Fanatical Youth

A disturbingly high percentage of people polled earlier this month think private political donations should be grounds for getting fired. The number was especially high among respondents under age 30, with 44 percent of the youngest group saying business leaders who donate to Donald Trump should be fired and 27 percent saying the same for execs who give to Joe Biden.

The under-30ies on both sides seem to be profoundly stupid and mentally unstable. It’s clearly worse on one side than the other but neither side is immune.

Of course, there’s a group that’s even dumber. It consists of people who think they’ve got nothing to worry about if the words “business leaders” don’t describe them.

39 thoughts on “Fanatical Youth”

  1. Just today I read a (good) 2017 post of Michael Tracey “On Firing Nazis” (as in real Nazis) – a worthy read if only to see how far we’ve come since then:

    “The firing of several individuals for their participation in last weekend’s white nationalist rally in Charlottesville has raised some interesting, yet fraught, questions about employment law, free speech, and related issues.

    the rejoicing on the part of liberals and leftists in response to their termination glosses over deeper issues: do we wish to empower employers — especially, in this case, large corporate employers like Uno pizzeria and Lucky supermarket — to be the ones doing the censuring?

    Here’s the crux: the fact is that these employees were apparently terminated on the basis of legal political activity. As repugnant as their activity was, and as morally blameworthy, it was still legal (hence the ACLU’s advocacy for them in court). If we are going to cheer employers’ willingness to terminate employees for engaging in legal political speech, we should be aware of the wider implications, and be cognizant of how such a principle might be used against people with whom we share political affinity.”

    View at


    1. Was writing my comment and didn’t see methylethyl made this point.

      The thing is they don’t seem to consciously prefer the alternative. That’s why I still hope explaining this may have an effect.


  2. Wait, if “private political donations should be grounds for getting fired,” then only big business will be able to donate to political candidates and evade consequences. Small private businesses may be easily cancelled, but Google and co. are kosher no matter what they do, and if anyone tries to criticize them – he’ll be deplatformed.

    Every new fad seems to accelerate the disempowering and disappearance of people as political agents, while the young activists from both sides of the political map seem to delusionally believe it’ll strengthen their power.

    “It’s clearly worse on one side than the other” – Only because the other side feels it is losing the culture war so far…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not to be a broken record but back in 2002 Zygmunt Bauman was warning us that the political is being destroyed to accommodate the private. We are now seeing how claims of hurt feelings are weaponized to deprive all of us of political agency.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. // the political is being destroyed to accommodate the private

        I was confused by Bauman claiming something similar and am still confused by this phrase now since it makes me think of something called “the private” being empowered. As if usual people have some ‘private’ element to them which can be expressed freely now, even if it unfortunately negatively influences the ‘old’ public sphere.

        However, what really happens is the conquest of the politics (the ‘public’) by large corporations which try to use and mold formerly ‘private’ elements, like how people conduct their friendships (FaceBook), for profit.

        Try to express ‘the private’ (any view or physical look) in public if it goes against the current requirements at your peril.

        So what is this ‘private’ that is strengthened now?


      2. Have you heard of this book? (The author is defined in the linked review as “an old-school progressive” and, again, such books made one wonder what is this accommodated private, what is meant by the phrase).

        The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class, by Joel Kotkin, (New York: Encounter Books, 2020), 224 pages.

        The review is here:

        The Quiet Return Of Feudalism
        Silicon Valley oligarchs are ushering in a new age of serfdom, aided by the left.


  3. ” back in 2002 Zygmunt Bauman was warning us that the political is being destroyed to accommodate the private”

    Did he ever put it that clearly? I was kind of prejudiced against him for a time because a friend had checked out some of his stuff and found kind of obvious and trite. Now I’m wondering if poor word choice diluted his message… I understood the idea behind the Polish title Liquid Modernity completely differently in Polish… you can say liquid ten or a thousand times and I think of liquid in containers… płynna (probably the word he was thinking of, literally closer to ‘flowing’) is much more evocative…


  4. OT: you have recently said Americans cannot teach other’s about race because of their abysmal record. Turns out

    “American racial politics have colonized the rest of the planet. The answer to why that happened is partly because we deliberately exported it.

    A New York Times article this month headlined “A Racial Awakening in France” explains that the U.S. embassy in Paris has made minority outreach part of its mission. Embassy programs have sent French anti-racism activists on exchange trips to the U.S. and funded training programs for them in “managing ethnic diversity.” One program promoted affirmative action, “a taboo concept in France,” the Times notes, since France famously does not even collect any government data based on race.

    American outreach to French activists has indeed been energetic, with consequences for French politics. One beneficiary, Tara Dickman, was sent to Chicago to learn community organizing and returned to start a campaign against racial profiling, using decidedly American methods such as lawsuits against the government. “Within a year, police profiling went from a sort of topic that didn’t exist to a major political stake,” Dickman said. “Fourteen people went to court to sue the state, and then it became a major issue in the elections, there are three law proposals now … and this is really thanks to this trip.” ”


  5. Re Joel Kotkin’s “The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class,” I am toward the end of this book and, among other things, appreciate him going beyond the narrative of ‘Chinese economic miracle’ I’ve read on American blogs. The system he describes resembles in part the Soviet system of forbidding free movement of peasants into the cities, with unlegal migrants being exploited in the worst jobs. Only the Chinese situation may be even worse than the Soviet one:

    “Rural households in America are 4 percent poorer on average than urban households; the difference in China is 63 percent. The much-vaunted Chinese middle class amounts to roughly 12 percent of the population, mostly legal residents of cities, while the 43 percent of the population living in the countryside struggle to subsist”

    [In China] ” The problem of family breakdown is especially severe in the countryside. The flow of migrants into the cities in search of work has resulted in an estimated 60 million “left behind children” and nearly as many “left behind elderly.” The migrants themselves suffer from serious health problems, including venereal disease at rates far higher than the national norm, but the children left behind in rural villages face especially difficult challenges. Scott Rozelle, a professor at Stanford University, found that most of these children are sick or malnourished, and as many as two in three suffer from anemia, worms, or myopia. Rozelle predicts that more than half the left-behind toddlers are so cognitively delayed that their IQs will never exceed 90. This portends a future as something like the Gammas and Epsilons of Brave New World.”


    1. The problem of the left behind children as decribed here is exactly what’s happening in Central America. Only there it’s aggravated by the absence of strong state institutions so the left behind children turn to hang violence.


      1. Btw, what does the expression “left behind” mean? Do both parents go to the cities (or even abroad in Central America), while grandparents and/or extended family stay with the kids? Because if only fathers go, cannot mothers stop their kids from joining gangs?

        Also, are kids usually forced to join gangs, ‘corrupted’ / tempted or join themselves out of desire for protection and money?


        1. 2 things: 1) yes, it’s usually both parents working in the city, grandparents etc raising the kids. 2) Even if it were not, it is a rare mother who has any effective control over male children beyond the age of 10? 12? in the absence of an involved adult male authority figure. This is a huge part of why single motherhood is so dysfunctional.


          1. // it is a rare mother who has any effective control over male children beyond the age of 10? 12? in the absence of an involved adult male authority figure. This is a huge part of why single motherhood is so dysfunctional.


            1 – If a single woman decides to have a child, she should have only daughters since sons are liable to join gangs because of not being raised with a father?

            2 – Regardless of the number of parents, I think parents do 99% of raising before the age of 10. Instead of defining a relationship in terms of control / parental power over teens, it seems to be more useful to talk about the combination of genetics, upbringing before the teen age (mainly by personal example) and, in extreme cases, environmental pressures like being forcibly recruited to join a gang.


            1. “she should have only daughters since sons are liable to join gangs because of not being raised with a father?”

              I think the point is more about the cultural environment of central america, no matter how competent and strong a parent is, they need some cultural backing to exert authority and central american culture doesn’t give that to women/mothers.


            2. el, it’s not a judgement or a prescription. It’s a statement of fact. Biology doesn’t care if you don’t happen to like that fact. I don’t like it that I’m short, or that I can’t fly by kicking my feet and flapping my arms. That doesn’t make me taller, or more able to fly.

              1- There are also issues with girls, but I don’t have girls and won’t try to address that. Obviously, not all children of single mothers are doomed to a life of crime. Quite a lot of them have access to good father-figures who are willing to take on some of the role of the missing dad: grandfathers, uncles, teachers, neighbors, friends’ dads… but this imposes a burden on the community at large. There are only so many fatherless children a functioning community can successfully acculturate. Yes there are studies: the finding is that children of single parents do OK if they are embedded in a functional community where intact families are the norm. Once you get beyond a small number of single parents in the community, this no longer works. By the time single mothers are the norm, it’s a culture-wide disaster, and even the children of intact families are negatively affected. Choosing single parenthood is incredibly selfish, and is essentially a statement that your emotional and personal fulfillment is more important than the needs of your children and your community. I don’t know about your community, but the kids-without-dads situation in the US lower and working classes is shredding those communities, and the damage is working its way up into the middle classes. A community’s limited and valuable ability to step in and serve the role of absent parents should be reserved for situations where it was tragically unavoidable: widows, orphans, and cases where a marriage crashed and burned (addiction, abuse, mental illness, etc.). Deciding to have a kid alone is laying an unfair claim on these resources– it’s like shooting your own legs off and then living on disability payments.

              2-I’m with you that most of the important parenting happens by age 10. If you haven’t managed to instill some basic virtues by that point, you are totally screwed because it’s not happening after that. That doesn’t make Dad optional. There’s an important thing that happens with boys. It starts in infancy: they need a physical dominance hierarchy to belong to. I was shocked to discover this when I had kids (We have all boys). Even at six, eight months old, they’d be putting their nose or forehead up against mine, and shoving with all their might. I was baffled by this with my eldest, and would duck out of it, and set him down (he gave me more than one nosebleed with all the head-butting) in frustration. This made him totally miserable. Now that the third is a toddler (and they ALL did it), I’ve finally figured it out: they want to wrestle. So when he shoves my head (he plays this with my husband too), I gently shove back. I growl, push him over, and play tuba on his belly, and he is utterly delighted. I’m careful to let him “win” about one time in four. He’s the happiest kid. This is all, 100% about dominance and hierarchy. He’s emotionally secure and feels physically safe knowing in his toddler way that he’s embedded in a safe, loving place where parents are in charge, but he wins sometimes. Right now, I’m the most important parent. By age 8, where my eldest is now… it has largely shifted to Dad. There’s a little testosterone kicking in, and my 8yo is now, in biological terms, more alpha than I am. He can’t rationally parse that, but he feels it. And he doesn’t like taking direct orders from me anymore– I have to phrase things carefully in terms of “I need your help” rather than “do this because I say so”. Yes, we’ve laid the basic moral framework, but he still needs TONS of guidance, and he’s not going to accept that guidance from me, for the most part. He will only readily accept it from someone more dominant than he is: Dad. If it were just me, on my own, we might still flounder through somehow. But I couldn’t count on it… particularly if I had to work full-time to support him. It’s likely he would seek out someone more “alpha” than he is, just to feel secure. With luck, he’d find someone decent. If we were unlucky, it’d be his slightly-older peers, or a predatory adult male taking advantage of the Dad-vacancy.


              1. “Choosing single parenthood is incredibly selfish, and is essentially a statement that your emotional and personal fulfillment is more important than the needs of your children and your community. I don’t know about your community”

                I am unsure what is meant by ‘community’ unless it is all Israeli Jews living in the city I live in: future classmates, neighbors, teachers and so on of kids (if I ever have them).

                I am not religious so don’t attend a synagogue and don’t have a religious community.

                In Israel, having children is the social norm (*). However, despite the marriage rate in Israel being one of the highest among developed countries and people marrying officially before having children as a norm (unlike the situation in US and Canada from what I heard), not all women marry and with years more of those unmarried women started choosing single motherhood instead of remaining childless forever. It happens even in Haredi society, even if rarer than in secular one. A very religious (and educated) woman I know recently had a child in her 40ies after not succeeding to marry.

                It is a somewhat different situation from single motherhood in poor African-American communities of teen mothers.

                Of course, it’s not ideal. However, marrying someone one doesn’t love and doesn’t want to live with is also very selfish and horrible for everyone, especially for kids who cannot escape this situation.

                “my 8yo is now, in biological terms, more alpha than I am”

                May be, it’s in psychological terms rather than in biological ones?

                I immigrated to Israel as a teen with my mother, grandmother and a 5-year-old brother. (My maternal grandfather died when I was 6, before my brother was born.)

                I do not know whether he took direct orders or not, never thought about it in those terms, but we both studied well at school, served in IDF, went to universities and are now middle class professionals.

                A funny story: When he stopped writing in his notebooks as a second-grader, my mother took notebooks from a good female student and they both copied everything he missed for more than 2 months in all subjects. He copied one notebook, my mother – another. Whether it was dominance or not, it was teaching by example, and he didn’t even think refusing was an option. 🙂

                Btw, in terms of dominance, my grandmother and mother (in that order) were the most dominant members of the family, no question.

                I think who is dominant is both cultural and personal at least as much as biological.

                (*) “Fertility in Israel stands at 3.1 children per woman – the highest fertility rate in the OECD, and almost one full child above the next highest fertility countries, Mexico and Turkey. To put Israel’s fertility in historical perspective, among Western countries fertility was last as high as 3.1 in the US toward the end of the baby boom in the mid-1960s

                Furthermore, Israel’s fertility is not only exceptional because it is high. It is also exceptional because strong pronatalist norms cut across all educational classes and levels of religiosity, and because fertility has been increasing alongside a rise in the age at which women first give birth and increasing education levels — at least in the Jewish population. From an international perspective, these are extremely unusual patterns.

                For example, Israeli women are having more kids even though they are having them later in life and working more. In fact, non-Haredi Jewish women in Israel have higher employment rates than women in any other OECD country, except for Iceland.



              2. In this case, community is all the groups of people you are close enough to, that your kids are personally acquainted with the other adults: usually this is churches, schools, extended kin groups, and close friend-groups that you hang out with. It’s the available pool of adults for your kids to use as role models. The larger, closer-knit, and higher-quality this group of people is, the better the odds are for the kids of single parents. Quality matters a lot . If your church is a cult, or if your neighborhood is full of gangs and drug dealers, or the grandparents you rely on are abusive, or if your community is performance moms striving for proxy fame… the kids are in trouble.

                The problem is, these other adults are a limited resource. There are only so many adults available to act as surrogate dads. Not many people have the time, interest, compassion, and wisdom to do it well. The more single-parent families in a community, the thinner these resources get stretched. Every woman who decides to go it alone is imposing a burden on those limited resources without asking anyone if it’s OK. Too many, and the community breaks under the strain.

                Dominance… sure, there are families where the mother is dominant. My own family was one such: it was not healthy, and it was especially hard on my brother– he left home at 16 and did not really grow up until he entered the military. The military saved his life– he would have been dead from drug overdose by now without that. One thing the military has in droves is adult male mentors.

                There are some women who can manage to fill the role of both mom and dad, and raise emotionally healthy sons. They are not the majority, IMO. You were lucky. Some of it is probably cultural. But I think a lot of it is biological. Probably you will not be convinced by this. That’s OK. My sons are great kids, but It is very clear to me that I would do a lousy job of raising them alone, and that they need their father. If (God forbid!) my husband died before they were grown, I sincerely hope that my family and community could step up and provide mentors to help my sons navigate adolescence. But I’m not sure those resources would be there for us. There are already so many kids who are missing Dads!

                –“Of course, it’s not ideal. However, marrying someone one doesn’t love and doesn’t want to live with is also very selfish and horrible for everyone”–

                So don’t have children. This is not difficult.

                On marrying someone one doesn’t love… I’m not a romantic. You shouldn’t marry someone you hate, but… very few people stay in love after they get married– why should it be necessary to start out that way? My husband and I have been in and out of love a couple of times in ten years– the trick is to remain friends in the dry spells. One of my friends was getting quite old and still single, so her brothers found her a husband. They barely knew each other when they married. They have two children now and are very happy. It wasn’t about love. Just two decent people who wanted a spouse, had similar values, and were willing to make it work. They love each other now. She adores him because he is such a good dad. He dotes on her and he is proud of how smart and beautiful his wife is. They’re so cute 🙂 She is just one of several friends who are happy in marriages that were arranged, or that otherwise did not begin as love-matches. If anything, they seem to have better than average success.


        2. Sometimes it’s both parents. Sometimes it’s just the father. The mother finds a new guy who isn’t very interested in having a bunch of somebody else’s kids around. Or starts abusing the kids.

          Kids join gangs because it’s fun, there’s unlimited alcohol, pot and sex, which at 10-12 years of age is irresistible. The gang stands up for you to an abusive stepfather. It offers a sense of family, loyalty, identity.

          They are never forced. They have to beg for several years to be accepted and subject themselves to severe beatings as a rite of acceptance. Girls have to submit to a prolonged gang rape to be accepted.


          1. // Kids join gangs because it’s fun, there’s unlimited … sex, which at 10-12 years of age is irresistible.
            … Girls have to submit to a prolonged gang rape

            I guess the sex component applies only to boys?

            And, even for boys, 10 years old is way too young, if a child grows up in a normal fashion, f.e. w/o being sexually abused.


            1. ” being in gangs was about money”

              In my understanding that’s only true for the gang leaders. For the rank and file, being in a gang is about belonging (and sometimes positive personal feedback as a member that they get nowhere else). And fear, prospective members have to commit horrible crimes so that they won’t be tempted to leave…


              1. Exactly. The leaders do make money. But the kids, they got a place to stay, tons of junk food and pot. That’s their payment.


              2. I read in Freakonomics and drug trade and found on the web:

                // The organization methods that Chicago gangs appeared to use were almost indistinguishable from the organization methods of a McDonald’s franchise. Much like a McDonald’s franchise, J.T. ran one branch of the Black Disciples gang. J.T. was a manager, who reported to a centralized “board of directors.” J.T. paid his board 20 percent of his gang’s revenues, in return for the right to sell crack in his territory. J.T. had different employees, including enforcers, foot soldiers, and runners. J.T had to compensate his employees and pay his board a monthly fee—but after these payments, he enjoyed an annual salary of about 100,000 dollars.

                J.T. made a good living as the head of his gang. But his employees didn’t do so well. The lowest level employees, foot soldiers, were responsible for doing business with crack users. Many foot soldiers made such small amounts of money that they had to live at home with their mothers (answering the question posed in this chapter’s title). At times, foot soldiers had to fight to protect their supplies of drugs, and they often went to jail. Sudhir calculated that foot soldiers had a one in four chance of being murdered.

                Why would anyone take a job that offered a one in four chance of being murdered? For the same reason that people move to Hollywood or wake up early to lift weights: because they want to succeed and “make it to the top.” Furthermore, many of the people who became foot soldiers in Chicago had no clear alternatives—they couldn’t get an education or find a safe, well-paying job. So the problem with crack dealing is the problem with so many other professions: a lot of people vie for a small number of “prizes.” One consequence of this feature of the crack business is that being a foot soldier doesn’t pay very well—because the demand to be a foot soldier is so high, wages are low. Many of J.T.’s foot soldiers left the job after they realized they weren’t going to be promoted—but more foot soldiers would always replace them.



              3. There are much more important benefits than that, especially to the young kids who join gangs. It’s a feeling of community, of having a group that’s always on your side. A sense of belonging, of identity. There’s nothing more important than identity in teenage years. That’s why tattoos and clothing are so important to gang members. That’s why they are willing to kill and die to protect the symbols of the gang.


  6. The popular conversation contrasts raising the standard of living in third world countries with protecting environment. However, reading the below quote made me wonder whether the masses’ standard of living is going to be raised regardless of environmental concerns:

    // The broad-based upward mobility once seen in the West—and more recently in Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—may never come to China. Wages in the manufacturing sector are not high enough to lift people into the middle class, writes Nan Chen. “Rather than replicating the middle-class growth of post–World War II America,” she observes, “China appears to have skipped that stage altogether and headed straight for a model of extraordinary productivity but disproportionately distributed wealth like the contemporary United States.” //

    I also liked what ‘green’ overlords are preparing for the first world population (all for the planet, of course):

    // Even the swelling slums of the developing world have been viewed as something to celebrate more than a cause for alarm, in large part because of the slum-dwellers’ low consumption of energy and other resources. Michael Kimmelman, an urbanist writing for the New York Times, called slums “not just a blight but a potential template for organic urbanism.”

    Many intellectuals, architects, and planners have promoted values reminiscent of the medieval past as being in better harmony with human nature. Some conservative thinkers, such as the late Roger Scruton, have been critical of the disorderly modern urban world and especially of the suburban culture created by liberal capitalism. Scruton favored a return to a geography of densely populated cities surrounded by a protected countryside, without the middle landscape of suburbs—the places where the property-owning middle classes overwhelmingly live today. //


    1. Michael Shellenberger in Apocalypse Never explains that raising the standard of living in poor countries is the only way to help the environment. I highly recommend the book.


  7. This one quote perfectly explains the mistake of relying on new tech elites to control our future:

    // As Irving Kristol wrote almost two decades ago, the fundamental problem is that technological and scientific elites “have the inclination to think that the world is full of ‘problems’ to which they should seek ‘solutions.’ But the world isn’t full of problems; the world is full of other people.” Of course, he adds, “there is no ‘solution’ to the existence of other people. All you can do is figure out a civilized accommodation with them.” //

    Kotkin in an expert in urban studies, and I especially liked his description of the changes within cities and the totalitatian urban future of FB & Google built “smart cities.” See: China. (It’s in the chapter on “The New Geography of Feudalism.”)


  8. Rod’s post has 2 good links, one of them to a new Cato national survey which “finds that self‐​censorship is on the rise in the United States.”

    One of interesting parts is

    “A third (33%) among those who worry that their political views could harm their employment supported firing either Biden or Trump donors, compared to 24% of those who were not worried about their views impacting their jobs. This suggests that those who fear reprisal or economic penalty for their political views are not entirely distinct from those who seek the same for others.”

    They call it a “particularly surprising finding” but, if one thinks, there is nothing surprising about it.

    People fear things they want to do to others since they expect those ‘Others’ to be similar to them.


  9. Another good link is

    AN ANGRY NATION by R. R. Reno

    Reno travelled and talked to (leaning right) people “to get a sense of our national mood.” He expected to encounter heightened emotions but the intensity of the anger surprised him.

    After reading the three stories below, one may wonder whether we are not before anti-Left, anti -BLM and anti-trans backlash which is likely, unfortunately, to do a damage of its own instead of curbing excesses.

    QUOTE (three stories which are the “meat” of this article)

    One friend observed that he took the lockdown seriously, accepting the dictates of medical experts. It came at a great cost. His brother, ill with cancer, died in early May. He could not visit him or attend his funeral. A month later, the same public health experts endorsed BLM marches that numbered in the tens of thousands. My friend is infuriated by the duplicity.

    In Western Pennsylvania, another friend expressed outrage at lockdowns and the suspension of civil liberties. He noted that the chief public health official in Pennsylvania is a transgender person, appointed by Governor Tom Wolfe. “It’s the worst-case scenario of identity politics,” he observed. “We have a mentally ill person controlling the lives of 13.5 million people so that the governor can feel good about being a paragon of inclusion.”

    A few told stories that suggest the Obama-to-Trump voters in Ohio and other Midwestern states are more supportive of the president, not less so. One spoke of a working-class neighbor with tattoo sleeves and four kids who struggles to stay ahead of his bills. He voted for Obama two times, but switched to Trump in 2016. His vote was reluctant. He regarded Trump as a mean-spirited man, which he does not like. But BLM has enraged him. He interprets the rhetoric of the past two months as accusing him of being a racist. My friend reports that this neighbor is now an enthusiastic Trump supporter.


    1. Gosh, I hope so. I hope there are still people who have the brains to be angry. Around me, everybody is completely brainwashed, like a zombie. I only know two people who aren’t BLM fanatics. They are both immigrants, obviously. Everybody else is fanatically, rabidly pro-BLM and pro-lockdowns because it always goes together somehow.

      I have a friend who has been so utterly apolitical her whole life, it was funny. She’s in her 70s. Now she’s going to every BLM protest and can’t talk about anything other than who didn’t go and what’s wrong with those who don’t.


  10. Unlike in America, in Israel violence is coming from the right (photos and a video at the link):

    “(el: numbered over 1,000) Protesters came under violent attack during a march in Tel Aviv on Tuesday night. At least five of them were wounded and treated at local hospitals. The attacks were attributed to pro-Netanyahu activists.

    According to eyewitness accounts, groups of men in black T-shirts, armed with sticks, bottles and pepper spray infiltrated the march and turned on the marchers.

    This was the third reported incident of violence by alleged supporters of the prime minister against protesters.
    One man was arrested on suspicion that he hurled a stone at demonstrators while others fled.

    Opposition leader Yair Lapid said the violence was the responsibility of the prime minister who had branded the demonstrators as anarchists who were spreading COVID-19.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.