@Serg97 @Sensrhim4hizvewz @Krunoslav @Terence57

I can't think of any instance of a war between 2 Jewish states.

In 1938 Germany, one could imagine that the German mainstream media was hostile to Jews. One can imagine that the media attacked anyone who defended Jews.

Today, anyone who defends whites is attacked. Recipe for genocide.

In Germany, there were people who attacked Jews and felt morally superior. After the war, they were disgraced. They had to admit that moral superiority can cause you to commit genocide.

We need a Hall of Shame to identify anyone who attacks whites. Put them on record.

Leftists want apartheid, with non-whites above and whites below. Leftists are slavers. They're building plantations.

Leftists justify attacking whites by calling whites Nazis. That's a sure sign that leftists are the Nazis.

@jaymaron "I can't think of any instance of a war between 2 Jewish states."

There is a lot to unpack there to even begin any kind of talk about it, since what is a Jew , what is a Jewish state etc is quite complicated thing, historically. Many names are used. Some descriptive some accusations.

The whole story of the promised land, and variety of names and long history of area where today is Israel and Palestine, and why it is what it is, requires very long explanation. I'll just post few links to expand on that instead. But worth mentioning is that there is little change all involved in conflicts will ever agree on what is what and who has rights to what. Its been like this for thousands of years. I doubt will see a change of that trend anytime soon.

Judaea region, Middle East
[britannica.com]

Palestine vs. Israel as the Name of the Holy Land
[levitt.com]

Israel, read HISTORY section: [encyclopedia.com]

Palestine - [encyclopedia.com]

Holy Land - [encyclopedia.com]

....and there is much more I cannot cover here. But history spans thousands of years and its very complicated.

Before premise of your question / statement can be validated , one would have to agree on the premise itself.

@Krunoslav

Yes, this needs expansion.

In ancient times, there may have been wars. In modern times, there are no Jew vs. Jew wars. One can identify a cutoff date after which there were no wars.

@jaymaron "In 1938 Germany, one could imagine that the German mainstream media was hostile to Jews. One can imagine that the media attacked anyone who defended Jews."

That was a general trend yes, similar to what we saw with "vac v anti-vax" concepts in the last few years, it gives people insights into how it started and developed, and how media and propaganda played a major role. However it also points out that, it was more important to have a label than anything else. No one asked what other values or interest or loyalties so called anti vax people have anymore than they asked what was labeled a jew. In fact Germany authorities under Nazi party could not even tell who was a Jew or who was not. So they had to use pseudo scientific methods and paperwork rather than visual identification. This led to all kinds of deceptions on both sides. Some were Jews and served as Nazi party members and even potentially high ranking officers, and some were simply able to sign away their "Jewishness" by signing a piece of paper .

“All Nazi champions insist again and again that Marxism and Bolshevism are the quintessence of the Jewish mind, and that it is the great historic mission of Nazism to root out this pest. It is true that this attitude did not prevent the German nationalists either from coöperating with the German communists in undermining the Weimar Republic, or from training their black guards in Russian artillery and aviation camps in the years 1923–1933, or— in the period from August, 1939, until June, 1941—from entering into a close political and military complicity with Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, public opinion supports the view that Nazism and Bolshevism are philosophies—Weltanschauungen—implacably opposed to each other.” ― Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government

“Caution in handling generally accepted opinions that claim to explain whole trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times, because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.” ― A.R. Moxon

“Malice lies dormant in all of us and anyone who knows how to exploit it, how to turn it sharply in one direction can hope for an echo.” ― Golo Mann

“As far as the Jews were concerned, the transformation of the "crime" of Judaism into the fashionable "vice" of Jewishness was dangerous in the extreme. Jews had been able to escape from Judaism into conversion; from Jewishness there was no escape. A crime, moreover, is met with punishment; a vice can only be exterminated.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

We have seen the same level of dehumanization and persicution against those who opposed the orthodoxy. And weather its NAZI party, Bolsheviks or Rainbow free loving degenerate pedophiles it is a fallacy to focus on emotional response and think that the problem is skin color or something similar. It is not. Its just a tool. Divide and conquer.

I’m Just Doing My Job! Australians Cops Use Same Excuses As Nazi Guards | You Are Here

An Australian officer was caught on camera at a protest telling someone he was just “doing his job” by depriving his countrymen of their rights. Sydney Watson cannot believe what’s going on in Australia and has no patience for anyone trying to excuse this behavior.

In Switzerland and Germany they divided people with masks vs those with no masks just like Jews and non Jews. But while wearing a mask and being a jew has nothing in common, dividing people on invented accusations and forced orthodoxy remains the same, and we need to focus on that aspect of it. Not Jewishness, skin color or something like that.

“There is no word in the English language that gets thrown around more freely by people who don’t know what it means than “fascism.” Indeed, the more someone uses the word “fascist” in everyday conversation, the less likely it is that he knows what he’s talking about.

Unlike classical liberalism, which saw the government as a necessary evil, or simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole. left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone “evolve.”

The Nazis played the same games against Jews that today’s left plays against 'Eurocentrism,' 'whiteness,' and 'logocentrism.' When you hear a campus radical denounce 'white logic' or 'male logic,' she is standing on the shoulders of a Nazi who denounced 'Jewish logic' and the 'Hebrew disease'...The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism.

If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

We tend to forget that unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink. Rampaging mobs are unified. The Mafia is unified. Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments.

Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always antiliberal. Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality. For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises—of class, nation, or race—and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate.

In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.

American Progressivism—the moralistic social crusade from which modern liberals proudly claim descent—is in some respects the major source of the fascist ideas applied in Europe by Mussolini and Hitler.

Given the benefit of hindsight, it’s difficult to understand why anyone doubts the fascist nature of the French Revolution. Few dispute that it was totalitarian, terrorist, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist. It produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon, and worked on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who would serve as the authentic, organic voice of the “general will.”

The paranoid Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some fifty thousand people ultimately died in the Terror, many in political show trials that Simon Schama describes as the “founding charter of totalitarian justice.” Robespierre summed up the totalitarian logic of the Revolution: “There are only two parties in France: the people and its enemies. We must exterminate those miserable villains who are eternally conspiring against the rights of man…[W]e must exterminate all our enemies.

Fascism’s success almost always depends on the cooperation of the “losers” during a time of economic and technological change. The lower-middle classes—the people who have just enough to fear losing it—are the electoral shock troops of fascism (Richard Hofstadter identified this “status anxiety” as the source of Progressivism’s quasi-fascist nature). Populist appeals to resentment against “fat cats,” “international bankers,” “economic royalists,” and so on are the stock-in-trade of fascist demagogues.

Progressivism, liberalism, or whatever you want to call it has become an ideology of power. So long as liberals hold it, principles don’t matter. It also highlights the real fascist legacy of World War I and the New Deal: the notion that government action in the name of “good things” under the direction of “our people” is always and everywhere justified.

Only because so many were determined to label fascism right-wing that populism under Mussolini was redefined as such. After all, the notion that political power is and should be vested in the people was a classical liberal position. Populism was a more radical version of this position. It’s still a “power to the people” ideology,

Fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact—an inconvenient truth if there ever was one—is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space.

In his unintentionally chilling 1890 essay, Leaders of Men, Wilson explained that the “true leader” uses the masses like “tools.” He must not traffic in subtleties and nuance, as literary men do. Rather, he must speak to stir their passions, not their intellects. In short, he must be a skillful demagogue.

― Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

@jaymaron
“The postmodern left gets its particular brand of egalitarianism from the New Left of the 1960s. It was then that neo-Marxism and other radical movements transformed the radical politics of America into something entirely new. The focus shifted from economics to culture. Old Marxist categories of class conflict were picked up and transformed into struggles over racial and gender identity and sexual politics.”

“Racial stereotyping. For Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders, the sin of white racism was stereotyping all black people as inferior. It was a prejudice to be sure, but it was predicated on the assumption that all blacks were the same. King objected to stereotyping because he wanted blacks to be treated as individuals and not reduced exclusively to their racial identity (hence the meaning of his famous statement about the content of one's character taking precedence over the color of one's skin).

The postmodern left turns the civil rights model on its head. It embraces racial stereotyping -- racial identity by any other name -- and reverses it, transforming it into something positive, provided the pecking order of power is kept in place. In the new moral scheme of racial identities, black inferiority is replaced by white culpability, rendering the entire white race, with few exceptions, collectively guilty of racial oppression. The switch is justified through the logic of racial justice, but that does not change the fact that people are being defined by their racial characteristic. Racism is viewed as structural, so it is permissible to use overtly positive discrimination (i.e., affirmative action) to reorder society.

This end-justifies-the-means mentality of course predates the postmodern left. It can be found in the doctrine of affirmative action. But the racial theorists of identity politics have taken "positive" discrimination to a whole new level. Whereas affirmative action was justified mainly in terms of trying to give disadvantaged blacks a temporary leg up, the racial theorists of the postmodern left see corrective action as permanent. The unending struggle that ensues necessitates acceptance of a new type of racial stereotyping as a way of life and increasingly as something that needs to be enshrined in administrative regulations and the law.

The idea of positive stereotyping contains all sorts of illiberal troublemaking. Once one race is set up as victim and another as guilty of racism, any means necessary are permitted to correct the alleged unjust distribution of power. Justice becomes retaliatory rather than color blind -- a matter of vengeance rather than justice. The notion of collective racial guilt, once a horror to liberal opinion, is routinely accepted today as the true mark of a progressive. Casualties are not only King's dream of racial harmony but also the hope that someday we can all -- blacks and whites -- rise above racial stereotypes.”

“Being accused of microaggression can be a harrowing experience. Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather Mac Donald relates in City Journal how an incident got out of hand at the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2013. Professor Emeritus Val Rust taught a dissertation preparation seminar in which arguments often erupted among students, such as over which victim ideologies deserved precedence. In one such discussion, white feminists were criticized for making "testimonial-style" claims of oppression to which Chicana feminists felt they were not entitled. In another, arguments over the political implications of word capitalization got out of hand. In a paper he returned to a student, Rust had changed the capitalization of "indigenous" to lowercase as called for in the Chicago Manual Style. The student felt this showed disrespect for her point of view. During the heated discussion that followed, Professor Rust leaned over and touched an agitated student's arm in a manner, Rust claims, that was meant to reassure and calm him down. It ignited a firestorm instead. The student, Kenjus Watston, jerked his arm away from Rust as if highly offended. Later, he and other "students of color", accompanied by reporters and photographers from UCLA's campus newspaper, made a surprise visit to Rust's classroom and confronted him with a "collective statement of Resistance by Graduate Students of Color". Then the college administration got involved. Dean Marcelo Suarez-Orozco sent out an e-mail citing "a series of troubling racial climate incidents" on campus, "most recently associated with [Rust's class]".

Administrative justice was swift. Professor Rust was forced to teach the remainder of his class with three other professors, signaling that he was no longer trusted to teach "students of color". When Rust tried to smooth things over with another student who had criticized him for not apologizing to Watson, he reached out and touched him in a gesture of reconciliation. Again it backfired. That student filed criminal charges against Rust, who was suspended for the remainder of the academic year. As if to punctuate the students' victory and seal the professor's humiliation, UCLA appointed Watson as a "student researcher" to the committee investigating the incident. Watson turned the publicity from these events into a career, going on to codirect the Intergroup Dialogue Program at Occidental College in Los Angeles. As for the committee report, it recommended that UCLA create a new associate dean for equity and enhance the faculty's diversity training program.

It was a total victory for the few students who had acted like bullies and the humiliating end of a career for a highly respected professor. It happened because the university could not appear to be unsympathetic to students who were, in the administration's worldview, merely following the university's official policies of diversity and multiculturalism.”

“University Life" bureaucrats are teaching the next generation of young Americans that the First Amendment is not a guarantee of constitutional rights; it is a potential weapon that can be wielded against one's enemies in the social justice wars.”

“Double-Standard Bigotry. It is not uncommon within progressive circles to find the assumption that certain kinds of people are less equal than others. White people are assumed to be racist, for example, and they must be watched closely lest they abuse their position of power at the expense of people of color. This viewpoint is so common today that even mainstream liberals like Hillary Clinton buy into it. It is most often true for black-white relations, but the double standard extends into other areas as well. Jews, for example, are often accused of bias on matters in the Middle East, while Arabs and Muslims, occupying the morally advantageous position of victimhood, are not. It is so natural to slice the world into privileged and underprivileged groups that no one longer gives a second thought to the fact that a man would never be invited to lead a woman's organization. By the same token, a black caucus in Congress is welcome but a white caucus would be dismissed out of hand as racist. The double standard is tolerated because it is seen in and of itself as a form of corrective justice. But the fact remains that it is validating a double standard of bigotry, no matter how benign the intentions may be.”

“It can be astonishing how far some colleges will go to enforce ideological discipline. For example, at the City University of New York's Hunter College School of Social Work, Devorah Goldman was approached by a professor after class one day who quietly informed her, "I can't have you participate in class anymore". The offense? Opinions she expressed in class were contrary to school's guidelines -- the same ones established by CSWE. Emily Brooker, a Christian student at Missouri State University's School of Social Work (also accredited by CSWE), was asked in 2006 by her professor to sign a letter to the legislature in favor of adoption by homosexuals. When she refused she was interrogated for two and a half hours by the school's ethics committee and charged with a "Level Three Grievance", which is the most severe penalty. Fearing the loss of her degree, Brooker eventually relented and signed a contract promising to "close the gap" between her religious views and the values of the social work professor.

There is no way to sugarcoat how bad this is for our society. It is thought control pure and simple. And it is systemic. It is not merely lack of grace on the part of a few muddle-minded professors, but the corruption of our institutions of higher learning.”

“As existentialists as Jean-Paul Sarte learned, radical individualism can be a dead end for social justice. It is not easy to establish a coherent ideology of social justice based solely on the radical freedom of the individual. Unlike Sarte, who eventually escaped into Marxism, postmodernist philosophers reject communism. But they do find refuge in the New Left, in which Marx's old economic class warfare has been replaced with identity-cultural warfare. This transformation gives them a way out of the individualist-relativist trap in which they found themselves. Instead of the proletariat, it is now cultural identity groups that are being oppressed. It is not workers but races, women, and ethnic and sexual minorities who are the new revolutionaries. Unlike classic Marxists, for whom class consciousness is a social phenomenon economically determined, identity theorists define it as a psychological phenomenon manifested in the culture. Identity solidarity is the equivalent of class consciousness, only it has no objective foundation, economic or otherwise, other than the perception of mutual grievance based on identity.”

“If artificial order on civilization is with brute force. The only way to make something unnatural appear to be natural is to force everyone to think alike.”

“The popular culture has also lowered the threshold on public shaming rituals. It is not only suppressing certain speech on college campuses, but making public denunciation of certain classes of people into a form of popular entertainment. The masters of the funny cheap shot are comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who routinely and cleverly skewer conservatives as stupid bigots. After the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, for example, Stewart asked what was wrong with opponents of same-sex marriage, as if a view held for thousands of years, even not very long ago by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were incomprehensible. The use of humor is a cultural trick. It provides a cultural permission slip to be nasty because, or so the assumption goes, the enemies of "the people" are so unattractive that they deserve whatever Stewart or Colbert throws at them. When Stewart compares Senator Ted Cruz to the Harry Potter character Voldemort, he knows we will then think of Cruz as the book's author describes Voldemort, "a raging psychopath, devoid of the normal human responses to other people's suffering".

It may seem futile to complain about the crudeness of American mass culture. It has been around for decades, and it is not about to change anytime soon. The thin line that exists these days between politics and entertainment (witness the rise of Donald Trump) is undoubtedly coarsening our politics. It is becoming more culturally acceptable to split the world into us-versus-them schemata and to indulge in all sorts of antisocial and illiberal fantasies about crushing one's enemies.

Only a few decades ago most liberals had a different idea of tolerance. Most would explain it with some variation of Evelyn Beatrice Hall's line about Voltaire's philosophy of free speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That is no longer the case. It is now deemed necessary, indeed even noble, to be intolerant in the cause of tolerance. Any remark or viewpoint that liberals believe is critical of minorities is by definition intolerant. A liberal critique of conservatives or religious people, on the other hand, is, again by definition, incapable of being intolerant. It is a willful double standard. For liberals, intolerance is a one-way street leading straight to conservatism.”

“When most people think of intolerance, they imagine a racist taunting a black person. Or they may envision a male chauvinist hurling bigoted insults at women. It seldom occurs to them that intolerance comes in all political shapes and sizes. A protester storming a stage and refusing to let someone speak is intolerant. So, too, are campus speech codes that restrict freedom of expression. A city official threatening to fine a pastor for declining to marry a gay couple is every bit as intolerant as a right-winger wanting to punish gays with sodomy laws. Intolerance exists on the right and the left. It knows no exclusive political or ideological affiliation. It happens any time someone uses some form of coercion, either through government fiat or public shaming rituals, to restrict open debate and forcefully eliminate opponents from the playing field.”

“Practically every radical cause in America today shows the influence of this postmodernist assault. From radical feminism to racial and sexual politics, postmodern leftists blend their unique brand of cultural criticism with the political objectives of these movements. In their intellectual laboratories -- the cultural studies and humanities programs at American universities -- they apply theories of structuralism, poststructuralism, and deconstructualism to achieving the political objectives of the New Left. The results are a cornucopia of identity theories promising perfect diversity. They include radical multiculturalism, critical race theory, African-American criticism, feminist theory, gender and transgender theories, gay and "queer" theories, Latino studies, media "criticism", postcolonial studies, and indigenous cultural studies, to mention only a few. The latest identity cause to add to the list is the "neurodiversity" movement in which, as its supporters put it, autism, "ought to be treated not as a scourge to be eradicated but rather as a difference to be understood and accepted". All adversity, even that which is biologically inherited, can be wiped away by simply adjusting one's attitudes.”

“The French Revolution gave history its first instance of modern leftist illiberalism -- an embrace of tyranny in the name of the people. All the symptoms were there: the use of coercion against the individual in the name of the public good; a fierce close-mindedness and the suppression of dissent; the appeal to romanticized, utopian myths to justify ruthless acts in the name of "the people"; and a complete rejection of the moderate Enlightenment's respect for narrowly defined (largely negatively defined) individual rights and the rule of law. Over 40,000 people were executed in less than a year during the Terror, some 17,000 by the guillotine. Tyrants had existed for millennia before the French Revolution, but what made the new dictators in Paris different, and historically dangerous, was that they committed their illiberal acts in the name of liberalism itself.”

“Jefferson's ambivalence toward the French Revolution matters. As a key founder of the American republic, he bridges the moderate and radical Enlightenments. He tried to have it both ways. At times he was a fire-breathing radical. At others, as a U.S. minister to France for example, he was a cool voice counseling constitutional monarchy for France. Given his later views about desolating "half the earth" for the republican cause, he might have been expected to take a more radical position. But in practice he did not. Instead, as American minister he advised the French revolutionaries to "secure what the [French] government was now ready to yield" -- namely, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, habeas corpus, and a representative legislature, because "with the exercise of these powers they would obtain in [the] future whatever might be further necessary to improve and preserve their constitution". Jefferson was a pragmatist when he had to be. His rhetoric was sometimes bloodthirsty, but as a government official -- as minister to France, governor of Virginia, secretary of state, and as president -- he never indulged himself in bloody purges of violence.”

“[W]hat is historically new is the alliance with the cultural left. Back in the 1960s, many economically minded New Deal liberals and even socialists wanted nothing to do with the cultural warriors of the New Left, thinking them shallow and feckless. No more. There is today not much distance between the postmodern cultural leftists and the democratic socialists like [Bernie] Sanders who want to focus mainly on economics. The two sides can run afoul of each other, as Sanders did at a Netroots Nation conference in July 2015 when black activists shouted him off the stage. But these disputes have more to do with different priorities than with ideological divisions. Philosophically there is not much daylight between Sanders and the hard-core cultural warriors of the post-modern left. The same is true for Hillary Clinton. She, in fact, tries to appeal to both sides at the same time. She sells herself not only as a postmodernist feminist candidate who will be the first female president of the United States, but as a classic fighter for the economically downtrodden. The fusion has been the strength of her candidacy, because is represents the broadest appeal to all the constituents of the Democratic Party.”

― Kim R. Holmes, The Closing of the Liberal Mind: The New Illiberalism's Assault on Freedom

@jaymaron Socialism in the French People’s State

Besides nationalism, the people’s state stimulates yet another kind of belligerent, avaricious, and collectivist spirit: what Karl Marx called “class consciousness.” In Revolutionary France, just as nationalism drove foreign international warfare, class consciousness drove domestic class warfare.

In political theory and particularly Marxism, class consciousness is the set of beliefs that a person holds regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their class interests. According to Karl Marx, it is an awareness that is key to sparking a revolution that would "create a dictatorship of the proletariat, transforming it from a wage-earning, property-less mass into the ruling class"

Policies like the General Maximum and the plundering of rural peasants to feed the urban proletariat were implemented by the Jacobins in order to appease the working class sans-culottes, who flexed the strength of their numbers both through street mobs and voting.

In the new people’s state, “partial plunder” was replaced by what Bastiat called “universal plunder.”

For even more radical revolutionaries, Rousseauian equality demanded that, not only the peasants, but the bourgeois middle classes be expropriated. On behalf of the poor, a “Conspiracy of Equals” plotted to take over the Republic, abolish private property, and seize the wealth of France for equal redistribution. The conspiracy was detected and its leaders were guillotined.

And upper-class intellectuals like Henri de Saint-Simon dreamt up utopian schemes in which the welfare of the poor working classes would be guaranteed by central planning. These dreamers came to be known as socialists, referring to their concern for broad “social” concerns, as contrasted to the “narrow” individualism of the liberals.

By the 1840s, Paris was abuzz with socialist agitation. Frédéric Bastiat, the leading French liberal of the time, recognized socialism as a threat to liberty that was just as severe as autocratic royalism, if not more. In addition to skewering the sophistries of socialism, Bastiat insightfully explained the political dynamics that led to its rise.

Frédéric Bastiat, like John Locke, believed the true purpose of “the law” was the security of the people from having their lives, liberties, and property ravaged. But the law had become “perverted”; instead of preventing such plunder, it came to systematically perpetrate it. Bastiat called this “legal plunder.”

Under the ancien regime, legal plunder was perpetrated by the king and his cabal and inflicted upon the masses. Bastiat termed this “partial plunder.” In the Revolution, the victims of this regularized robbery rose up and overthrew their kleptocrats. But then, instead of abolishing legal plunder, the new Republican government, by creating popular access to the machinery of legal plunder, invited the masses to partake in it. In the new people’s state, “partial plunder” was replaced by what Bastiat called “universal plunder.” As Bastiat wrote:

“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.” [Emphasis added.]

Bastiat encapsulated his taxonomy of legal plunder as follows:

“It is absolutely necessary that this question of legal plunder should be determined, and there are only three solutions of it:

1. When the few plunder the many.
2. When everybody plunders everybody else.
3. When nobody plunders anybody.

Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of plunder, amongst these we have to make our choice. The law can only produce one of these results.

Partial plunder. This is the system that prevailed so long as the elective privilege was partial; a system that is resorted to, to avoid the invasion of socialism.

Universal plunder. We have been threatened by this system when the elective privilege has become universal; the masses having conceived the idea of making law, on the principle of legislators who had preceded them.

Absence of plunder. This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and of good sense, which I shall proclaim with all the force of my lungs (which is very inadequate, alas!) till the day of my death.”

The last sentence referred to the fact that Bastiat was dying of throat cancer as he wrote these brilliant words. Bastiat concluded:

“The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.”

And elsewhere, Bastiat wrote:

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

French Poet Paul Valery wrote:

“There are two ways to acquire the necessities of life:

1. To produce them or
2. To plunder them.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of people living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Just as popular influence over the state’s ability to project power abroad foments among the people the international avarice and belligerence of nationalism, popular influence over the state’s ability to exercise power domestically stirs among the people the interclass avarice and belligerence of socialism.

And class warfare breeds collectivism and mindless conformity for the same basic reason that international warfare does: overwhelming and plundering enemy classes (whether in the streets or in the voting booths) requires group unity and strength in numbers. So, just as nationalists demand rigid “national allegiance” and rail against “national traitors,” socialists demand rigid “class solidarity” and inveigh against “class traitors.”
As Ludwig von Mises insightfully wrote:

“Nationalist ideology divides society vertically; the socialist ideology divides society horizontally.”

Mises referred to such doctrines as types of “warfare sociology.” He brilliantly identified the intellectual fallacies of warfare sociology as the philosophical basis for the 20th century quasi-religion of “etatism”: faith in and devotion to the omnipotent state. What Mises didn’t fully realize was that it was the institutional incentives of the people’s state (which he too thought was a necessary bulwark for liberty) that made warfare sociology—nationalism and socialism—so alluring.

Revolutionary France was the birthplace of the thoroughgoing modern people’s state. Because of that, it was also the cradle of modern nationalism and socialism.

..................................

When you want to take over you do class struggle, and when you get to power you don't want instability so you declare external enemies and shift focus.

Look at Europe and America. After two years of class struggle (jab vs anti jab, mask vs anti mask) now whole economy is in dumpster, so instability is rising, well when all else fails they take you to war. Evil Putin. Now its evil Xi and China. Its a classic.

@jaymaron Yes, this needs expansion.

In ancient times, there may have been wars. In modern times, there are no Jew vs. Jew wars. One can identify a cutoff date after which there were no wars.

I don't know. Israeli goverment was declaring war on its citizens during scamdamic and still does. How many did they kill or injured or discriminated against? Are they all consider themselves Jews? Are only some? My point is that its complicated and misleading to think in terms of Jews or not Jews, there are better ways that I've described in this threat.

@Krunoslav

Today, there is no Jew vs. Jew war because there is only 1 Jewish state.

Let's praise Trump for being a hero in Israel. An Israeli soccer team named themselves The Trumps. There is a park in Israel named after Trump.

Before the creation of Israel, there were zero Jewish states.

You have to go way back to get to a time when there were multiple independent Jewish states. Chances are that they were bullied by non-Jewish states.

@jaymaron "Today, there is no Jew vs. Jew war because there is only 1 Jewish state."

I don't know about that. There are many ideas in that place and outside of it that are not compatible and are in some kind of conflict or another. Its not a moonlight hive mind.

Rabbi Alon Anava: The evil Israeli flag

I suggest you read more about it as well as about the history of the region, Jewish religion, Israel as nation etc.

@Krunoslav

We can put this in the category of a "soft theorem" rather than a "hard theorem". Rather than being hasty and seeking reckless conclusions, it seems this matter is rich and warrants study.

Let's examine the history of holy wars.

In mathematics, a theorem has caveats. It states explicitly which objects obey the theorem and which don't. It's all about rigor and correctly establishing the reach of the theorem. For example, some objects obey AB = BA, and some don't. There are theorems that apply only to objects that do. Such objects are called "Abelian". Abel's contribution was to recognize that this is an important distinction. He made the distinction explicit.

Matrices are non-Abelian.

Democrats are reckless when they construct "theorems". They give no thought to distinguishing the reach of the theorem. They recklessly assume their theorems have more reach than they do.

Democrats are unrigorous. Republicans are rigorous. Rigor is the soul of mathematics.

@Krunoslav is correct, in that we need rigor in defining "Jewish State".

The job of a medieval Pope is to stop Christian kingdoms from fighting each other. The Popes failed.

The job of the modern Pope is to stand up for Christianity, and Pope Francis failed.

The job of the High Priest of Delphi is to stop Greek citystates from fighting each other. The High Priest failed.

The Greek citystate of Phosis attacked Delphi. Dumb. The High Priest of Delphi declared a holy war on Phosis, and other citystates got together and destroyed Phosis.

@jaymaron

Hi Jay,

Just wanted to make the point that the Bolsheviks setup a Jewish Autonomous Oblast (JAO), also known as BIROBIDZHAN in the far west of Russia way before 1948. In 1922, Stalin was pressured into establishing a settlement area for Soviet Jews across Russia. In 1926 at a Moscow convention, it was first decided to make The Crimea into a Jewish autonomous region. In 1928, Stalin was dissatisfied with infighting inside the Crimea so in 1928 the Jewish Autonomous Oblast was formed.

Birobidjan: The Story of the First Jewish State
[inquiriesjournal.com]

@jaymaron

I had to think, study and contemplate before responding because it really got me thinking.

Christians have fought Christians, Muslims have fought Muslims but Jews have never fought Jews in any cataclysmic or historically altering way since biblical times.

Over the past 300 years, there has been an organized collectivization and unification of all things Jewish through a wide number of Jewish organizations that have operated globally. Jewish sufferings and grievances were globalized, becoming the glue sticking the various factions together. By the mid 1850s, Jewish organizations had become both globally and officially recognized in several countries. Theodore Hertzl brought it full circle with the admission of an official Zionist agenda of a Jewish autonomous state.

Jews have been too busy uniting into a Zionist cause to fight wars against each other on any scale. Maybe it is time that other groups took a Zionist-like stance for their own people to unite together for a common cause

@Sensrhim4hizvewz

Agree. Jews have a good sense of team play. Agree, that the rest of the world should humbly study this example.

@Sensrhim4hizvewz

There has never been a Christian vs. Christian holy war.

Once upon a time, the Eastern Christian Church schismed from the Catholic Church. The differences were political, not religious. Christians from both sides can peacefully attend each other's churches. They all fought together in the Crusades.

In the Reformation, the Lutheran Church schismed from the Catholic Church. The differences were political, not religious.

Same for when the King of England nationalized the Anglican Church. Makes political sense. Why let the Pope own the churches? The King of England can take the churches.

Today, there are many denominations of Christianity, and they are at peace. Christians can virtue signal their tolerance.

Today, there is a force uniting Christians. Democrats attack Christianity.

There is a uniting force for Jews. Every time a Jewish person gives a talk at a campus, an army of radicals firebombs the talk. Democrats hate Israel.