-Caveat Lector-

http://www.flinet.com/~politics/aipac/sobran2.htm


      "Americans ought to be free to discuss Jewish power and Jewish
interests frankly, without being accused of denying the rights of Jews. That
should go without saying. The truth is both otherwise and unmentionable."
                                                --- Joseph Sobran
--------------------------------------------------------------

"The Jewish Establishment"
by
Joseph Sobran


      In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in
Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To
maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in the
Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into
submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To
this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American
newspapers.

      Now imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin
during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a
flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated - thereby not
only concealing, but materially assisting the regime's persecution. Would
that paper's respectability have been unimpaired several decades later?

      There you have an epitome of what is lamely called "media bias." The
Western supporters of Stalin haven't just been excused; they have received
the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call the
"McCarthy era," to get them out of the government, the education system, and
respectable society itself.

      Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power
in the media and politics is roundly condemned as "anti-semitism." But there
isn't even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murder of
Christians. Liberals still don't censure the Communist attempt to extirpate
Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason -
liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to
uproot Christianity from America.

      It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the
Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the
Jewish Establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of
its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the
taboos of others - you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You
can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to
Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII
of indifference to it, but don't look for articles in any major publication
that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and
liberalism, however temperately.

      Power openly acquired, openly exercised, and openly discussed is one
thing. You may think organized labor or the Social Security lobby abuses its
power, but you don't jeopardize your career by saying so. But a kind of
power that forbids its own public mention, like the Holy Name in the Old
Testament, is another matter entirely.

      There is an important anomaly here. The word "Jewish," in this
context, doesn't include Orthodox or otherwise religious Jews. The Jews who
still maintain the Hebraic tradition of millennia are marginal, if they are
included at all, in the Jewish establishment that wields journalistic,
political, and cultural power. Morally and culturally, the Orthodox might be
classed as virtual Christians, much like the descendants of Christians who
still uphold the basic morality, if not the faith, of their ancestors. Many
of these Jews are friendly to Christians and eager to make common cause
against the moral decadence they see promoted by their apostate cousins.
Above all, the Orthodox understand, better than almost anyone else in
America today, the virtues - the necessity - of tribalism, patriarchal
authority, the moral bonds of kinship.

      The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is predominantly
secularist and systematically anti-Christian. In fact, it is unified far
more by its hostility to Christianity than by its support of Israel, on
which it is somewhat divided. The more left-wing Jews are faintly critical
of Israel, though never questioning its "right to exist" - that is, its
right to exist on terms forbidden to any Christian country; that is, its
right to deny rights to non-Jews. A state that treated Jews as Israel treats
gentiles would be condemned outright as Nazi-like. But Israel is called
"democratic," even "pluralistic."

      Explicitly "Jewish" organizations like the American Jewish Committee
and the Anti-Defamation League enforce a dual standard. What is permitted to
Israel is forbidden to America. This is not just thoughtless inconsistency.
These organizations consciously support one set of principles here - equal
rights for all, ethnic neutrality, separation of church and state - and
their precise opposites in Israel, where Jewish ancestry and religion enjoy
privilege. They "pass" as Jeffersonians when it serves their purpose,
espousing rules that win the assent of most Americans. At the same time,
they are bent on sacrificing the national interest of the United States to
the interests of Israel, under the pretense that both countries' interests
are identical. (There is, of course, no countervailing American lobby in
Israel.)

      The single most powerful Jewish lobbying group is the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, as its former director Thomas Dine
openly boasted, controls Congress. At a time when even Medicare may face
budget cuts, aid to Israel remains untouchable. If the Israelis were to
begin "ethnic cleansing" against Arabs in Israel and the occupied lands, it
is inconceivable that any American political figure would demand the kind of
military strike now being urged against the Serbs in ex-Yugoslavia.

      Jewish-owned publications like The Wall Street Journal, The New
Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Post,
and New York's Daily News emit relentless pro-Israel propaganda; so do such
pundits as William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, Jeane
Kirkpatrick, and George Will, to name a few. That Israel's journalistic
partisans include so many gentiles - lapsed goyim, you might say - is one
more sign of the Jewish establishment's power. So is the fact that this fact
isn't mentioned in public (though it is hardly unnoticed in private.)

      So is the fear of being called "anti-Semitic." Nobody worries about
being called "anti-Italian" or "anti-French" or "anti-Christian"; these
aren't words that launch avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid
to do business with you.

      It's pointless to ask what "anti-Semitic" means. It means trouble.
It's an attack signal. The practical function of the word is not to define
or distinguish things, but to conflate them indiscriminately - to equate the
soberest criticism of Israel or Jewish power with the murderous hatred of
Jews. And it works. Oh, how it works.

      When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was
relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be
falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy
couldn't make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy
was hated less for his "loose" charges than for his accurate ones. His real
offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

      The opposite applies to charges of "anti-Semitism." The word has no
precise definition. An "anti-Semite" may or may not hate Jews. But he is
certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely;
the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn't defined.

      A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of
"anti-Semitism," everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There
was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless.
And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined - even if the charge
was baseless. Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling
them out.

      "Anti-Semitism" is therefore less a charge than a curse, an
imprecation that must be uttered formulaically. Being a "bogus predicate,"
to use Gilbert Ryle's phrase, it has no real content, no functional
equivalent in plain nouns and verbs. Its power comes from the knowledge of
its potential targets, the gentiles, that powerful people are willing to
back it up with material penalties.

      In other words, journalists are as afraid of Jewish power as
politicians are. This means that public discussion is cramped and warped by
unspoken fear - a fear journalists won't acknowledge, because it embarrasses
their pretense of being fearless critics of power. When there are incentives
to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable.

      What is true of "anti-Semitism" is also true to a lesser degree of
other bogus predicates like "racism," "sexism," and "homophobia." Other
minorities have seen and adopted the successful model of the Jewish
establishment. And so our public tongue has become not only Jewish-oriented
but more generally minority-oriented in its inhibitions.

      The illusion that we enjoy free speech has been fostered by the
breaking of Christian taboos, which has become not only safe but profitable.
To violate minority taboos is "offensive" and "insensitive"; to violate
Christian taboos - many of them shared by religious Jews - is to be "daring"
and "irreverent." ("Irreverence," of course, has become good.)

      Jewry, like Gaul, may be divided into three parts, each defined by its
borders vis-a-vis the gentile world. There are the Orthodox, who not only
insist on borders but wear them. They often dress in attire that sets them
apart; they are even willing to look outlandish to gentiles in order to
affirm their identity and their distinctive way of life. At the other
extreme are Jews who have no borders, who may (or may not) assimilate and
intermarry, whose politics may range from left to right, but who in any case
accept the same set of rules for everyone. I respect both types.

      But the third type presents problems. These are the Jews who maintain
their borders furtively and deal disingenuously with gentiles. Raymond
Chandler once observed of them that they want to be Jews among themselves
but resent being seen as Jews by gentiles. They want to pursue their own
distinct interests while pretending that they have not such interests, using
the charge of "anti-Semitism" as sword and shield. As Chandler put it, they
are like a man who refuses to give his real name and address but insists on
being invited to all the best parties. Unfortunately, it's this third type
that wields most of the power and skews the rules for gentiles. The
columnist Richard Cohen cites an old maxim: "Dress British, think Yiddish."

      Americans ought to be free to discuss Jewish power and Jewish
interests frankly, without being accused of denying the rights of Jews. That
should go without saying. The truth is both otherwise and unmentionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


The preceding article was reprinted from the September, 1995, issue of
Sobran's. For subscription information, call 1 800 493-4401, or write,

P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183.

http://www.flinet.com/~politics/aipac/sobran2.htm

=========
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
 new landscapes but in having new eyes.
                         -Marcel Proust
=========

Bard

Visit me at:
The Center for Exposing Corruption in the Federal Government
http://www.xld.com/public/center/center.htm

Federal Government defined:
....a benefit/subsidy protection racket!

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to