Mary, I'll stand by my Post!
Don't you tire of the Jews representing the Liberal Left (read
Communists)
on all the Talk Shows and interviews on the Jew-controlled establishment
media; and in this context this includes the Fox News Channel.
"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
Open the .txt attachment and read about "The Jewish Establishment" by
Joseph Sobran.
Bard
Mary Ratcliff wrote:
>
> GOOD LORD BARD!! I never noticed before that you are into
> the anti-semite trip. Who on earth is "native" American anymore?!?
> America is comprised of every nationality of people. How can
> anybody say that one is better than the other? Do you really
> want to know what is "sucking" the taxpayer's money? Try
> federally funded abortions on for size. (and that's one of many
> things). History has had enough crap of the 'blame the jews'
> trip when everything isn't all roses. Isn't it bad enough that
> they are having to give land-for-peace that plays like a total
> rerun of Judges 11:15 and onwards where somebody claims
> the land belongs to them blah blah blah. A professed
> 'christian' who hates the Jews is no Christian at all. Without
> there having been any Jews, there would be no Christianity.
>
> Bard wrote:
>
> > Gentiles, Wake Up!!
>
> (snipped)
From: Bard [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 6:57 PM
To: Conspiracy Theory Research List
Cc: SonsofLiberty; Snetnews; Roundtable; New Paradigms; Globalist
Agendas Debate and Discussion List; Conservative
Subject: "The Jewish Establishment" by Joseph Sobran
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!
