Category Archives: Seven Jewish Children/Caryl Churchill

Staging Dialogue at Theater J (parts 4 + 5) – The Blog as Metatext: Constructive Conversation/Negative Space

from Staging Dialogue at Theater J: Negotiating Israeli Politics in Jewish Communal Encounters  by Elliot Leffler, University of Minnesota

(the essay starts here, and continues with parts 4 & 5 below – footnotes appear at end – “Works cited” appears at the end of part 2 and will be reposted together with the paper’s conclusion later today…)

The Blog as Metatext: The Relational Aesthetics of the Post-Show Conversation

Ari Roth, Stephen Stern, and Shirley Serotsky, who organize the post-show discussions at Theater J, generally invite a guest or a panel of guests to initiate the dialogue.[1]   At the first performance of Return to Haifa, Anton Goodman, who works as a shaliach (liaison) for the Jewish Agency, filled this role.[2]  As he recalled in a follow-up blog post, Goodman described the play as “opening a raw wound in our history but also celebrating the freedom of speech in Israel” (Goodman np).  Others in the audience were offended by his focus on the liberalism and inclusiveness of the State; this felt inappropriate in light of a narrative that was (at least in part) challenging Jews to acknowledge the way that their society “appropriate[s] everything” from Palestinians (Pladott np).  He was offering a particularist take on a narrative that seemed to challenge Jews to engage in a more universalist critique of Israeli policies.

A Palestinian-American woman (who prefers to remain anonymous) stood up to challenge Goodman’s framing of the event, suggesting that the play itself was an Israeli appropriation of this iconic Palestinian novella.  One blogger who attended the discussion observed, “Though she did not intend her comments to be accusatory in any way, I still felt tensions rise in the theater as she spoke” (McDonough np).  This Palestinian-American woman then wrote an email to Ari Roth, which he posted on the blog with her permission, clarifying her position.  She opened by calling the production “extraordinary,” and ended her email by appreciating Roth’s manner of facilitating the discussion, his personal warmth, and his “inclusive way of handling things.” But in the middle of her email, sandwiched between these compliments, she critiqued the ways that the Palestinian narrative is presented as “secondary” to the Israeli narrative; at times, she felt like the humorous remarks of the Jewish protagonist served to “minimize” the pain of the Palestinian couple (Roth with Anonymous np).

Udi Pladott, a Jewish Israeli who attended on the same evening, and who has been living long-term in Virginia, recalled her comments in his own blog post.  He, too, opened and closed with compliments to the theatre, yet he also expanded on her critique, saying “In your production, the story turned from one about Said [the Palestinian protagonist] to one about Miriam [the Israeli protagonist] . . . Your dramatic choices with respect to the original are making the statement that the Palestinian tragedy cannot be recognized and acknowledged unless it is juxtaposed with our own tragedy.”  He charged that the Cameri Theatre was contributing to a self-congratulatory ethos within Israel that celebrates its open-mindedness while “undermining real criticism and real struggles for justice.”  He described the play as a “cocktail . . . that leaves the drinker feeling that the status quo may not be perfect, but it still makes sense.”  Tellingly, Pladott ended his note with the self-reflection, “I have been living here abroad for over 9 years and I see from this distance (and up close, when I visit) a country that’s becoming more and more violent and alien to me.”  With this comment, he attributed his emotional distance from the particularist narrative of the Jewish State to his emerging American identity.   (Pladott np).

Stephen Stern, an American Jew who serves on the Theater J Council, then responded to Udi on the blog.  He politely challenged Udi’s American-universalist distancing from the Jewish-Israeli mainstream, challenging him to consider the ways that mainstream Israeli views are becoming increasingly sensitive to Palestinian concerns.  “Udi,” he pleaded, “don’t write off the engagement of those who count themselves as ‘defenders of Zion’, who praise Israeli democracy, in encountering the Palestinian narrative and its claims.”  He pointed to the efforts underway, both in the Israeli academy and “in all circles in Israel,” to complicate the founding narrative of the state and to wrestle with what that revised history might ethically entail (Stern np).

Finally, Goodman himself wrote a post, responding to the Palestinian-American woman approximately two weeks after the event.  Continue reading

Staging Dialogue at Theater J (Part 3) – The Community Conversation About Israel Outside the Cultural Sphere

from Staging Dialogue at Theater J: Negotiating Israeli Politics in Jewish Communal Encounters  by Elliot Leffler, University of Minnesota

(the essay starts here, and continues with part 3 below)

The Current Conversation (Or Lack Thereof)

In a 2010 article in The New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart argues that the major institutions that shape public opinion in the American Jewish community have actively discouraged an open conversation about Israeli politics.  By “defending virtually anything any Israeli government does” and publicly discrediting the human rights group that critique government policy, organizations like American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Anti-Defamation League set a tone for Jewish-American rhetoric that elides critical thought and nuanced conversation.  They have created a dogma for the Jewish community of what it means to be pro-Israel – a dogma which allows for little dissent (Beinart np).

Inside the primary local institutions of Jewish life in the US – synagogues – Jewish communities often speak the tropes that are modeled by the national organizations, or elide the conversation entirely.   In part, this is because we think of the synagogue primarily as a space for prayer.  When we pray, we speak in unison, move in unison, and refer to ourselves in the first-person plural, nurturing a sense of one-ness or communitas.[1]

([1] “Communitas,” according to anthropologist Victor Turner, is a sense of invigorating, inspiring unity catalyzed by community ritual (Turner 1982 47-48).)

As we do so, we inherently discourage dissent.  (The same resistance happens at other ritual gatherings, in which the ritual event also promotes a sense of communitas: Shabbat dinners, Passover Seders, family reunions, etc.)  Moreover, the pro-Israel symbolism within synagogues (flags in the sanctuary, Israeli art in the lobby, prayers for the State of Israel, etc) enables us to avoid an explicit conversation of how we differ in our feelings about Israel.  These symbols preserve a sense of peace and cohesion in the congregation, as they allow members of a wide variety of ideological stances (left-wing Zionists and right-wing Zionists, for example) to adopt the same symbolism.  We foreground that which we have in common, and privately, we nuance those similarities in very different ways (Cohen 18).

Anthony Cohen suggests that this ability of community to contain discordance is its “great triumph.”  This allows community members to establish a commonality that need not amount to a uniformity (20).  But, if there is no opportunity for community members to discuss, challenge, and refine their ideas, then Zygmunt Bauman argues that community becomes an oppressive place, in which we sacrifice freedom (to think independently) on the altar of communal security (4-5). As I argued in the previous section of this paper, the individuals who comprise the American Jewish community feel an increasing need to discuss and to question Israeli policy.  The emergence of more and more explicitly political plays about Israel throughout the past three decades attests to that need.  But rather than developing this dialogue in institutions that might accommodate a range of opinions, the Jewish community has largely splintered into opposing publics: a right-wing public that circulates its ideas through AIPAC, the ADL, the magazine Commentary, and other institutions, and a left-wing counter-public that circulates its ideas through the NIF, Americans for Peace Now, J Street, and the magazine Tikkun. This bifurcation into separate public spheres has impoverished the Jewish communal dialogue, creating a dual set of dogmas rather than establishing a dynamic space of open conversation and questioning.[2]

([2] A public, according to Michael Warner, is a space of discourse that organizes itself around an uptake of texts and a circulation of responses to those texts.  For instance, the right-wing Jewish magazine Commentary has a readership that engages with each other, through Commentary (and perhaps also through press releases from the ADL, AIPAC, and other Jewish organizations).  This readership constitutes a public.  I’m suggesting that left-wing Jewish organizations and publications, such as Tikkun, have created a counter-public – a public with a subordinate power status that organizes itself in opposition to a dominant public (Warner 2002).  Thus, the discourse largely takes place in two separate spheres. )

Theater J’s programming suggests that perhaps theatre can succeed where other institutions have failed. Plays that express a political opinion – or a number of conflicting opinions – engage audiences in a version of the dialogue that generally seems elusive within the American Jewish community.  Daniele Klapproth argues, after Deborah Tannen, that the process of watching a play is cognitively an active process of narrative involvement: as audience members make sense out of the images and sounds that originate on stage, they participate in a joint interactional achievement with the performers.  They engage in a silent conversation on issues they have been unable to discuss at their synagogues or their other Jewish gatherings.  In producing plays like Pangs of the Messiah and Return to Haifa, and staging readings like Seven Jewish Children, Theater J stimulates this nonverbal “conversation” with its audiences.

Yet Theater J also goes a step further than this silent conversation.  It has structured its programming to include extensive post-show discussions after every production of controversial plays like Return to Haifa and every staged reading of plays like Seven Jewish Children.  The theatre then supplements these conversations, which often last an hour or longer, with periodic “Peace Café” programs in which patrons gather with drinks and snacks to discuss the issues further.  Afterwards, the interactive Theater J blog is available for a continued conversation.  Thus, audience members can extend the conversation – a conversation which began as a tacit but active cognitive interaction with the performers – into a verbal and written engagement with other members of the Washington, DC Jewish community.  Continue reading

The Jerusalem Post Digs Into Yonkers (and why we produced it)

Lost, and found, in Yonkers

By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
Nov 8, 2009 5:00

WASHINGTON – Following the controversy last year over a staged reading of the play Seven Jewish Children‚ Theater J artistic director Ari Roth thought the community needed a play that would allow for some healing.

To that end, he broke with the Theater J tradition of performing “a good depressing autumnal play,” and chose to put on Neil Simon’s prize-winning Lost in Yonkers for an extended run.

Not that the production is pure comedy , in fact, many of the laughs it provides are intensified by serving to break up moments of deep tension , but it does represent a lighter inflection of the crushing family drama genre. And perhaps most importantly, it offers a plotline that’s ultimately redemptive.

“I felt this was what we needed as a community, as Jews… with us always at each other’s throats,” explained Roth, whose Theater J is located in the Jewish Community Center in downtown Washington.

He added that the greater societal context was also significant in his choice, with the current economic crisis and what he called a “rift” in the Jewish community following the elections of US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu positioning his theater “on the seam” of those various forces.

It was our job in this slot to bring us together,” he said. “We needed a family play with hardened characters, hardened hearts, [from which] we needed to create some reconciliation.”

to continue reading, click here

(and it’s not a bad piece, and I’m more or less quoted accurately; it’s just a bit bald… but that’s okay. I’m glad this piece was written.)

7JC in Tel Aviv

from Ha-Aretz.com: “Controversial play Seven Jewish Children To Go On Stage in Tel Aviv’s Kikar Rabin This Evening.”
The article continues: “It is directed online via Skype and video by Samieh Jabbarin, who has been under house arrest for four months. Jabbarin, a Jaffa resident and director at the city’s Arab-Hebrew Theater, was placed under arrest in his parents’ Umm al-Fahm home after demonstrating against the appointment of radical right activist Baruch Marzel as monitor of the town’s polling station in the January elections.” continue reading here

A New Response Play to 7JC – By Israel Horovitz: WHAT GOOD FENCES MAKE

from Israel Horovitz
(and check out this related piece in The Jerusalem Post)

A few months ago, when British dramatist Caryl Churchill’s controversial Seven Jewish Children was first offered to theatres, world-wide, via the internet, I was contacted by Ari Roth, Artistic Director of Theater J in Washington, DC. Mr. Roth was about to produce Seven Jewish Children, and asked me to read the Churchill play and write what he called “a response piece”. On reading Ms. Churchill’s play, which I found to be offensive — distorted and manipulative — my initial reaction was to not respond … certainly not to create a “competing” play to be shown in the same evening as the Churchill play… And so I stayed silent.

But, on reflection, a few weeks after Churchill’s play had come and gone from Theater J, I felt another voice needed to be heard. Over the past three weeks, I have written (and re-written) a new short play entitled What Strong Fences Make.

My play is, I think, simple and clear, and certainly needs no explanation from its author. But, I hasten to add that it’s a simple and clear stage-play that attempts to make a statement about a real-life situation that is anything but simple and clear. But, What Strong Fences Make is, most definitely, a different point of view from Caryl Churchill’s point of view, and certainly no less valid.

Theater J has agreed to make my play available to theatres, worldwide, via its website (go to http://www.theaterj.org, then click on “Middle East Festival”) and here on its blog (keep reading). Any theatre wishing to translate and produce this play may do so, royalty free. But, I ask that a collection be taken among audience members and a donation be made to One Family Fund (www.onefamilyfund.org), a charity offering aid to children wounded in attacks on Israel. (One Family Fund aids Israeli-Jews, Israeli-Arabs, Israeli-Druze, Israeli-Bedouins, and children of diplomats living in Israel.)

I am well aware that I am an American, living thousands of miles away from the profound moral dilemma that Israelis must face each and every day of their lives. But, I am very much a Jew, and, as a writer who spends nearly as much time in Paris and London, as I do in NYC, I am angered by the rise in anti-Semitism. It is possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, as it is possible to criticize Palestine without being anti-Arab. Those who criticize Jews in the name of criticizing Israel, as Ms. Churchill seems to have done in her play, step over an unacceptable boundary and must be taken to task.
Continue reading

Hannah on Seven Jewish Children

Hello Theater J blog readers.
Ari invited me to post on here an email I shared with him yesterday. It took me all day to remember the password and login for the blog that I created. I feel so distant from Theater J up in New York but at the same time I feel so closely connected. With the performances of Seven Jewish Children and the discussions surrounding them I feel so proud of both Theater J and of Forum Theatre where I remain a company member. The email below was written to Jeffery Goldberg after reading his continued postings and anger towards the piece and Ari’s choice to produce it.

Hi Jeffery -

I feel compelled to write after reading your continued posts on the controversy surrounding Theater J’s production of Seven Jewish Children.

I have to say that I find your vehement attitude towards Caryl Churchill’s play wrong. I understand that it can ruffle feathers but when I hear you say blood libel and propaganda I have to say I don’t see it at all. I first read the play when it was being produced at the Royal Court. I was nervous reading it after hearing the reports of antisemitism. I should also say that I am in general a huge fan of Churchill’s work, and I was afraid that I would be disappointed and angry at one of my favorite writers (and I am disappointed that she has chosen to boycott Israeli theater). What I found instead stunned me but not for the reasons I had worried. I was extremely moved by the piece. The preciseness of language that she uses, the simplicity of structure and the openness of character hit me on a very profound level. In only 7 pages she was able to make me cry, and I consider that a great feat. Continue reading

‘Tell Her the Truth’ – Kushner and Solomon on 7JC in The Nation (with a revision on MondoWeiss)

Important postings from New York. There’s this from Tony Kushner and Alisa Solomon and this from Phillip Weiss, another kindred spirit. [Well, now, thanks to Elaine “latenight” Reuben, I double back to continue reading Mr. Weiss’s scoring of the marathon chat with Jeffrey Goldberg – and Phillip’s down on my performance; not strong enough; too bullied by Jeffrey; i talk out of two sides of my mouth, if not two sides of the brain, or heart. Shame on me.)

The Kushner-Solomon examination of the play is written a keeper — it will stand the test of time as a penetrating analysis and should be saved. So much else here in this debate can and will be scrapped. Including Phillip’s pretty terrible editing of our transcript. I liked his write-up of his time in the audience at NYTW much better).

Watershed Discussion… The Washington Post Assesses Evening #1

washingtonpost.com

      
Caryl Churchill's provocative work, originally staged above in London, is an eight-minute play that left emotions running high at Theater J.
Caryl Churchill’s provocative work, originally staged above in London, is an eight-minute play that left emotions running high at Theater J. (By Keith Pattison)                                  

Washington Post Staff Writer 
Friday, March 27, 2009; Page C01

Click here to read at washingtonpost.com

The post-show “talkback” has become a staple of theater around these parts, a way for serious-minded companies to offer a bit of extra value — and explanation for their work — to audiences. Now, however, the after-performance discussion has been elevated to something on the order of performance art, courtesy of the sensitive and savvy folks who run Theater J.

The troupe, based at the D.C. Jewish Community Center, decided to make an interactive evening out of the controversy surrounding Caryl Churchill’s inflammatory new eight-minute play, “Seven Jewish Children.” It would have been easy for Theater J’s artistic director, Ari Roth, to have turned the reflection on this piece of agitprop — which in the aftermath of the Gaza invasion heaps outrage on Israelis’ purported moral blindness — into a posturing focus-group gab-a-thon.

Instead, what transpired Wednesday night in the intimate Aaron and Cecile Goldman Theater amounted to a watershed in the evolution of immediate dialogue between a political play and its audience. The brevity of the piece certainly helped distill to vivid sound bites the attendees’ instantaneous reactions. But the way Roth constructed the event, bringing together actors, theatergoers, experts and even, via e-mail, Churchill herself, conferred on it some of the formalized gravity of a symposium and the messy urgency of an emergency meeting.

It was, for this professional spectator, fascinating.

It’s not standard form to review the audience. (We’re not conditioned to take the measure of art by a show of hands.) On this evening, though, a failure to assess the impact of the engaged, thoughtful crowd — an audience of young and old, Jews and Gentiles alike — would be a disservice to the production. Listening to the sharp give-and-take became as integral to the experience, in fact, as listening to the eight fine actors seated around a table, reading from Churchill’s script and the scripts of two other playwrights. The additional dramatists — Robbie Gringras, an Israeli, and the American Deb Margolin — wrote playlets critical of Churchill’s that mimic hers in structure and style.

Theater J sponsored the staged reading in conjunction with Forum Theatre, a smaller company based at the H Street Playhouse in Northeast Washington that has previously mounted Churchill’s work. A second reading was held last night by Theater J; tonight, tomorrow and Sunday, the venue changes to H Street, where Forum and its artistic director, Michael Dove, will take over the readings and after-show debate (admission to those performances is free).

The atmosphere will no doubt be altered each time this exercise occurs, and the formula might be difficult to replicate, depending on who leads the talk and who shows up to participate. Not to minimize their cause, but the presence Thursday night outside the Jewish Community Center of a group of demonstrators protesting the reading — some of them holding placards calling for Roth’s ouster — contributed to the theatrical electricity. During the discussion, an audience member remarked on this added dimension, saying that the little hubbub on the street made her attendance feel “unsafe.”

“Seven Jewish Children” (subtitled “A Play for Gaza”) is briefer than your average infomercial and 100 times more provocative. Make no mistake, though, it is a commercial, an effort to compress to black-and-white a question of conscience of infinite complexity. Divided into seven chapters, the playlet is structured as a series of staccato demands of one Jewish adult to another, about how to shield from, or explain to, an unseen child the harsh realities of their world.

Although the circumstances are slightly opaque — this is Churchill, after all — each chapter appears to refer to a period of modern Jewish history, starting with a section about the persecution of Jews in Europe in the 19th century. It progresses to the Holocaust and ultimately to contemporary Israel, where the tone changes, and the adults’ declarations are evoked as more hostile, inhumane. As someone put it Wednesday night, the playlet takes the position that the persecuted have become the persecutors.

Because Churchill is such a compelling dramatist — she’s the author of, among other plays, “Top Girls,” “Cloud Nine,” “A Number” and “Far Away” — the presentation is literarily seductive. Ultimately, though, it’s so reductive that it can be consigned to the category of beautifully crafted cheap shot, an effort to cast a multifaceted conflict as intractably one-sided.

The range of responses articulated Wednesday night, however, revealed that some were unmoved and others were deeply affected. Roth himself grappled with his own reactions in an opening speech that lasted roughly twice the length of Churchill’s play. Skillfully, he took on the job of drawing out audience response, a task he repeated after the readings of Gringas’s “One Israeli Child” and “The Eighth Jewish Child,” and Margolin’s “Seven Palestinian Children.”

One of the most intriguing interludes occurred after Roth invited to sit with him on the stage Amitai Etzioni, the German-born sociologist, a professor at George Washington University, who was taken to Palestine in the 1930s to escape the Nazis. After the reading, Etzioni said he was upset that the audience didn’t react angrily after an actor — presumably speaking as an Israeli — spoke the line, “We deliberately killed babies.”

Immediately, a member of the cast jumped forward to point out that there was no such declaration in the play; the line was actually “Tell her we killed the babies by mistake.” (Which, actually, among various possibilities could still be interpreted as the adult advising the child of a lie.) Still, an audience member found in Etzioni’s reaction an indication of a Rorschach quality of the piece.

“The professor,” he declared, “wanted a stronger reaction to a line that wasn’t in the play!”

And so it went. Roth gave his audience a chance to digest and puzzle out en masse, in an entirely exhilarating way. Which on the whole seems grounds not for dismissal, but a raise.

J Street Letter of Support on Discussing 7JC

[note the post-script below to correct misperceptions from those who never attended the event nor read our press release. But first, from J Street...]

J Street:

“The decision to feature Seven Jewish Children at Theater J should be judged not on the basis of the play’s content but, rather, on its value in sparking a difficult but necessary conversation within our community. To preclude even the possibility of such a discussion does a disservice not only to public discourse, but also to the very values of rigorous intellectual engagement and civil debate on which our community prides itself.

J Street takes no position on the content of Seven Jewish Children – it is, after all, a play, and not policy. We do, however, stand unequivocally behind Theater J in its decision to feature programming that examines different facets of this critical debate over how our community can best support Israel. Such an opportunity for individual and collective reflection is integral in informing our shared interest in bringing true peace and security to Israel.

- Amy Spitalnick
J Street | www.jstreet.org

* * *

Please note for all those continuing to read this important letter from J Street:

Theater J never “produced” nor did we ever “stage” Caryl Churchill’s 10 minute play, SEVEN JEWISH CHILDREN (A PLAY FOR GAZA); we held a two-night “critical inquiry” about it, inviting panelists to hear the play and then discuss it; we invited Israeli and American artists to write their own response plays to it. And I (Ari Roth, artistic director of the theater) in a lengthy introduction, explained that the most effective way to both understand and criticize the play would be to hear it as it was intended to be heard; as a piece of theater recited by actors.

Once again, we never “produced” the play; it was read (in both Hebrew and English) as a critical exercise, to better discuss and analyze it. The play lasted 8 minutes. It proved itself to be better than its detractors would have you believe, and we could come to understand what was unfair about it. The act of presenting the piece allowed us to demystify it. The act of being in dialogue with Carly Churchill herself allowed us to see her not as a flaming anti-Semite but as a dramatist who was moved out of twin sympathies and a sense of tragic historical irony that Jews once under siege were now laying siege. That’s the aspect of her play to which most Jews are most angered; it suggests an implicit meaning that Jews who once suffered at the hands of the Nazis are now behaving like Nazis. That’s not what the play says, or shows, but that’s the trope that has inflamed discussion around it. As you know, there are many ways to interpret a line of text. Churchill’s plays–and she’s regarded as one of the finest playwrights in the world–are frequently open-ended and elusive. Her short text, SEVEN JEWISH CHILDREN, required an informed Jewish response from a theater that could both grapple with the theatrical challenge in presenting her words artfully, while still providing a Jewish context and frame through which to view her work coolly and rationally.

Our community and critics appreciated the effort to bring light to the subject. You can read the Washington Post’s front page assessment of our handling of the situation here.

Seven’ Revels In Not Only Acting, but Interacting
By Peter Marks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 27, 2009

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic and the interview that wouldn’t end!

Going toe-to-toe with the wonderfully pugnacious Jeffrey Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly for 12 rounds was good fun… But it’s about serious stuff. He despises Churchill’s play. I tried to bring to Theater J to tell us why. I think we duke it out to a draw… Here’s an excerpt.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, tell me why I’m wrong.

Ari Roth: Well, let me ask you, do you think you’re still right?

JG: I read the play five times. It reads like anti-Jewish agitprop to me. I see it as a short polemic directed against one party in a complicated conflict. Take the line, “The world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.” I mean, I think she moves from the traditional smug, self-righteous European morally superior stance –

AR: When you say she starts, she doesn’t start there –

JG: No, no, no, let me finish my sentence. I think she moves into an area that she has to know has this very, very terrible historic resonance. It’s associating Jews with the spilling of innocent blood. She knows what that means and I think it kind of feeds into, obviously, the very worst and most dangerous stereotypes about Jews. How they revel in non-Jewish blood.

AR: I totally agree with you. I mean, I’m on the watch for this as well –

JG: Then why are you putting it on?

AR: I wrote in the Washington Post and the Washington Jewish Week when the Royal Shakespeare company came over with their Canterbury Tales two years ago and included The Prioress’s Tale and they brought, in order to make it pungent and fresh again, they did this re-enactment of essentially a blood libel, a young boy was slaughtered by Jews and buried under the floorboards, and all the Jews wore hook-noses. This was very primitive and I blasted it. They wanted to make it fresh, they wanted to elicit outrage, they didn’t contextualize, they didn’t — they wanted to surprise the shit out of people and surprise they did….
READ MORE