Wednesday, June 20, 2007

More on the J-word: a call for the plain-spoken truth

From a comment by Sean McBride:



“Xymphora is not addressing this complex and volatile issue with sufficient rigor or attention. Is it not a fact that the ‘J-word’ has often been used by bigots and anti-Semites throughout history to stir up genocidal hatred of all Jews, of Jews as a whole? Shouldn't one be exceedingly careful about not playing into the hands of such haters? Shouldn't one take pains not to use the J-word loosely, without making careful discriminations about which particular Jewish individuals or Jewish factions one is talking about? Of course real anti-Semites will dismiss these concerns with contempt, and speed right on through the red light with their reckless and deliberately inciting rhetoric.”


As far as I can tell, the only good reason for not using the J-word is that irresponsible and evil people have misused it in the past.  On the other hand, it is undeniable that the main protagonists in the manipulation of the United States to assist in the building of the Zionist Empire are Jewish.  More importantly, their Jewishness isn’t a coincidence, and pointing it out isn’t a slur.  It goes directly to motive.  Their actions are motivated by their irrational belief that building a Jewish Empire is necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.  They are convinced that the Holocaust will reoccur unless there is a safe haven just for Jews, and the present State of Israel is insufficient to be that haven.  Due to the dire and immense nature of the threat, they are completely unmoved by the moral implications of what they are doing.  Conspiring to lie to start a war which results in the deaths of a million people in Iraq is of no more moral consideration than are the lives of Palestinian civilians who live in an apartment block bombed by the IDF on the possibility that there might be someone described as a ‘terrorist’ living there.


One of the reasons we have difficulty with this concept is that this ScareJew is so irrational that we can hardly believe that 21st century human beings can actually think this way.  Unfortunately, the suspicions in the group mean that they share their paranoia only amongst themselves, which tends to reinforce it.  Philip Weiss, whose blog is a must-read, is very good on this (paranoia in red):



 “My posts became more thoughtful, and on occasion I got more than a hundred comments. My editor said nothing, but I ascribed Peter’s silence to the fact that he had enough on his hands just to compile the paper every week. He has a stronger Jewish identity than I do. A few years back, we were sitting in his office when he said, ‘You know what the most important question is about your wife’s family?’ ‘What?’ I asked. ‘Would they hide you?’ ‘Huh?’ ‘Would they hide you?’ he said again. Oh. He meant if there were pogroms in America. I said they would, even though I was a little offended by the question. Jews had achieved great power and privilege in America. I did not see pogroms as a realistic possibility.


But Peter thought that American ethnicities could turn on one another like Sunnis and Shi’ites if the circumstances were right. One of his strongest intellectual influences was the late Eric Breindel, a neoconservative writer and the son of Holocaust survivors, whom we had met at The Harvard Crimson. I always thought Eric had a paranoid streak, but Peter saw him as brilliant. He took Eric’s views of the Middle East more seriously than my own. One of those views was mistrust for the ‘guys in the striped pants’ (as Peter put it) in the State Department, who sold out European Jews during the Holocaust.


This is a familiar Jewish conversation, one that takes place often, even among affluent and prominent people. In his recent book Prisoners, The New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg relates that in the 1980s he came to feel that Gentile society was dangerous for Jews and that the Diaspora being the ‘disease,’ Israel was the ‘cure.’ So he moved there. A Harvard friend who had gone on to media renown once related to me a visit to an ancestral village in Eastern Europe where no evidence remained of Jews. Not a grave, not a synagogue. He said, ‘How can you expect to engage in discussions of Jewish privilege when we know how the last such conversation ended?’


My answer is that America is different from Europe, and I thought journalists were demonstrating bad faith in our democracy when they declined to talk about real issues surrounding the power structure – say the Israel lobby or the predominance of Jewish money in Democratic Party giving – out of fear that their group would suffer.”


I know what happened to cause the attack on Iraq (and similar mistakes made by the United States concerning the Middle East).  A small group of Israelis made an extremist plan for Israel to arrange for regime change in each of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.  The plan was rejected by Israeli politicians as being too radical and impractical.  As a result of a ‘perfect storm’ of events, the simultaneous control of the Presidency by the Christian Zionists and of the Democratic Party through the donations of Jewish Billionaires (the latter proven conclusively by the failure of the Democrats, elected for the sole reason of extracting the U. S. from Iraq, have been completely unable to do so, led by Israeli military vet Rahm Emanuel), it was decided that the plan could be implemented all at once during the course of the Bush Administration, and had to be implemented in a hurry as the stars might not be so aligned again for generations.  The same Israeli planners who made the plan were injected into the American government, and set up institutions and procedures specifically designed to bypass the usual checks and balances of American strategic planners, who would have rejected the attack out of hand as being dangerous for American Establishment interests, a fact demonstrated beyond argument by what has happened since (the structure of the stovepiping, and the fact that the neocons spent considerable effort setting up structures to bypass the usual checks and balances, directly disproves the lies of the lite Zionist who want to blame the attack on the American Establishment).   The Feith-Libby meetings described in Feith’s sentencing letter were an important part of this, representing the special delivery of the lies from the manufacturing plant to the distribution center, Office of Special Plans to White House Iraq Group.  There had to be a special delivery system simply to make the conspiracy work. 


So should I lie about it to avoid offending?  I have this predilection for the truth.  I also know that pointing out the Jewishness of the protaganists isn’t a bigoted attack.  It is explanatory of what they are doing, and why they are doing it.  I can cover it up by calling them ‘Zionists’ rather than Jews, but isn’t this just another euphemism?  We have appropriated the old term ‘Zionist’, which used to just mean benign Jewish nationalism, for our own purposes.  Why not be honest about it?  Their peculiar ideas and actions come directly out of the Jewish experience, an experience horrible enough to cause a form of mental illness.


The other reason given for lying is strategic.  The lite Zionists seem to want us to lie out of fear that if the American people knew the truth they would rise up and start a pogrom.  We can give Americans a little more credit than that.  We can also assume that informed Americans, despite the Jew-controlled (sorry!) media, pretty much know what happened to cause the attack on Iraq.  Lying about it isn’t going to fool anyone who has been paying attention.  Using plain-spoken words which reflect the facts of the matter can do no harm.  I know we’ll be called ‘anti-Semites’, but that is always their response to the truth anyway.  Pandering to the apologists for the Israeli Empire has helped nobody, and it is time to stop.


The additional danger is that lying may implicate the wrong people.  The guilty group is very small:  a handful of Jewish Billionaires and the ideologues, usually Israelis living in the United States, who worked for them (together with a few guns-for-hire like Cheney who were engaged as cover).  These are the only guilty people, not the average Jewish American.  If we continue to lie about what happened, the danger is that the dumber Americans will come to believe we are covering up for the larger, innocent, group.

0 comments: