Comes in many forms. All should be contested. Some will say what it constitutes is debatable but as a certain SCOTUS justice once said when trying to define obscenity: I know it when I see it.
The left-wing and Islamic forms are well known and have gotten the most attention. The far right forms are less familiar though and until recently much more fringe and inconsequential. Let's make some attempt to review them.
Neo-Nazis -
People who equate American policy with Jewish policy and thus end up siding with hostile foreign actors like Iran, Russia, and even al Qaeda in the most virulent strains.
Russophiles -
Putin lovers who blame the US for various things. Syria, the refugee crisis, NATO moving east, Ukraine, etc.
Secessionists -
Little need be said here. Wanting to break up the US is about as anti-American as it gets short of blowing the place up.
Rabid neo-con bashers -
These are the types that tend to see any foreign intervention as a neo-con operation. If they don't side with foreign powers outright they certainly attempt to hamstring necessary applications of American power much in the way leftists will try to hamstring the police domestically.
Much of the above stems from foreign policy ignorance - which is common among the general public. But this is weaponized ignorance.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Those kinds of neo-con Jews are less anti-American than they are vulnerable to the charge of dual-loyalty. They aren't hostile to the US. They are unduly sensitive to Israel's interests.
You could arguably have charged Pres. Wilson with similar questionable motives in WW1. Though Germans in this country were the same way in the other direction. What I can say is that Germans and Jews didn't found this country.
This is another indicator as to why ethnocultural background matters.