Media Matters devolves into self-parody with "Two Minutes Hate"
I hadn’t watched any of progressive “watchdog” group Media Matters‘ “Two Minutes Hate” series of videos before tonight. At NewsReal we primarily keep an eye on the cable news shows rather than an ear on talk radio.
Out of morbid curiosity, I decided to take a look and see what nuggets of “hate” Media Matters had supposedly unearthed. The clip above features excerpts from such conservative talkers as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs. I’m never really been a regular listener to talk radio — it’s just not my style — but it was honestly quite shocking. Is that really the worst that Media Matters could find? That’s the “hate” that it needed to highlight?
Then I remembered 1984 and what the two-minutes hate was really all about. It’s not that the people in the video are hateful, it’s the people watching the video who are filled with hate. Media Matters must have thought they were being so clever by naming their video series “Two Minutes Hate.” But apparently whoever decided on it never actually read George Orwell’s 1984!
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary:
In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Two Minutes Hate (more properly, “Two Minutes’ Hate” or “Two-Minute Hate”) is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting The Party’s enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them and the principles of democracy.
The film and its accompanying auditory and visual cues (which include a grinding noise that Orwell describes as “of some monstrous machine running without oil”) are a form of brainwashing to Party members, attempting to whip them into a frenzy of hatred and loathing for Emmanuel Goldstein and the current enemy superstate. Apparently, it is not uncommon for those caught up in the hate to physically assault the telescreen, as Julia does during the scene. The film becomes more surreal as it progresses, with Goldstein’s face morphing into a sheep as enemy soldiers advance on the viewers, before one such soldier charges at the screen, machine gun blazing. He morphs, finally, into the face of Big Brother at the end of the two minutes. At the end, the mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausted viewers chant “BB” over and over again, ritualistically.
Media Matters is inviting its viewers to play the role of indoctrinated members of a totalitarian state! And it’s making conservative talk radio hosts the symbols of democracy! The very purpose of the two minutes hate in the novel is to serve as a tool to indoctrinate the masses. What could Media Matters be thinking as it all but imitates the tactics of a satire of a communist party?
It’s now official: Media Matters has completely slipped into a state of self-parody.
you really have no interest in change for the better or the welfare of your fellow countrymen – closed minds are happy minds I guess
The collectivist utopian requires leadership to instruct them what to hate, for how long to hate it and with what intensity. That is what you see here.
The rejection of the utopia by independents is unfathomable and against the collective, hence the hatred.
Voluntary slavery is good for some, but unlike independents they must proliferate their ideology. Collectivists know what’s best for everyone as a whole, but collectivism historically fails.
Heh, beat ya to it!
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d18-Right-Wing-Radio-Week-in-Review-July-1317
Actually the time is long overdue for the supposed “liberal” media to tell the truth about conservatism’s highly authoritarian attitudes, fearful, aggressive personality, and near-delusional self-righteousness they achieve by simply denying they exhibit any shortcomings and projecting their own symptoms onto others.
Because media owners know that the politically ‘conservative’ are extremely sensitive to any criticism whatsoever, and who are also afraid of losing advertising dollars, they have long been silent on the way conservatives carry on their destruction of anything their fearful, violent little minds don’t understand?
But these quotes are from mainstream social and behavioral scientists…which also points out what the real agenda is behind Horowitz’ effort to demonize social scientists.
“Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent”
McClosky, H. (1958). Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45.
“It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development”
Boshier, R. (1983). Education inside, UBC
Hey, Gary: any references from, you know, this actual century?
Titling the series “2 min hate” does, I agree, point out politicians’ penchant for getting it exactly wrong. Another example is Pelosi suggesting that the “Mob” was carrying signs with swastikas, suggesting these were KKK and the like. With her metered outrage, desperately grasping for the appropriate talking point or soundbite, by turns vacuous and vicious, is she “acting stupidly” or just relying on the stupidity of her constituents? Was this a Nazi gathering or an anti-Fascist protest? She distorts – you decide.
Sure. Here’s the forward to “The Authoritarians” , a summary of Dr. Robert Altemeyer’s widely and frequently cited decades studying conservative creepiness .
“The studies explain so much about these people. Yes, the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?”
The Authoritarians (2007)
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Or how about something from the blue-ribbon panel of scientists, assembled from around the world by DHS, and given a mandate to determine from where and what sort of person it is that is most likely to engage in politically motivated violence (terrorism), and who now spend their time (and your tax dollars!) looking almost exclusively at conservatism. (Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein are/were classic right-wing conservatives too, btw)
“A meta-analysis by J. T. Jost, J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski, and F. J. Sulloway (2003) concluded that political conservatism is largely motivated by the management of uncertainty and threat. Medium to large effect sizes describe relations between political conservatism and dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; lack of openness to experience; uncertainty avoidance; personal needs for order, structure, and closure; fear of death; and system threat.”
“(T)he current state of evidence warrants the conclusion that, at least in the general population, right-wing conservatism is positively related to dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity(hence their simplistic, black & white interpretations of life); uncertainty avoidance; exaggerated fears of threat, loss, and death; of system instability; and epistemic needs to achieve order, structure, and closure, as well as negatively related to openness to experience, integrative complexity, and (to a lesser extent) self-esteem. This does not mean that liberals crave uncertainty and risk, but they do seem to be less troubled by them and less preoccupied with their management in comparison with conservatives.”
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/conservatism.html
And that’s just a warm-up. I’ve got tons of quotes and clips that would so thoroughly embarrass personalities having normal levels of self-awareness that it would be rare to hear anyone even admit to their conservatism, nevertheless state it proudly.
Moral equivalency. Terrorists = Conservative Americans. Jews = dirty, rat infested ghettos, cause of hyper inflation……sound familiar? Classic leftist revolutionary ploy. You can’t escape the collective and you will not convert independents to the collective ideology quoting “science” from the collective.
For those who would like to know. The above quoted “study” was authored an article that identified Stalin, Castro and Khrushchev as conservatives……
Gary is dishonestly conflating the terms Conservative and Authoritarian when they are not the same thing at all. Conservatism used to be called Liberalism before crypto-Marxists stole that term and twisted it into the grotesque caricature of its true meaning we see today.
Mr. Williams actually quotes the Jost study??!! I remember when that thing came out. I read the papers released at the time.
Those people come out of the Frankfurt School. Their arguments are completely false.
Responding to the criticisms of the “meta-analysis” at the time, the authors put out a short paper that basically said that the criticisms themselves were proof of the original paper’s thesis.
Jost’s, et. al., “scholarship” is a big fat joke.
IIRC, Adorno put out a book himself about “right-wing authoritarianism”.
Gary Williams is a “great” mathematician — he can count to two. There are two kinds of people: conservatives and liberals — what a crock of simplified nonsense! I haven’t seen any liberal who agrees on what another liberal swears is the essence of liberalism. I’ve seen “liberals” chanting “Kill the Jews” in peace marches, and I’ve seen “liberals” who get upset when they step on an ant. I know a “conservative” fellow who is strongly against abortion and I know a self-avowed “conservative” who carefully vetted a list of doctors to find a good one to terminate his daughter’s pregnancy and didn’t consider that a violation of conservative principles at all. I have taught at university (for instance, statistics) and know a lot of professors. Any professor who makes up a list of questions to sort people into two categories like “cons” and “libs” is a statistical illiterate, I don’t care how many papers he has published that were peer reviewed by other mathematical illiterates.
Did you even read the article? If you did, that post is the most perfect “1984″ response one could dream up. You’re like a loyal citizen from the book turning on someone who wasn’t brainwashed anymore. Maybe you enjoy the ‘hate’ sessions too much???
This mind is always wide open.
I’ve read your stuff Swindle. Your belief that you have an open mind is part of the delusion your subconscious uses to convince you of the veracity of your beliefs and of the reality of the threat that you and others with the syndrome fear is all around you.
How much of me have you actually read Gary? Why don’t you send me an email and actually get to know me a bit first before coming to such hasty judgments.
Pardon my grammatical error. “was authored by a psychology professor that penned….
Haha! Well done Kathy. I think it says something that we both arrived at the same argument completely independent of one another.
Whose conservatism are you talking about? Because I don’t recognize this one. It seems a conservative strawman for the Left to easily refute.
Not all conservatives are authoritarians. There’s a vibrant tradition of libertarianism within the conservative movement. And the Freedom Center is one of the manifestations of this tradition.
You are a brainwashed dimwit as is obvious by your reading choices.
There. Is that hateful and aggressive enough for ya?
Did he? Well, could you please leave a link to the version that states this. The Social psychology professor’s “article” that I’m quoting doesn’t even mention Castro or Kruschev throughout the entire 250+ pages of the e-book I’m quoting. Stalin is mentioned once , and that comes in this context as a footnote: “The people of Russia and other Communist-controlled European countries made it clear how evil they thought the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist dictatorships were. But in the context of this study, I think you can point out instances in which both sides invaded neighbors to control their international allegiance, lied to their own people and to the world, made disarmament proposals for public relations purposes on the world stage, and so on. And when their government did such things, the authoritarian followers in both countries tended to believe and support them more than others did.” (pg. 50, Altemeyer, The Authoritarians)
You should learn to discriminate between totalitarian rulers and the socialist/capitalist economies in which they are found. Both communist and capitalist governments have seen leaders who have also been totalitarians. But just as you will agree that capitalism doesn’t always produced dictators, neither do socialist policies (or even outright socialist governments eg. Norway) necessarily produce totalitarian dictatorships.
Can you give me an example in history of “Capitalistic Totalitarianism?”
Nazism. Pinochet, apartheid S. Afrika, Samoza, Amin, Noriega, Shah of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, The Saud royal family, the Bin Laden family, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. etc. etc. … (btw, this tendency to not be able to see how bad people can be capable of adopting /some/good policies, to see degrees of good and bad in the same people or policies, is exactly what is meant by a “fear of ambiguity, need for certainty” in the conservative mindset. )
And no!…Save the “fascism is actually left-wing” meme for the authoritarian dimwits who latch onto anything said in an authoritative manner that also sounds like it fits in with their own preconceptions. Because you, as an authoritarian, have a tendency to believe anyone who comes along and who sounds |to you| like they might know what they are talking about. That’s all that is required for a RWA to adopt a belief equating the left with Hitler. This despite Mussolini — the man who deveoped fascism into full-blown ideaology — having started his career as a left-leaning socialist (and so knows what he’s talking about when he uses the word) but who later went on to viciously denounce socialism once he aquired a modicum of personal power. He stated… for the record (Fascism’s 1932 entry into an Italian encyclopedia) …that “Fascism is the precise opposite of socialism”.
Besides, if Nazism is left-wing (a fallacy that nonetheless seems extremely popular with extreme right-wing Zionist propagandists — for reasons that should be obvious ), then why did Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco ALL target socialists for death starting early in each’s career? Why do they all denounce socialism/communism using words and ( at least in Hitlers case) accusations otherwise reserved only for Judiasm and Jews?
And in point of fact, most political scientists (like 99%) will tell you that fascism’s occurence in Europe at that specific time came about as an extreme reaction AGAINST the increasing popularity of socialism among regular people. This assault was spearheaded by European elites who feared they would meet the same end as the Romanov’s (for the same reasons) , should an ideaology stressing more equitable wealth distribution come to be accepted by Europeans with the same zeal as did the Russian peasantry.
And btw. The “Socialist” in the acronym used by Hitler for his Nazi party, the NSDAP, was merely his way of attempting to capture the votes of some of politically unsophisticated Germans early on during the (democratic) Weimar Republic. Hitlers use of the term “socialist” was no more honest than the communists later use of “Democratic” when naming East Berlin the “GDR” (or Canada’s “Progressive” Conservative Party, Congo’s “Democratic” Republic, etc. etc. ).
No, conservatism was never confused with liberalism. What you are conflating is the term “liberal” when used in the context of ‘ liberal capitalism’ . The term is still widely used in Australia tho it’s losing poularity most everywhere else and for obvious reasons.
As for conflating conservatism with authoritarianism, scales used to measure a person’s conservatism corellate with those that measure authoritarianism at an astoundingly high rate of r=.83. Even Ray, about the only person with the neccesary qualifications to criticise all the work from Adorno thru Altemeyer confirming what I report here, came up with his own scale to measure conservatism in individuals. But guess what? His own scale correlated with Altemeyers RWA scale at r= .80!
In short, what this means is that his own scale, one he designed to give more prominence to what his own perception of what makes up a conservatives (himself being far-right wing), is measuring much the same thing and in the very same people. Through his own efforts to deny who he was, Ray wound up confirming Altemeyer’s research.
Yeah? And how many times have you been pubished in peer-reviewed journals?
Why Kruglanski, Jost, Altemeyer, and all the rest bother quoting Ray’s predictably assasine criticisms in their work is tendency I wouldn’t give “him” the time of day for.
Btw. WTF does the Frankfurt school (of economics!) got to do with the stacks of research being done since ww2 by thousands of social psychologists looking into the personality type that blindly follows men like Hitler, bizarrely believing that “following orders” should aquit them of all responsibility for the Holocaust (the vast majority of whom were/are…guess who? Thats right. Gullible authoritarians being led by SDO leaders, hence the fatal “RWA-SDO embrace” as it’s come to be called. (Horowitz being a classic SDO, btw)
Which also explains their being hired by DHS, even if the wingnut portion of the political field is too ignorant to know what’s going on all around them.
Mr. williams,
I suggest you read “the Ominous Parallels” by Peikoff for the explanation why the NSDAP were left-wing totalitarian fascists.
AFA why Hitler’s regime killed socialists, it was for a struggle of power.
Y’know, I read some of altemeyer’s paper you linked to. Specifically, I took his RWA test.
His test is fatally flawed. He begged the questions for a predetermined outcome and then weighted the scale toward the outcome.
If this is an example of serious “scholarship” than KEith Olbermann is an objective reporter.
Sorry. You have no credibility.
I have been published in peer reviewed journals, but not in this field. I hold two “hard science” degrees.
What are YOUR credentials?
Really? Then please explain how the 10 questions a liberal would score highly, and 10 that a conservative would score more highly, with each being a fair representaion of the differences in the way each sees, apparently don’t apply to each.
Or perhaps you don’t agree that these next are views more authoritarian, conservative personalities would answer positively:
___ . Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
___ . It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds
__ . The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
___ . Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
___ . The “old-fashioned ways†and the “old-fashioned values†still show the best way to live.
___ . What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path.
___ . God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
___ . There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ . Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples†who are ruining everything.
___ . This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s traditional place in society.
And these are the ones a liberal would score more highly:
__ . Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ . Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
___ . There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
___ . Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.
___ . Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
___ . You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting
for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
___ . Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.â€
___ . A “woman’s place†should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
__. There is no “ONE right way†to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ . Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Explain why you don’t agree that these questions don’t adequately capture some of the basic differences in outlook between the two .
Or are you now going “Damn! I should have at least read the thing before mouthing off with my preconceptions about any scientist who would dare to link authoritarian followers with the people who staffed Treblinka etc. or authoritarian leaders with the people who ordered the camps built.” Please explain to me how it was really liberals who did it all.
Be happy to. I don’t accept your premise.
“Then please explain how the 10 questions a liberal would score highly, and 10 that a conservative would score more highly, with each being a fair representaion of the differences in the way each sees, apparently don’t apply to each.”
The RWA “test” questions Altemeyer puts forth are not at all a “fair representation” of differences between conservatives and liberals.
The conservatives I know are pro-freedom and very limited government.
Your questions that “Or perhaps you don’t agree that these next are views more authoritarian, conservative personalities would answer positively:” begs the question that conservatives want increased control to force their morality on everyone else.
In almost all cases (abortion, stem cell research, and pornography being the exceptions) conservatives REJECT increased control. It is the Left that wants to shut people up. Look at what some of Obama’s Czars are spouting (Mark Lloyd, the unlamented Van Jones) about mandating localism in broadcasts, etc. A backhanded way of Big Brotherism.
I read enough of Altemeyer’s paper to know it is a crock of excrement.
And, you, sir, don’t know what true conservatism is. Your ignorance is glaring. Get rid of your stereotypes.
Liberalism really is an infantile mental disorder. Sheesh!
“In almost all cases (abortion, stem cell research, and pornography being the exceptions) conservatives REJECT increased control. It is the Left that wants to shut people up. ”
First, why are liberals called “liberal? It’s because they have a liberal attitude toward what themselves and others can say and do. That’s the definition of the word liberal, not conservative. That’s not my definition alone as you’ll find something very similar in any *objective* encyclopedia or reference text.
Where we draw the line is in tolerating ours or anothers actions that stand a good chance of bringing harm to someone. That includes tolerating corporate behaviors that are designed solely to maximise profits while avoiding any liability for those killed during the sleazy way they chose to go about it (blood diamonds, kicking sick people off health insurance, etc. ), or tricks used to ensure information that reveals dangerous cost-cutting measures taken never sees the light of day —- or tolerating their imposition of unneccesary fees on a public who must deal with them regardless because they know they’re the only ones providing an essential service.
We draw the line between tolerance of corporate misbehavior and tolerance of personal behaviors that hurts no one else. We don’t want to be complicit in allowing them to harm real people simply to make wealthy people even wealthier. Conservatives seem to almost rejoice in stories of sleazy deals that landed shareholders a tidy profit! Repeatedly you blame the victims slaughtered by multi-national corps should theyhave he temerity to stand up against a corp who’s paying off some dictator to arrest anyone who agitates for more than a nickel an hour. Heil to your corporate masters! ” Did you know Mussolini also said that the perfect fascist state was one where the industrial and political ruling class are one and the same? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!”
The only thing conservatives are liberal with is their desire to let the wealthiest, most powerful people on the planet do whatever they want without any oversight watching to see if they’re making extra cash by killing people with poison dumps sites, poorly monitored meat products, cars that blow up on impact, etc,.etc. This is the “neo-liberalism” that libertarians have created a religion around. What else can you call an “invisible had” that somehow watches over businessmen making sure they act in ethical ways that maximise the most “good” to everyone involved ….at least as long as no-one watches them!
Well, isn’t that convenient…. It’s criminally irresponsible IMO.
But the oversight conservatives do want is laws on behaviors they don’t agree with, (homosexuality, strippers, pot smokers, noise violators, public drunkeness, private drug use, pornography, graphic violence , etc. etc. ) If conservatives are so liberal, then why are so most cops hard-core conservatives? Go take a look at one of their chat forums. Same for prison guards, and career soldiers.
Who is it that is constantly howling for politicians to crack down harder on crime and criminals, a trend in America that has seen a TEN-FOLD increase in the prison population since the 80s, yet without anywhere near even a simple doubling of crime rates? IOW, who is sending all he people to jail for things that wouldn’t have got them much if any time 30 years ago? Liberals? I don’t think so, Bubba.
And who was behind alcohol Prohibition until that disaster was quashed by saner minds, and who lobbied hard to retain prohibition on any drug that didn’t benifit Big Pharma? Who is resisting efforts to smash the drug cartels using the same tactic that eventually took away La Cosa Nostra’s main source of income, albeit far to late to smash the org itself. Conservatives did, do, and will continue to do so for no better reason than to act out a pathological need to maintain the staus quo (can’t be surprised by unknown threats if nothing changes, right?).
No no. You are all for tolerating your own desires and wants, but if they offend your own sense of morality, you can’t wait for the cops to show up and rid you of the horrible experience you have whenever you know that others are enjoying themselves doing something you consider perverse. Somehow you have taken reality and flipped it completely upside down in your desperation to not be what you yourselves have always admitted to in the past. Burke-ian conservatism (athe truly intellectual ideaology) no longer exists in America, but has given way to the uneducated, mean, excuse making form that Linden LaRouche, John Birch Society espouse. It’s now merely a widespread social neurosis, with nothing that Buckley would recognise as an ideology. Your attempts to change the meaning of words, making conservatives into tolerant liberals while trying to say that liberalism contains a desire to force others to obey their dictates, to not enjoy freedom of choice, to make liberty a bad thing…is all the very definition of Orwell’s “Newspeak” —turning words upside down so they come to mean the opposite of what they once did. The effort to move fascism over to the left is a prime example of Newspeak. Find me one respected (Websters, Encyc-Britan eg) reference text that agrees with that assertion. Should be easy for such a smart man showing his knowledgeable insights on a poor, misinformed liberal biologist/mycologist, no?
Apparently you only skimmed the title yourself. I just spent a few hours reading reviews, synopsis, and his own words at his website, and the book has very little to do anything that might explainwhy nazism and socialism are left-wing idealogies.
Instead, it seems to be preocupied with making the case that fascism is on the rise in America, a notion he got while noticing the similiraities between the nature-loving youth movements of *pre-nazi* Germany…and the hippy movement of the 60’s. The leap in logic is stupendous and speaks directly to the “fringe” status he has among real intellectuals.
Did you not know his advisor is a prominent Marxist? Perhaps you should have, huh.
Righhhht…. Hitler so frightened of his fellow socialists that he took to rebidly denouncing HIS OWN IDEALOGY…this while assasinating, imprisoning and torturing anyone who shared his idealogical beliefs.
You have any comprehenson of how convoluted and downright bizarre this assertion comes across as? You have single-handedly redefined the phrase “pretzel logic”. Wow.
Ahh.. I see. So basically what you’re saying is that an attack by an Israeli kabbutzim on a Pali farmer shoudbe easily explained away as the kind of behaviour we should expect from those who were raised and spent their lives in any of the scores of collectivist, socialist, yes..even Marxist kabbutz that were established in Palestine before statehood was even realised!
Dozens of experimental farms, schools and industrial set-ups that try to work out the bumps and surprises of people living in non-competitive, sharing arrangements. And who have since produced many of Israel’s finest military commanders, intellectuals, artists, etc. , a people whose presenceis so much a part of the Israeli fabric that the headwear and tanned skin that are seen so frequently among these hard-working, collectivists has now become the very image the world now sees as being what the archetypical Israeli probably looks like.
No. have no beef with these people myself. But if you want to call them the same names and insults you throw at non-Zionist left-wingers, then you just go right ahead and fill your boots there, dim one.
Let me put it in terms you’re familiar with: There’s Marching Morons….and then there’s the rest of us.
Hmmm, “frightened” of his own “fellow socialists”?
You’ve heard of the Night of the Long Knives, yes?