WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE .
You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE .
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE .
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE .
COMMENT: In our discussions of the Bormann capital network , the program notes that the network has long made a point of utilizing Jews. (A synoptic overview of the Bormann network can be found in the description for FTR #305 .)
Using Jews as primary operatives has a number of advantages: it provides an excellent cover for a Nazi money-laundering operation; the capital derived for the state of Israel helps to assure connivance and silence on the part of the Israeli authorities with regard to the existence of the Bormann network and the Underground Reich; people can point to the great wealth of Bormann Jews and blame economic distress on them, similar to the Internet chatter generated by the collapse of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
It turns out that Benjamin Netanyahu and close associates–“Team Netanyahu,”  if you will–appear to have an ongoing sweetheart deal with ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to provide warships for the Israeli Navy. (We have talked about the profound links between the Thyssen interests, the Bormann group and the Bush family in numerous programs and posts, including FTR #’s 273 , 332 , 370 , 435  and 894 .)
Note that ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems subcontracted business for Israeli warship deals to a Lebanese-controlled firm Privinvest. Such firms are characteristic of Bormann group business entities.
Recall, also, that the Netanyahu family  has been very close to Vladimir Jabotinsky, the progenitor of the Betar, arguably the most important of the fascist elements within the Zionist movement.
We analyze the operations of Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas-based casino mogul who was (in the 2012 campaign) both the single biggest contributor to the GOP and the most important financial backer  of Benjamin Netanyahu. We have noted in the past that both the GOP and the Likud  sent representatives to the national congress of the Italian Alleanza Nazionale, the Italian fascist party.
The Likud/Netanyahu/Sheldon Adelson influence in creating a situation that plays perfectly into Nazi and Islamist propaganda, setting the stage for the inculcation of young people with an anti-Semitic viewpoint masquerading as “anti-Zionist.”
A key to understanding politics is “follow the money.” In Israel, as in most places, there has been an enormous concentration of wealth . Roughly 20 individuals and institutions control the country.
It is no accident that both the GOP and the Likud sent representatives to the congress of Gianfranco Fini’s Alleanza Nazionale in the late ’90s.
Much of Adelson’s financial largesse comes from his Macao-based casino investments . Macao was a former Portugese colony that was the focal point of huge gold shipments by the Third Reich during the closing phases of the war and also of Golden Lily loot accumulated by the Japanese. It would be difficult to imagine a better vehicle for laundering large amounts of clandestine Axis loot than gambling casinos.
Another factor to be considered is the fact that Portugal under Antonio Salazar was similar  (although not as well known) to Francisco Franco’s fascist regime  in Spain. Salazar was also a fascist, although officially neutral. Macau was an ideal place for the “offshoring” of Axis loot.
Adelson’s Las Vegas base of operations is also worth considering in connection with the Mossack Fonseca operations. One of their primary subsidiary organizations was in Nevada.
There was a recent full-page ad in the New York Times by numerous former chiefs of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, heads of both Shin-Bet (Israel’s military intelligence agency) and Mossad (Israel’s civilian foreign intelligence service) criticizing Israeli policy in this regard in strong terms.
One termed the failure to arrive at a two-state solution “an existential threat.” There were five or six of EACH! They could not be called anti-Semites, nor dismissed as “self-hating Jews.”
Ehud Barak–former Prime Minister and Defense Minister of Israel and its most decorated veteran–recently noted that “the seeds of fascism”  have been sown in Israel.
The deputy chief of the Israel Defense Force said–on Holocaust Rembrance Day , no less–that what happened in Europe in the 1930s was happening in Israel now. Neither he nor Barak can be characterized as anti-Semites, nor “self-hating Jews.”
The best thing for the Underground Reich is to maintain the situation as is, with young people–including well-educated young people , increasingly susceptible to the “International Jewish Conspiracy” meme.
We note, in passing, that the participation of Jews in Bormann enterprises will play effectively into the meme that “the Jews control all the money”–a major theme of Nazi propaganda and one that survives and is thriving today. ” . . . . So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish participation in Bormann companies that when Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires. Jewish leaders informed the Israeli authorities in no uncertain terms that this must never happen again because a repetition would permanently rupture relations with the Germans of Latin America, as well as with the Bormann organization, and cut off the flow of Jewish money to Israel. It never happened again, and the pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of these Jewish leaders. . . .”
We also note, in passing, that continued U.S. military campaigns against Muslims, Arabs and Iranians and/or Iranian-backed Shiite Muslims also plays effectively into “The Jews control America” and are, therefore, killing Arabs/Iranians/Muslims on behalf of the Jews, who run America.
In 200 years, we fear, Hitler’s birthday will be celebrated as an international holiday. It will be said that “Yes, Hitler went too far, but he was just trying to save Germany from experiencing the fate that befell the United States.”
This, after the U.S. has been brought low by a series of WMD terrorist and/or cyber-terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda, ISIS or other Muslim Brotherhood linked and/or inspired terrorist groups. (Probably assisted by Nazi/White supremacist elements.) They will rationalize this in their PR comminiques after the acts have been committed as striking back at the international Zionist conspiracy.
1a. Bormann’s business operations have included Jewish participants as a matter of strategic intent. In turn, this has given the Bormann organization considerable influence in Israel.
. . . . Since the founding of Israel, the Federal Republic of Germany had paid out 85.3 billion marks, by the end of 1977, to survivors of the Holocaust. East Germany ignores any such liability. From South America, where payment must be made with subtlety, the Bormann organization has made a substantial contribution. It has drawn many of the brightest Jewish businessmen into a participatory role in the development of many of its corporations, and many of these Jews share their prosperity most generously with Israel. If their proposals are sound, they are even provided with a specially dispensed venture capital fund.
I spoke with one Jewish businessman in Hartford, Connecticut. He had arrived there quite unknown several years before our conversation, but with Bormann money as his leverage. Today he is more than a millionaire, a quiet leader in the community with a certain share of his profits earmarked, as always, for his venture capital benefactors. This has taken place in many other instances across America and demonstrates how Bormann’s people operate in the contemporary commercial world, in contrast to the fanciful nonsense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘literature.’
So much emphasis is placed on select Jewish participation in Bormann companies that when Adolf Eichmann was seized and taken to Tel Aviv to stand trial, it produced a shock wave in the Jewish and German communities of Buenos Aires. Jewish leaders informed the Israeli authorities in no uncertain terms that this must never happen again because a repetition would permanently rupture relations with the Germans of Latin America, as well as with the Bormann organization, and cut off the flow of Jewish money to Israel. It never happened again, and the pursuit of Bormann quieted down at the request of these Jewish leaders. He is residing in an Argentine safe haven, protected by the most efficient German infrastructure in history as well as by all those whose prosperity depends on his well-being. Personal invitation is the only way to reach him. . . .
Amid a swirl of police investigations and ethics probes enveloping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his inner circle, a budding scandal over contracts for new submarines and other warships appears to be gaining momentum as another potential threat to his political future.
For weeks, the police have been carrying out an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Israeli contracts with a German shipbuilding company for the purchase of submarines and new missile ships that Mr. Netanyahu championed. His personal lawyer, David Shimron, also represents the Israeli agent for the company, which has led to accusations of a conflict of interest in contracts that involve billions of dollars of business and the shape of Israel’s defense strategy.
Moshe Yaalon, whom Mr. Netanyahu ousted as defense minister last year and who was against adding the new submarines, is reported to have recently given testimony. . . .
. . . . Initially, Israel’s Channel 10 television reported a potential link between the German shipbuilding company, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, and Mr. Netanyahu through his personal lawyer, Mr. Shimron.
Soon came more reports of the seemingly strange circumstances surrounding Israeli procurements of other warships. There was the sudden cancellation in 2014 of an in6ternational bidding process for the construction of four missile corvettes in favor of the same German shipyard. The ships are meant to protect Israel’s natural gas rigs in the Mediterranean against threats, particularly from Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization.
In another twist, the firm subcontracted by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to build the four missile boats for Israel is controlled by Privinvest, a holding company registered in Beirut, Lebanon—technically an enemy of Israel’s. The subcontractor, German Naval Yards Kiel, is listed on Privinest’s website as a member of its major international shipbuilding group, which has a presence in 40 countries. . . .
. . . . Describing the decision-making process in a detailed timeline, the office attributed the decision to the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and the navy after the German government offered a 27.5 percent discount.
Mr. Shimron confirmed that he represented Michael Ganor, the Israeli agent of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, and has represented Mr. Ganor “in certain aspects of an agreement” related to Mr. Ganor’s consultancy for the German company. . . .
. . . . Mr. Margalit, a member of the parliamentary committee that approves budgets for military acquisitions, was a technology entrepreneur before he entered politics.
“I am used to hearing about big deals,” he said in a recent interview in his office at the Knesset. “I developed an ear for listening for when things add up and when they don’t.”
He said the shipping deals sounded “very fishy,” so he traveled to Germany in December to do what he called some “due diligence.” On his return, he sent a letter to the attorney general. In ti, he detailed the Lebanese connection to the contract. And he asserted that another Privinvest group member, Abu Dhabi Mar, has changed its name to German Naval Yards Kiel in 2015, while the deal with Israel was being formulated, under pressure form three prominent Israelis who wanted to obscure the company’s Arab ownership. . . .
. . . . Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel Hayom and Haaretz all rehash yesterday’s top story about a senior IDF officer who seemed to compare some trends taking place currently in Israeli society to the situation in pre-war Germany.
“If there is something that frightens me in the memory of the Holocaust, it is identifying horrifying processes that occurred in Europe… 70, 80 and 90 years ago and finding evidence of their existence here in our midst, today, in 2016,” IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Golan said. But while Holocaust Remembrance Day had previously prevented the papers’ editors of playing up the comments and stirring a fiery debate, now the gloves come off, and Golan is scrutinized — or praised — without filters. . . .
Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak warns of “the seeds of fascism.” Moshe Arens, who served as defense minister three times, sees it as a turning point in Israeli politics and expects it to cause a “political earthquake.”
The past five days have produced tumult in Israeli politics, since conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unexpectedly turned his back on a deal to bring the center-left into his coalition and instead joined hands with far-right nationalist Avigdor Lieberman, one of his most virulent critics. . . .
. . . . The decision to jettison Yaalon in favor of Lieberman was all too much for Roni Daniel, a veteran military affairs commentator on Channel 2.
“I cannot urge my children to stay here, because it is a place that is not nice to be in,” he said in his monolog, going on to name a number of far-right politicians. . . .
. . . . “What has happened is a hostile takeover of the Israeli government by dangerous elements,” Ehud Barak, Israel’s most decorated soldier and a former defense minister following his spell as head of government, told Channel 10 TV.
Israel has been “infected by the seeds of fascism,” he said, adding that it should be “a red light for all of us regarding what’s going on in the government.” . . . .
Why did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel feel the need to wag the dog in Washington? For that was, of course, what he was doing in his anti-Iran speech to Congress. If you’re seriously trying to affect American foreign policy, you don’t insult the president and so obviously align yourself with his political opposition.
No, the real purpose of that speech was to distract the Israeli electorate with saber-rattling bombast, to shift its attention away from the economic discontent that, polls suggest, may well boot Mr. Netanyahu from office in Tuesday’s election. But wait: Why are Israelis discontented? After all, Israel’s economy has performed well by the usual measures. It weathered the financial crisis with minimal damage. Over the longer term, it has grown more rapidly than most other advanced economies, and has developed into a high-technology powerhouse. What is there to complain about?
The answer, which I don’t think is widely appreciated here, is that while Israel’s economy has grown, this growth has been accompanied by a disturbing transformation in the country’s income distribution and society. Once upon a time, Israel was a country of egalitarian ideals — the kibbutz population was always a small minority, but it had a large impact on the nation’s self-perception. And it was a fairly equal society in reality, too, right up to the early 1990s.
Since then, however, Israel has experienced a dramatic widening of income disparities. Key measures of inequality have soared; Israel is now right up there with America as one of the most unequal societies in the advanced world. And Israel’s experience shows that this matters, that extreme inequality has a corrosive effect on social and political life. Consider what has happened at either end of the spectrum — the growth in poverty, on one side, and extreme wealth, on the other.
According to Luxembourg Income Study data, the share of Israel’s population living on less than half the country’s median income — a widely accepted definition of relative poverty — more than doubled, to 20.5 percent from 10.2 percent, between 1992 and 2010. The share of children in poverty almost quadrupled, to 27.4 percent from 7.8 percent. Both numbers are the worst in the advanced world, by a large margin. And when it comes to children, in particular, relative poverty is the right concept. Families that live on much lower incomes than those of their fellow citizens will, in important ways, be alienated from the society around them, unable to participate fully in the life of the nation. Children growing up in such families will surely be placed at a permanent disadvantage.
At the other end, while the available data — puzzlingly — don’t show an especially large share of income going to the top 1 percent, there is an extreme concentration of wealth and power among a tiny group of people at the top. And I mean tiny. According to the Bank of Israel, roughly 20 families control companies that account for half the total value of Israel’s stock market. The nature of that control is convoluted and obscure, working through “pyramids” in which a family controls a firm that in turn controls other firms and so on.
Although the Bank of Israel is circumspect in its language, it is clearly worried about the potential this concentration of control creates for self-dealing. Still, why is Israeli inequality a political issue? Because it didn’t have to be this extreme.
You might think that Israeli inequality is a natural outcome of a high-tech economy that generates strong demand for skilled labor — or, perhaps, reflects the importance of minority populations with low incomes, namely Arabs and ultrareligious Jews. It turns out, however, that those high poverty rates largely reflect policy choices: Israel does less to lift people out of poverty than any other advanced country — yes, even less than the United States.
Meanwhile, Israel’s oligarchs owe their position not to innovation and entrepreneurship but to their families’ success in gaining control of businesses that the government privatized in the 1980s — and they arguably retain that position partly by having undue influence over government policy, combined with control of major banks. In short, the political economy of the promised land is now characterized by harshness at the bottom and at least soft corruption at the top.
And many Israelis see Mr. Netanyahu as part of the problem. He’s an advocate of free-market policies; he has a Chris Christie-like penchant for living large at taxpayers’ expense, while clumsily pretending otherwise. So Mr. Netanyahu tried to change the subject from internal inequality to external threats, a tactic those who remember the Bush years should find completely familiar. We’ll find out on Tuesday whether he succeeded.
The symbolism was too powerful to ignore. As anyone who watched Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech last week in Congress knows, one of the people prominently seated in the House gallery was the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a primary financial backer of both the Republican Party and Netanyahu.
As The Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz reported, at one point Adelson’s wife, Miriam, accidentally knocked her purse off the House gallery railing and it hit Representative Brad Ashford, a Nebraska Democrat seated below. The Post noted that Adelson had given $5 million to the G.O.P.’s Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC, which had spent $35,000 in a failed effort to defeat Ashford in his 2014 race against Representative Lee Terry. Ashford later joked to The Omaha World-Herald: “I wish I’d opened the purse. Do you think she carries cash?”
We certainly know that Mr. Adelson does. And when it came to showering that cash on Republican presidential hopefuls and right-wing PACs trying to defeat President Obama (reportedly $150 million in 2012), and on keeping Netanyahu and his Likud party in office, no single billionaire-donor is more influential than Sheldon. No matter what his agenda, it is troubling that one man, with a willingness and ability to give away giant sums, can now tilt Israeli and American politics his way at the same time.
Israel has much stricter laws on individuals donating to political campaigns, so Adelson got around that in 2007 by founding a free, giveaway newspaper in Israel — Israel Hayom — whose sole purpose is to back Netanyahu, attack his enemies in politics and the media, and enforce a far-right political agenda to prevent any Israeli territorial compromise on the West Bank (which, in time, could undermine Israel as a Jewish democracy). [Walkin’ the Snake in Israel?–D.E.] Graphically attractive, Israel Hayom is now the biggest circulation daily in Israel. Precisely because it is free, it is putting a heavy strain on competitors, like Yediot and Haaretz, which both charge and are not pro-Netanyahu.
Adelson then bought the most important newspaper of the religious-nationalist right in Israel, Makor Rishon, long considered the main backer of Netanyahu’s biggest right-wing rival, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett. Last March, in an interview with Israel Army Radio after the Makor Rishon sale, Bennett said: “It saddens me. Israel Hayom is not a newspaper. It is Pravda. It’s the mouthpiece of one person, the prime minister.
At every junction point, every point of friction between the national interest and the interest of the prime minister, they chose the side of the prime minister.” The Washington Post said that last November at a conference of the Israel American Council, a lobbying group Adelson has funded, he joked in a public discussion with a wealthy Israeli: “Why don’t you and I go after The New York Times?” Told it was family owned, Adelson quipped, “There is only one way to fight it: money.”
At this same conference Adelson was quoted as saying that Israel would not be able to survive as a democracy: “So Israel won’t be a democratic state,” he added. “So what?”
Last March in Las Vegas Adelson organized his own private Republican primary. Politico wrote at the time: “Adelson summoned [Jeb] Bush and Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin to Las Vegas. … The new big-money political landscape — in which a handful of donors can dramatically alter a campaign with just a check or two.” When Christie, in his speech before Adelson, described the West Bank as “occupied territories,” some Republican Jews in the audience were appalled. So, Politico reported, Christie hastily arranged a meeting with Adelson to explain that he had misspoken and that he was a true friend of Israel. “The New Jersey governor apologized in a private meeting in the casino mogul’s Venetian office shortly afterward,” Politico reported.
It said Adelson “accepted” Christie’s “explanation” and “quick apology.” When money in politics gets this big, when it can make elected officials bow and scrape in two different countries at the same time, it is troubling. I’m sure Adelson cares deeply about Israel, but he lacks any sense of limits in how he exercises his extraordinary financial power — power he is using to simultaneously push Israel and America toward eliminating any two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, toward defunding the Palestinian Authority and toward a confrontation with Iran, not a diplomatic solution.
People need to know this. The most important bonds between Israel and America always emerged from the bottom up — a mutual respect between two democracy-loving peoples. Money can’t buy those bonds, but it can threaten them by going to excess — by taking Israel’s true good will in America and using it to help one party “stick it” to the president, one big donor drive his extreme agenda, one party appear more pro-Israel than the other for electoral reasons or one Israeli politician win re-election. People who go “all the way” like this will one day go over a cliff. They will regret it. So will the rest of us.
. . . . Adelson has used his fortune to reshape right-wing politics in both America and Israel, establishing himself as a GOP kingmaker in the post-Citizens United era. In December, he backed a secretive $140 million purchase  of the Review-Journal, putting Nevada’s largest paper in the hands of its richest resident  and a fixture of its biggest industry, and increasing his influence on Nevada’s early presidential caucuses. . . .
. . . . All this is why Jacobs’ case, due to go to trial in June , is so significant: The protracted litigation has illuminated just how Adelson built one of the world’s largest fortunes through his casinos in Macau—a Chinese territory rife with corruption where, Jacobs’ lawsuit alleges , Adelson not only tolerated, but sometimes even encouraged, illegal and unethical acts. . . .
. . . . Nazi Germany typically laundered looted gold and non-monetary gold by re-smelting it and casting it into bars that were hallmarked with black eagle swastikas, numbered in keeping with standard practice of the Reichsbank. This gold was moved to banks in Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal or Argentina. Japan used the same techniques, moving gold through Swiss banks in Tokyo, Portugese banks in Macao, and banks in Chile and Argentina. When gold was physically moved to those countries it was carried by large cargo submarines.
As a center of the world’s unofficial gold trade, Macao was enriched. When the Allies got together at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 to put a stop to the laundering of Nazi and Japanese war loot through neutral countries, Portugal somehow forgot to include Macao on the list, and nobody drew attention to the oversight. As historian Bertil Lintner noted: “Macao merchants were soon buying gold abroad at $35 an ounce from banks, shipping it back to the enclave and selling it at a premium to whoever wanted to buy it. The syndicate was led by Ho Yin, an Overseas Chinese who had fled from Guangdong to sit out the war.” Macao was a wartime haven for rich Overseas Chinese who enlarged their fortunes by precious metal trading. The only significant source of gold at the time was Japanese plunder. In the China Seas, only Japanese banks were open for business. Macao pawnshops, brokers, and private citizens made fortunes turning hard currencies into gold for the Japanese. At war’s end, when colonial authorities returned, Macao millionaires were able to use the colonial currency they had acquired to buy the most desirable land, buildings, and factories at knock-down prices.
Some of Hirohito’s personal wealth was laundered through Macao, the rest through Swiss banks in Tokyo. Journalist Paul Manning, who had a chance to review some of Hirohito’s financial records at the end of the war, when they were in the custody of U.S. Occupation authorities, saw that the emperor’s personal assets began to be moved abroad to neutral havens at the end of 1943, preparing for the inevitable defeat. Privy Seal Kido called a meeting of Japan’s leading bankers, who were also the emperor’s financial advisors. On their recommendation, funds were transferred fro Tokyo to Switerland, virtually emptying Hirohito’s cash reserves in Tokyo. Nazi gold, which had been moved to the Swiss accounts of Yokohama Specie Bank to pay for purchases from Japan, also were transferred to Hriohito’s accounts in Switzerland. At the same time, Kido moved other imperial gold reserves to Argentina by sub, and to Macao, where it was sold for hard currencies, and this money was then moved to Switzerland by bank transfer. . . .
. . . .In one instance, American agents in Switzerland watched 280 trucks of Nazi gold move from Germany across France and Spain to the safe haven of neutral Portugal. Owned by private Swiss firms, the trucks were painted with the Swiss cross, allowing the gold to be moved under ‘neutral’ cover. . . .
. . . . .The problem of how to deal with plundered treasure, and what to do with Axis gold after the war, was discussed in July 1944 when forty-four nations met at the resort at Breton Woods, New Hampshire, to plan the post-war economy. These discussions, some of them extremely secret, revealed the flaws and loopholes that existed in the international financial system, making any clear-curt resolution unlikely. Among the delegates, trust was far from universal. Many of them believed that the Bank of International Settlements was secretly laundering Nazi loot. That distrust set the tone. Among other things, the Breton Woods agreement (as it was made public) set a fixed price for gold at $35 an ounce, and banned the importation of gold to America for personal use. Neutral countries that signed the pact promised not to knowingly keep stolen gold and other looted assets, but Portugal forgot to include Macao in the list of its dependent territories. This was a convenient oversight, for during the rest of the war, as we saw in chapter four, Macao became a world center for trade in illicit gold and was heavily exploited by Japan. . . . .
6. Estado Novo (Portugal) 
. . . . With fascist  organizations being popular and widely supported across many countries (like Italian Fascism  and Nazism ) as an antagonist of communist  ideologies, António de Oliveira Salazar  developed the Estado Novo which can be described as a right leaning corporatist  regime of para-fascist  inspiration. . . . .
. . . . The Estado Novo was an authoritarian regime with an integralist  orientation, which differed greatly from other fascist  regimes by its lack of expansionism, lack of a fanatical leader, lack of dogmatic party structure, and more moderate use of state force.  It incorporated, however, the principles for its military from Benito Mussolini ‘s system in Italy . Salazar was a Catholic traditionalist who believed in the necessity of control over the forces of economic modernisation in order to defend the religious and rural values of the country, which he perceived as being threatened. One of the pillars of the regime was the PIDE , the secret police. Many political dissidents were imprisoned at the Tarrafal  prison in the African archipelago of Cape Verde , on the capital island of Santiago , or in local jails. Strict state censorship was in place. . . .
. . . . The Estado Novo accepted the idea of corporatism  as an economic model. Although Salazar refused to sign the Anti-Comintern Pact  in 1938, the Portuguese Communist Party  was intensely persecuted. So were Anarchists, Liberals, Republicans, and anyone opposed to the regime. The National Union embraced a wide array of right-wing  politics, passing through monarchism , corporatism , para-fascism , nationalism , and capitalism .
The Legião Nacional  was a popular militia similar to the Italian Blackshirts . For young people, there was the Mocidade Portuguesa , an organization similar in organization (but not in ideology) to the Hitler Youth . These two organizations were heavily supported by the State and imposed a martial style of life. . . .
. . . . The military rebellion took place on July 18, with the officers who organized it expecting a quick victory and a rapid takeover of the entire country. What the military did not anticipate was the determination of the Spanish people, who broke into barracks, took up arms, and crushed the rebellion in key areas like the cities of Madrid and Barcelona. It was at that point that the character of the struggle changed, for the military realized they were not going to win by fiat. Instead they faced a prolonged struggle against their own people and an uncertain outcome. They appealed to fascist dictatorships in Italy, Germany, and Portugal for assistance, and they soon began receiving both men and supplies from Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Antonio Salazar. . . .
Last semester, a group came to Providence to speak against admitting Syrian refugees to this country. As the president of the Brown Coalition for Syria, I jumped into action with my peers to stage a counterdemonstration. But I quickly found myself cut out of the planning for this event: Other student groups were not willing to work with me because of my leadership roles in campus Jewish organizations.
That was neither the first nor the last time that I would be ostracized this way. Also last semester, anti-Zionists at Brown circulated a petition against a lecture by the transgender rights advocate Janet Mock because one of the sponsors was the Jewish campus group Hillel, even though the event was entirely unrelated to Israel or Zionism. Ms. Mock, who planned to talk about racism and transphobia, ultimately canceled. Anti-Zionist students would rather have no one speak on these issues than allow a Jewish group to participate in that conversation.
Of course, I still believe in the importance of accepting refugees, combating discrimination, abolishing racist law enforcement practices and other causes. Nevertheless, it’s painful that Jewish issues are shut out of these movements. Jewish rights belong in any broad movement to fight oppression.
My fellow activists tend to dismiss the anti-Semitism that students like me experience regularly on campus. They don’t acknowledge the swastikas that I see carved into bathroom stalls, scrawled across walls or left on chalkboards. They don’t hear students accusing me of killing Jesus. They don’t notice professors glorifying anti-Semitic figures such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt or the leadership of Hezbollah, as mine have.
Nor do they speak against the anti-Semitism in American culture. Even as they rightfully protest hate crimes against Muslim Americans and discrimination against black people, they wrongfully dismiss attacks on Jews (who are the most frequent targets of religiously motivated hate crimes in the United States) and increasing anti-Semitism in the American political arena, as can be seen in Donald Trump’s flirtations with the “alt-right.” They don’t take issue with calls for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.
Many of my fellow activists also perpetuate anti-Semitism by dismissing Jews of color, especially the Mizrahi and Sephardi majority of Israel’s Jewish population, descendants of refugees from Southwest Asia and North Africa. Ignoring the expulsion of 850,000 Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews from Arab and Muslim countries from 1948 to the early 1970s allows students to portray all Israelis as white and European and get away with making a “progressive” case for dismantling the Jewish state.
Even hummus has become politicized: Anti-Zionists at my school who demanded that cafeterias stop serving hummus produced by a company with Israeli ownership, also claimed that the product showed cultural appropriation even though Mizrahim and Sephardim have been eating Southwest Asian cuisine since long before the rise of organized Zionism.
In my experience, anti-Semites refuse to acknowledge Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews to minimize the history of oppression against Jews, and in doing so dismiss contemporary Jewish concerns. For example, non-Jewish students at Brown tell me that I cannot appreciate a history of marginalization because, as they see it, Jews have historically been a powerful group, the Holocaust being the only few years of exception. They play down the temporal and geographic scope of that history so that the oppression appears circumstantial rather than global and systemic.
These are serious issues, and social justice movements should be addressing them. I recognize my white, male and other privileges, and, accordingly, I listen to people of color, women and members of other marginalized groups and support them as allies. Likewise, I expect non-Jews at Brown and elsewhere to recognize our oppression to include us in efforts for change.