Is the criticism of modern Jewry anti-semitism, or is it a legitimate exercise in free speech?
The following cultural
programming is a key part of the public orthodoxy: in America today: a)
statements critical of Jews imply antipathy toward Jews, and b) antipathy toward
Jews or Jewish organizations are the sign of a psychological disturbance.
Previously, we have seen that statements critical of Jews do not necessarily arise
from a hatred of Jews. Even if they did, this does not render the assertions false.
Let us analyze the validity of belief b. Let it be assumed, for the sake of argument,
that a man bears hostility toward Jews or Jewish organizations. The public
orthodoxy, the cultural conventions of our time, demand that we assume the man is
either mentally disturbed or "evil." Is this necessarily true? Is it not possible that
feelings of antipathy toward the Jews may stem from normal psychological
reactions caused by the collective behavior of large numbers of Jews? Consider
the following examples.
Israeli-Jewish rule of the Israeli-occupied Arab territories (the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip) has been extremely oppressive. The native Palestinians living there are
subject to confiscation of their lands, a wide range of legal discrimination; torture
and cruel treatment of Palestinian dissidents; arbitrary arrest and deportation;
administrative detention without trial for up to six months; collective punishment
(the detonation of living quarters of families of individuals who are merely
suspected of an offense); the placement of arbitrary curfews on whole towns;
murders and political killings; violation of the native Palestinian's right to privacy;
the severe restriction of the press, freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and
association, and movement within the territories; and severe restrictions on
academic freedom. See 49 According to Congressman George Crockett Jr.
(D-MI), who made a fact-finding visit to the Middle East in 1985, the Israeli
military government in the occupied territories is a ... a finely honed instrument of
oppression against an entire subject people." Father Edward Dillon, a
frequent lecturer on Middle-East-related issues, has summed up the situation
perfectly when he wrote: Palestinians have become resident aliens in their own
land, without effective recourse for almost any infringement of basic human rights."
[The brutal repression of desperate Palestinian demonstrations over the six
months following December, 1987 has amply borne these statements out-Ed.]
In view of what Palestinian Arabs have experienced at the hands of groups of
Israeli Jews, and considering that their awful experiences are the result of the
policies of a Jewish Zionist government, is not one justified in concluding that any
generalized feelings of hostility they may harbor toward the Jews are, in a
psychological sense, explicable? Would not similar feelings flair up in a group so
oppressed by Jews, or by like oppressors with so indentifiable a group character?
(A psychological reaction may be explicable, even normal, but not necessarily
morally justifiable, of course.)
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 provides another case in point.
Post-World-War-II Hungarian society was very oppressive, a virtual Stalinist
concentration camp. By 1956 at least one quarter of the entire Hungarian
population had been jailed at one time or another, most often on trumped-up
charges. If one's father had been a landowner or an officer during the Horthy era,
university education was denied him, the higher professions closed, and his fate
seemed sealed: to perform menial tasks for the rest of his life. There was
additionally the full gamut of Stalinist suppression of religion and freedom of
speech, as well as torture and execution of political dissidents.
As historian David Irving has pointed out, the leadership of the Communist regime,
including the top echelons of the secret police, was almost entirely Jewish. See 52
Working from CIA reports, Irving has demonstrated that the great majority of
those Hungarians who took part in the revolution, and who subsequently were
interviewed by psychologists in America, were motivated by anti-Jewish feelings.
See 53
In view of the oppression that these Hungarians had experienced at the hands of a
virtual totalitarian, Jewish-controlled government, may one not be justified in
concluding that their hostility to Jews was a normal psychological response -- in
the sense that most people under the same set of circumstances would respond
almost identically -- caused by the collective, oppressive behavior of a large and
influential group of Hungarian Jews?
The case of Jewish influence upon American foreign policy regarding the Middle
East provides us with another instructive example. It has been well documented
elsewhere that the Zionist establishment virtually controls the general direction of
American Middle East foreign policy, and Jewish Zionist manipulation of our
government for its own ends is quite extensive. In reference to this manipulation of
the American government, Admiral Thomas Moorer has commented: "If the
American people understood what a grip those people have got on our
government, they would raise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what
goes on." In other words, if the American people knew how certain Zionist Jews
are manipulating the American political system to the detriment of the American
people, anti-Jewish hostility would become widespread -- a quite normal, mass
psychological response to the immoral collective behavior of a large group of
Zionist Jews.
In a past issue of The National Jewish Post and Opinion, the Jewish columnist,
Arlene Peck wrote: at have my own feelings about the Germans and benevolence
isn't one of them. I traveled to Munich briefly a few years ago and couldn't wait to
get out of that country ... I can't help if I'm not a forgiving person." See 54 Quite
obviously, she is telling us that she bears hostility toward the Germans. Yet, the
public orthodoxy demands that we sympathize with her by saying: "Well
considering the oppression that Jews have suffered at the hands of Germans, it is
certainly normal and understandable that Jewish people are hostile toward the
Germans."
Just as hostility to Germans may be a normal psychological response for Jewish
people under certain circumstances, so too, Arab, Hungarian, and American
antipathy to Jews can also be a normal psychological response under certain
circumstances. The equation of all anti-Jewish hostility with psychological sickness
is false. Anti-Jewish feeling, at times, may be a normal psychological reaction-a
reaction which could be induced in most humans given the circumstances -- to the
collective behavior of large groupings of Jews. (Of course, antipathy to the Jews
as a group may be normal, but not morally justifiable. I am not suggesting that
people who suffer at the hands of Jewish oppressors should hate all Jews, merely
that, considering the psychic makeup of humankind, hostility to Jews can be a
normal, not a pathological, reaction-though not an ethical reaction-given certain
conditions.)
Conclusion
1. Jewry is an established social and political power in the United States. In
concurrence with the democratic principles of our society, it is morally and
politically correct to offer criticism of Jewry and its politico-cultural power.
2. The potency of the charge of anti-Semitism -- its ability to silence critics of the
Jews -- derives not from the force of reason, but rather, from the force of an
irrational, deeply ingrained, cultural convention specifically, the unthinking
association of a sense of evil with criticism of the Jews.
3. The charge of anti-Semitism is a Jewish sword and shield. A Jewish sword, it is
an ad hominem attack on any critic of the Jews. By focusing on the critic's
character, it induces people to reject his assertions on Jewish behavior out of
hand, without fair examination.
A Jewish shield, the charge serves as a psychological defense mechanism whereby
Jewish people can insulate themselves from criticism which is too painful to
confront consciously.
In a political and sociological sense, the charge of anti-Semitism is a powerful
weapon of the Jewish cultural and political establishment, used in an undemocratic
manner to silence its opponents and to enable that establishment to operate with
impunity. Thus, the accusation of anti-Semitism is an essential tool of Jewish power
and influence.
4. In our society almost every form of social and political power has its share of
critics. The government bureaucracy, the so-called military-industrial complex, the
CIA, Big Business, the Catholic Church, Christian fundamentalists, the oil
companies, Ronald Reagan, the political Left, the political Right: all have their
outspoken critics.
Americans are told from their cradles to their graves that their country is the "land
of the free," the "home of free speech," the nation in which the citizenry is able to
question and challenge all forms of social and political influence. Let one invoke
this right of free speech and engage in criticism of the power and influence of
American Jewry, however, the reigning cultural conventions demand that we label
him "anti-Semitic."
Our democratic philosophy allows for the political and moral legitimacy of criticism
of the Jews as a group. If all forms of social and political influence have their
tolerated, even respected critics, then let the critic of Jewish influence speak
openly. By the canons of our free society, even Jewry should ultimately benefit
from an open discussion of the power of Jews in politics, economics, and culture in
modern America.
|
