in the US does not appear to be in danger.

Therefore when parties come along in Europe which strongly oppose our cultural-political consensus, they are immediately and understandably denounced as “anti-Western.” Tim rejoices at the extent to which German society has been reconstructed, together with the way Germans have been taught to strive to overcome their past. One finds in their defeated and humiliated and then reprogrammed country a perfected model of what other Western countries could become if things don’t go awry, that is a post-national society that embraces multiculturalism and punishes those who oppose this path to progress. Unfortunately for those of Tim’s persuasion, this blueprint may not be doable everywhere in Europe. And as someone who values a different kind of West, I am immensely pleased this experiment has hit a snag. May the snags continue to multiply!

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: American Media, European Right 
Hide 23 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. This is absolutely brilliant. Professor Gottfried says everything that needs to be said on the subject. My congratulations to The Unz Review for publishing this essay.

  2. Wann werden wir wieder einmal einen deutschen Artikel von Ihnen lesen können, Mr. Gottfried? The strange death of Marxism ist das beste zum Thema, was ich gelesen habe. Gratulation!

  3. Sam says:

    “Having recently heard on Fox-news a young neoconservative Ben Shapiro declare that because of his bigotry Putin no longer belonged to the “West,” I had to chuckle that anyone would limit membership in the “West” to supporters of the gay movement. Up until very recently the Western world, including the US, viewed homosexual behavior quite negatively. But that would not have been the young Shapiro’s experience and in his mind, being “conservative” and being for the gay and feminist agendas, or for some part of those agendas, were fully compatible and probably overlapping causes.”

    I believe Glenn Beck recently joined arms with the left against Putin to fight…”Hetero-fascism” as he called it. I guess Beck grew up in a hetero-fascist state as well given the past laws in the US.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The photo is from the ‘Front de Gauche’ party in France. This party is the remnant of the communist and altermondialist.
    The views from the USA and England are biased. There is no fascist in France. Just people who don’t want that the economic liberalism destroy a country. And Germany is no heaven…

  5. “The charges made against the coalition partner of Orban’s Fidesz Party in the Hungarian government, Jobbik ”

    As far as I know, Jobbik isn’t a coalition partner of Fidesz, at least on the national level; Fidesz has a two thirds majority of seats in the parliament, they don’t need any coalition partners.
    As for Stanley’s piece, the Daily Telegraph has become pretty ridiculous, it’s basically nowadays just a vehicle for promoting every deranged military intervention imaginable, otherwise it’s totally politically correct and almost indistinguishable from The Guardian, with some very odd Catholicism thrown in (of the sort “Can a Christian vote for UKIP” – Answer: NO). Totally worthless rag, would be good if it just died.

    • Replies: @Hildebrand
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Sir: What are your thoughts about certain elements of ZRM (Zionist Revisionist Maximalism) history has thrown a smoke grenade in the direction, and we do not fully know…except But only study for a millisecond some of the critical remarks and observations of, for example. Thanks for your ti

  7. Fascism has a particular meaning in the period after WWI. Pre-Fascism can be discussed in the late 19th century if one wishes. But in our day the word is not useful. Talk about anti-immigration and anti-foreigner agitation if you wish. Talk about anti-European Union if you like. Using the word FASCISM is rarely correct or useful: like COMMUNISM during the Cold War when the word at least had some utility but was also grossly overused as a smear.

    In any case, our youth, in America at least, knows so little even about recent history that you might as well talk about Catharism, Jacobinism, and Guelfs and Ghibellines!

  8. Trumped says:

    Great article! The youth in America do vote for leftists in droves, but Ron Paul’s recent run was a major exception to that rule. He did not push for major immigration restrictions, but he did push for eliminating most of what the government does. Not really sure if anyone else on the right could pull in youth voters like Ron Paul did, either.

    Is Nigel Farage really that bad? I thought he wanted to reduce immigration from more than just some benefits for some immigrants. Is he not as radical as I had hoped?

  9. Fascism historically was the hard edge of integral nationalism, an idea important in late 19th -century France, Austria, and Germany. It meant the subordination of the individual’s rights to the higher needs of the collectivity. It was demonstrated most clearly in France during the Dreyfus Affair when those opposed to Dreyfus rested their case on the need to protect the French military and state against radicals on the left and in the center who put the individual rights of an innocent man, Captain Dreyfus, above the needs of national security and welfare. Many anti-Dreyfusards did not even care whether Dreyfus was guilty of spying for Germany. They adopted the position of the High Priest Caiaphus in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ Passion who held that it was good for one (even innocent) man to die for the good of the nation. Thus integral nationalism is not the same as ordinary nationalism and it easily metathesizes into Fascism tout court in a crisis.

    Nazis adopted Fascism and added virulent racism. Most forms of Fascism had much milder versions of racism and they were not necessarily based on biology but on culture. Italian Fascism, the original, had no racism at all until Mussolini tried to please Hitler, his only friend after Britain and France rejected his overtures. The virulent racism of the Nazis has today only one similar example. It is found in an ideology which originated at the same time and in the same places as integral nationalism and Fascism. That ideology, very controversially but undeniably, is ZIONISM. Zionist belief in a racial state of Jews (however defined, but usually biologically) is the exact counterpart of Nazism. One could cite Hitler even that racism began with the Jews. The Old Testament offers proof as well. In a very real if tragically ironic sense, Hitlerian anti-semitism is the turning of Jewish racism against the Jews themselves.

    The Zionist policy, even today increased, of settlements on Palestinian land in a future Palestinian state, is no different from Nazi Lebesraum settlements in the East of Europe.

    I say all this without any partisanship for Muslim or Palestinian terrorists. I am only stating historical facts.

  10. Very interesting and timely essay, Professor Gottfried. One minor quibble, however. Although the western media loves to place Orban’s Fidesz and the more radical Jobbik party in the same bed, they are in fact rivals and by no means coalition partners.

    It may be reasonable to suggest that Jobbik’s radical positions may lean Fidesz rightward to compete for voters, but we Hungary-watchers would be quite surprised to see any formal coalition between the two parties. As another commenter mentioned above, Fidesz’s second term with a super-majority means it does not require coalition partners to pursue its electoral agenda.

    But alas, that is what irritates western critics most about Fidesz (and why my money is on US/EU regime change machinations being ramped up against Budapest — we are already seeing ripples in the water): Orban and Fidesz have charted an alternative course to that which Brussels and Washington have demanded. That these policies have resulted in another electoral mandate and high popularity numbers infuriates the poles of western power and threatens the agenda of the western oligarchic elite. In short, if Orban succeeds in side-stepping Washington and Brussels’ demands for economic and political fealty the jig is up.

    One wonders, however, whether Fidesz leaders fully understand what they face for defying the club. Or whether they think they can play without pay…

  11. How was Ron Paul an exception. Yes he got a large number of youth voters compared to other Republicans, but that’s hardly any young voters in the grand scheme of things. And even in the republican primaries he only won around 50% of the youth vote. And this was achieved by taking positions on immigration to the left Romney including at one point arguing that a border fence might be used to keep Americans in rather than illegals out as a reason for not building said fence. Additionally he spent his campaign pandering to youths on drug legalization. I really wish the paleos would stop the special pleading for candidates like Paul who have no interest in reducing illegal immigration.

  12. I’m curious if Ravitch knows any historical analogies that aren’t Jewish? Interesting that for all his scrupulousness in identifying Jews he somehow forgot to mention Dreyfus’s ethnicity. Just a tiny oversight I’m sure. Or maybe he figures having invented racism rhe Jews had it coming. Certainly that’s his “ironic” take on the holocaust. If Zionism is the equivalent of Naziism then someone isn’t doing his job because the population of Palestinians keeps increasing. Also I’m sure Norman lives on a plot of land occupied by his ancestors since the beginning of time. Here’s a hint Norman Arabs aren’t indigenous to Palestine they got their there by mistreating rhe natives. Heck one could argue that they invented mistreating native Palestinians. Isn’t that ironic?

  13. Palestinians are not Arabs, except in the sense that they speak Arabic. Haysom should know Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Jews. Palestinians are probably more Jewish than the Jews of Europe in Israel who are largely Turkic Khazars.

    Discussions of Israel, Zionism and the Jews are always very difficut — and not only because of the Holocaust. For Christians “Jew” means something very special, both good and bad. For secularists it means religious fanatics who have metasthesized into nationalistic fanatics. For others “Jew” means prickly, anti-Christian, radically destructive, and just plain not nice.

    Zionism was supposed to have solved the Jewish Question by making Jews like everyone else. But Jews refuse to be like everyone else. Voici le probleme.

  14. Yes some Palestinians are descendants of the Cannanites but others are Arabs. The Palestinians for various reason have been inimical to using DNA to resolve their ancestry. The idea that the Arab Conquest left no genetic legacy; however, is as ludicrous the Khazarite thesis. Can you please learn how to spell metastasized if you are going to use it so often. And please drop the some people say tactic. Just assert flat out that you consider Jews religious fanatics, radically destructive and just plain not nice (this is a really cute inclusion “Mom, mom the Jews are mean”). Zionism was supposed to make the Jews more like other European nations, rooted in the soil, based on ethnicity, and careful about excluding other cultures) it is hardly Zionism’s fault that European countries then abandoned those features for multiculturalism. But that’s your real anger right you are angry that Zionism remained true to its 19th century conception of the state while your home country embraced multi-culturalism. If you can’t have what Israel has then no one can. That’s the attitude of a baby.

  15. Israel’s current problem: integral nationalism was once in, but now it is out. And Israel is its last supporter. That is not Israel’s fault to be sure. But you cannot get any Europeans to support the Israeli position which is the integral nationalist/fascist position. Perhaps a few odd Serbs or Albanians would agree. But no Germans (they would not dare!). Perhaps some French but not openly. A few Poles and Ukrainians but they don’t count.

  16. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I have a better idea. Let the Jewish people have Zionism – protect their ethnostate. It’s the least European people can do after all we have been through and done to one another.

    European people will learn from their practices. Attacking their right to self preservation will only destroy our own right to the same, in the end.

    For Americans or Brazilians or South Africans who want a multicult state, you have chosen your path. Not all people and not all societies will follow your lead. Expect to be held accountable for the principles you claim to represent.

  17. Trumped says:

    Ron Paul was an exception because he had (and the numbers have grown) millions of kids advocating abolishing huge aspects of the state instead of expanding it. Instead of the constant expansion of the state that just about every other republican advocates, Paul was against all the spending and for slashing govt agencies left and right. While true, Ron was not exactly Vdare on immigration – I have personally seen his followers reject what kids that age typically believe about all sorts of traditionally leftist views. His connecting of the drug war with the wars abroad with the welfare state will eventually pay dividends, but I agree not putting a stop to immigration in the short term is not a strong point.

    You may call what Paul said about the drug war “pandering” but I happen to completely agree. Do you think the drug war has been anything other than a disaster? It has resulted in a lot of our civil liberties being destroyed, a police state style militarization of cops, and huge crime and murder rates that are used to justify attacks on the 2nd amendment. He often spoke about the Fed, too – and managed to take an obscure topic and make it very much mainstream. The same Fed that makes possible all of our wars overseas and welfare at home.

    If nothing else, Paul defying worship of Israel and a constant warfare state alone is to be commended. While I agree he was not great on immigration, he wasn’t bad. As someone who is constantly emailing my congressman to vote no on all immigration bills, I actually had the same thought that you attack Paul over. Our govt, the fed, and the dollar are all a giant Ponzi scheme, and the cards will collapse at some point. When it does, I actually can see fences being used to keep middle class and up types away from leaving – who would fund the state then?

    On the whole, I agree with you – too bad Paul is not like Rothbard or Hoppe on immigration. However, he has created a great deal of future allies on most other issues, and I would bet quite a few come over to the Hoppe side of things like I did.

    You may scoff at “only” 50 percent – but I think that stat was pretty amazing considering the way he was trashed every day by the talk radio, neo con websites, mainstream media, and foxnews types. He also showed up in polling consistently as doing the best or second best against Obama for over a year because he polled so well with independents, non voters, and even Dems.

    I think there is something potentially huge to combine Paul and Buchanan into an anti establishment movement – it could certainly draw out non GOP types in droves. I believe something close to that just defeated Eric Cantor tonight in the biggest political upset I have ever seen.

    I still think the old Murray Rothbard strategy of an alliance with Buchanan types and having a middle class revolt is a great idea and could work well with voters.

  18. Unfortunately the defeat of Eric Cantor will not weaken the Israeli lobby. The GOP still competes fiercely with the Dems for the Zionist/Evangelical vote.

    One can understand the attraction of the Zionist position for Jews. But those crazy evangelicals are another thing. Once very anti-Jewish they have become the mainstay of Zionism in America. They prove the old Catholic position: it is dangerous for people to read the Bible without supervision. You can prove anything from the Bible, something which is a reflection on Israel’s past not Israel’s future or our future.

  19. I’ve expected this for decades. With the immigration of so many Muslims into Europe, a new wave of fanatical nativism and racism was to be expected.
    Fascism already exists in Israel.

  20. Why are most of the comments about Israel?

  21. @German_reader

    You are right. Jobbik is not a coalition partner. Strange mistake from prof. Gottfried who seems well informed.

  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The West has not been Judaeo-Christian for a thousand years. Judaeo-Christianity has been a feature of old testament Protestantism but only became a true virus also infecting Catholicism after the Jews won the second world war. Muslims are the symptom of the Jewish disease in Europe. It is the Jews who are bringing the third world in to genocide the indigenous European people who alone among the races stand intellectually in the way of the Jew World Order. Yes, there is a rise in fascism which is an organic response to white genocide and the corruption and destruction of indigenous European families through Jewsmedia and Jewish entertainment corruption and their promotion of feminism, homosexuality and vice. It is the intention of the fascists to expel both the Jews and their 3rd world imports from Europe, and nationalists all across Europe are now dialoguing and preparing for a pan-European war. As to Le Pen she is a contemptible stooge of the Jews.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS