No. Here is an interesting article on the Jewish Establishment by a syndicated columnist named 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.
Joseph Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist who now
maintains a Website at sobran.com.
|
