>
> 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 victimhood 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
> onething. 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.
> _________________________________________
> Joseph Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist.
> http://www.sobran.com
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *