Browse By

Donald Trump Says He Would Publish a NeoNazi Image Again

This week, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is walking straight into a stinking mire of the kind of hate for its own sake that has become the defining characteristic of right wing politics.

The week began with the news that Donald Trump had posted an image of Hillary Clinton in front of a wall of money, with a 6-pointed star bearing a condemnation of Clinton’s corruption. The image quickly drew condemnation as an expression of antisemitism.

As antisemitism goes, the image wasn’t very clear. The star on Trump’s image had six points, like the Jewish Star of David, but it was red, and solid, not yellow, with a hollow center. The combination of the six-pointed star with a wall of money seemed to move in the direction of the old stereotype of Jews as people who secretly control the world through their money-lending prowess, but the link between these symbols had some plausible deniability.

That deniability became less plausible, however, with the news that the image was originally created by a neoNazi Trump fan. NeoNazis are scrupulous in their symbolism. They don’t use a star with six points unless they mean to refer to the Star of David, and the Jewish identity that it represents. With this revelation, the message behind Trump’s image became clear: It expresses a right wing conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton is a representative of a Jewish cabal of moneylenders that secretly controls the world.

In response, Donald Trump insisted that he never posted the image with any intention to express antisemitism. He just thought that the star on the image was a star, and didn’t mean any harm by it, Trump said.

That explanation made some sense at the time. Perhaps Donald Trump simply didn’t know that the image came from a neoNazi who shares Adolf Hitler’s belief that Jews are an evil group of people who inflict secret political conspiracies upon the world.

The plausibility of Trump’s excuse was shattered yesterday, however, when the presidential candidate angrily insisted that he would post the image all over again. In a speech in Cincinnati, Trump declared that he “should have left it up”, and explained that it was the decision of campaign employees to remove the image from Trump’s Twitter feed.

Donald Trump made this statement after he found out that the image comes from a neoNazi, a person who almost certainly did intend the image to be antisemitic.

Trump’s excuses for the image no longer hold water. Trump knows where it came from. He knows the image’s intent as an expression of hatred against Jews.

Most Americans understand that using propaganda created by neoNazis is absolutely unacceptable. They understand that anyone who uses such propaganda, even if they didn’t realize its origin, should remove it from publication and apologize for the mistake.

Donald Trump won’t accept even that basic standard of decent respect. The fact that he is unwilling to acknowledge the need to retract or apologize for the use of neoNazi propaganda should serve as a clear warning of the manner in which he would use the power of the President of the United States.

20 thoughts on “Donald Trump Says He Would Publish a NeoNazi Image Again”

  1. ella says:

    (false announcement) All Points Bulletin: All teachers are to NEVER AGAIN use your 6 sided gold stars to award a student for good work. NEVER use a 6 sided star of any color in school plays, for homework assignments, or tests – FOR ANY grade level! Six sided stars are now barred from social use due to media hype assigning them as a symbol of only one group of persons throughout the world. Thereby singling out those individuals who practice one specific religion, placing them in the spotlight for possible public derision, as they have as a religious symbol a geometric double triangle that resembles a 6 sided star!

    1. Jim Cook says:

      “Use 6 sided stars” does not equal “find a Neo-Nazi image on a white supremacist account with anti-Semitic symbolism, copy it and use it for a presidential campaign.”

      The simple use of a 6-sided star does not trouble me. The repeated reference to white supremacist and Neo-Nazi materials by the Donald Trump campaign does.

    2. J Clifford says:

      How about this, Ella:

      Would you be concerned if a schoolteacher in your community started using politically derogatory materials, suggesting antisemitic stereotypes, obtained from neoNazis, in the classroom?

      The source matters. The source informs what meaning of the use of the symbol is.

      1. ella says:

        J Clifford, you know that Christianity, which is derived from the Jewish people, has suffered in schools around the nation for years. Symbols have been, and are still being, removed from public places/government buildings. The swastika is a legally used symbol, but a 6 sided star cannot be illustrated? I grant the double triangle does, when filled in, form a 6 sided star, but that is not what it is or represents. In fact: “The symbol was also used in Christian churches as a decorative motif many centuries before its first known use in a Jewish synagogue” That is the hexagram was, as well as “The Cross” symbol. Certainly you do not equate the swastika with a hexagram, and even if the hexagram (filled in to look like a 6 pointed star) was in reference to the Jewish people, please tell me what offense did it represent in that picture? Granted money was in the picture and a lot of people could resent that comparison. Hillary Clinton was in the picture – and I can see why some equating a hexagram with her could be offensive. But I wonder what reason, if any, was given by any members of Jewish community for offense. Do you know?

        1. Juniper says:

          No, Ella, Christianity has not suffered in the schools. The attempt by a minority of Christian extremists to force Christianity on everybody’s children, using public schools as a tool in this campaign, has been stymied. There is nothing that stops anybody from individual acts of Christianity in public schools, so long as they are not coercive toward others. What Christians may not do in public schools is the same thing that Muslims may not do that Jews may not do that Hindus may not do that atheists may not do, which is to force religious belief on anybody else. It is a problem in Christianity but so many people believe that religious freedom means the freedom to force religion on other people in public schools.

          1. ella says:

            Either you are a propagandist or have been hog washed with propaganda. Juniper, there are many who try to push that today. Those who have lived through the evolution of the process and are familiar with the change in the education system personally, know they were lucky if they left the public system prior to 1966.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Juniper’s right, ella. Public schoolkids in America are absolutely free to pray in school, no matter what their religion. People are NOT free to drag public school resources and platforms into mounting collective prayer sessions that everyone has to listen to or participate in. That’s an important distinction that keeps the schools from being hijacked and turned into tools of sectarian religious proselytization.

            When I was a schoolkid a generation ago, long after the sixties, I had to suffer through loads of Christians using their leadership positions in my public school, seizing the microphone, and going on and on and on about how we all had to accept Jesus as our personal savior to be good people and good members of the community while we all were forced to sit there and listen. That’s not appropriate for any member of any religious group to force upon public schoolkids in America. It’s counterproductive, it’s pushy, and it’s unconstitutional.

            However, it is entirely appropriate for individual people at school to engage in personal acts of religion, and public schoolkids are absolutely free to do so across the United States as long as they don’t blare it over the loudspeakers, incorporate it into mandatory events, or otherwise push it on others. What’s your problem with that?

          3. ella says:

            I don’t know where you went to school Jim Cook, but I never experienced anything like that before or during the sixties. From North to South and The Heartland and Plains states, there was a brief Good Morning students, please join me in prayer. Then a brief prayer asking for each students success and good health during the day. It was the same from state to state. No one was required to participate in the prayer, it was a request. As of 1966 that all changed. You poor thing to have been intimidated by those who definitely did not want you to even consider prayer. Intimidation is what was and still is used as personal, silent prayer is not obviously demonstrated, unless it is a head bowed situation. I have only once, in recent years, been accosted by “religious” persons, who certainly offended me with their pushy actions and attitude. I do not consider that type to be Christian and they do not follow the teaching of the Bible, even though they say they do. But if went through all of that psychological impression training, I can understand your aversion to the subject.

          4. Jim Cook says:

            Ella writes, “I don’t know where you went to school Jim Cook, but I never experienced anything like that before or during the sixties. From North to South and The Heartland and Plains states, there was a brief Good Morning students, please join me in prayer.”

            Actually, ella, you just told me in effect that you did experience what I’m talking about; it’s just that you were in the majority group. That behavior you describe is pushy proselytization by people who used their position of power to make Christianity the default religion of a school.

          5. ella says:

            I understand your point, however, throughout the world, those who pray, which is pretty much everyone – other than those who consider themselves a law unto themselves – find comfort in doing so in groups. Of course if someone wants to destroy that closeness, the best way is to separate and ridicule the members. An aggression against a religion or God/god(s). Not a new concept that you advocate. The school was to bring order and comfort to the classrooms for the day.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            1. It is not the case that “pretty much everyone” prays. That is only your impression. Step outside yourself.
            2. It is not the case that “pretty much everyone” who prays enjoys doing so in groups. Read your own Bible, Matthew 6:5-6, which actually frowns upon ostentatious public prayer and promotes quiet private prayer, which is exactly what every public school child in America is absolutely free to do.
            3. Freedom from religious proselytization is not aggression against religion.
            4. Preventing public school leadership from proselytizing their religion upon children is not “separating and ridiculing” school leadership.
            5. The United States of America is not organized around the principle of “bringing order and comfort” through government-sponsored common religious exercises in school. What you favor is unconstitutional and therefore unamerican.

  2. Charles Manning says:

    Jim Cook, I’m with you on this. We should emphasize that freedom of speech, not political correctness, is vital in this country, in part because, as you point out, it allows people like Donald Trump to convey very important information about what they would do if given political power.

  3. Charles Manning says:

    Sorry, I meant to attribute the observation to Peregrin Wood, author of the article.

  4. Korky Day says:

    Donald Trump sounds pretty bad the way you tell it, Peregrine Wood.
    So I guess Trump hates his Jewish son-in-law and doesn’t want to have anything to do with him or any other Jews.
    It all makes sense now.

    1. Charles Manning says:

      Korky Day, you raise a good point. The Star of David controversy shows that Trump doesn’t think through the consequences of his actions. Not that he agrees with neoNazis — I think there would be signs of a rift within his own family if that were so, since his daughter evidently rejected Christianity in marrying a Jew and converting to Judaism. There are valid objections to the way Hillary Clinton has acted as a pawn of her financial backers, but those objections have been eclipsed by Trump’s use of antisemitic symbolism. Those of us who agree with Trump’s criticism of Clinton now have to explain that we reject Trump’s antisemitic aura.

      1. ella says:

        If one were to believe the hexagram and the star are the same symbol, why has anyone thought the believe that it has a negative connotation in that particular picture? That is a matter of personal belief. If I were to take the star as a hexagram symbol, with my background, I would equate it with the money, not Hillary. Or as a separate ideology, saying that the “Star of David” stands above it all.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      Well deployed straw man. You know from reading Peregrin’s article that this isn’t the point.

    3. Juniper says:

      History is full of fathers who disrespect their son-in-laws. Yes, Donald Trump has a Jewish son-in-law. He is disrespecting that your son-in-law by coddling neo-Nazis.

      1. ella says:


  5. John says:

    Yes, trumps denial in reguards to his white power buddies is almost as disconcerting as the Clinton’s ability to make people closely connected to them die in such large numbers that it literally boggles the mind (this only happens to people who are not total brain dead zombies that are incapable of seeing the reality of things). Then act like they know absolutely nothing about it- don’t you think???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!