Retrenchment

Via MuzzleWatch (whose link doesn’t work, a chronic TNR problem), John B. Judis, who throws the slur around with the best of them, defends Jim Moran’s latest comments on AIPAC, at least to the extent that they are not – and cannot logically be – anti-Semitic (if my link fails, the Judis posting was made 10.03.07 and is called ‘Moran Down’).  There is obviously a developing concern amongst the Court Jews – The New Republic is owned by Canadian Jewish Billionaires par excellence the Aspers – that the obvious misuse of the slur will eventually lead to the destruction of the usefulness of the term in promoting the death of Muslims, not to mention its usefulness in protecting Jews from the almost unheard of real anti-Semitic attacks.  We’re seeing an Official Jewish retrenchment, a sort of Rake’s Progress, as follows:

1. There is no Lobby.


2. There is a Lobby but it has no power.


3. There is a Lobby and it has some power, but no more than most lobbies, and much less than many.


4. There is a Lobby with an enormous amount of power, but it is limited to AIPAC (the Judis position, which leads one to wonder if there is a Jewish Billionaire plan to throw AIPAC over the side if a sacrificial lamb is required; this may depend on how the treason trial plays out).


5. There is a Lobby with an enormous amount of power, not limited to AIPAC, but it had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq (an increasingly silly position to take, particularly while we are in the middle of a full court press on Iran; see this article and thread from Moon of Alabama and the money quote therein from Joe Alterman).


6. There is a Lobby with an enormous amount of power, not limited to AIPAC, and it was behind the attack on Iraq, and is behind future American wars in the Middle East, but all of this is for the good of the United States, as American and extreme right-wing Israeli interests are exactly identical.

As the first five propositions are so ridiculous, we’re headed for a series of justifications based on number 6, which is sort of based on Chomsky (although, of course, Chomsky distinguishes between the interests of the ‘Establishment’ and the real interests of Americans).  The problem with number 6 is that the attack on Iraq was such an obvious disaster for the United States – both elites and average Americans – and future attacks will be even worse – much worse. It is an impossible argument to make with a straight face.  However, due to the Jew-controlled media, number 6 is eventually – as the others become too silly to mention – the only argument that Americans will be hearing.  It has the advantage of working for all future American adventures in the Middle East promoted by Zionists.