SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310176)10/21/2002 7:29:47 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 769670
 
Jewish History, Jewish Religion
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Notes

Book Review:

When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the peoples of the world in their intense hatred and contempt for all peoples but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.

Notable among these was the reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote in "Von den Juden und Ihren Lugen":

"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle...

"Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I see in their writings how they curse us goyim and wish us all evil in their schools and their prayers."

The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.

When British newsman William Cash, Los Angeles correspondent for London's Daily Telegraph, reported late last year in a magazine article the simple fact that the executives in Hollywood's motion picture industry are nearly all Jews, they shrieked at him, "Hater!" and denied his fact. When famous actor Marlon Brando later repeated the same fact, he was as well attacked for being an "anti-Semite".

Thus, Israel Shahak's book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years" is all the more important for being a document by a aknowledgeable Jew -- a Jewish "insider" -- about the beliefs and behavior of his fellow Jews. Born in Warsaw in 1933, Shahak spent a portion of his childhood in the concentration camp in Belsen, from which he immigrated to Palestine in 1945. He grew up in Israel, served in the Israeli military, and became a chemistry professor. Like all Israelis, he became fluent in Hebrew. He also became acclimated to the peculiar moral atmosphere of Israeli society: a combination of overweening arrogance and deceit, a mixture of pugnacious self-righteousness and duplicity.

Unlike his fellow Israelis, however, Professor Shahak is deeply troubled by this peculiar atmosphere. Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and ended their cult in Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that's why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp. He's worried that if his fellow Jews continue behaving as they always have, they will get themselves into some really serious trouble -- again.

In particular, Professor Shahak is concerned about the behavior of those of his people who adhere to "Judaism". He is not one of these himself, and so he is able to look with some degree of objectivity at the mixture of superstition, Jewish chauvinism, and hatred of non-Jews which makes up the Jewish religion and its sacred writings. He deplores traditional Jewish teachings, not only because of the danger that some new Martin Luther will come along and spill the beans to the Gentiles, but because of the spiritually debilitating effect these teachings have had on the Jews themselves. Of the world of medieval Jewry in Europe, the world of the ghetto and the shtetl which modern Jewish writers refer to in euphoric tones as a world of quaint tradition and piety, Shahak says: "It was a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance ..."

He cites a number of specific instances of the ways in which Jewish religious authorities have kept their flocks under control. In general, the rabbis have taught their fellow Jews that their Gentile neighbors are spiritually and morally unclean; that they are subhuman, on a level with the beasts of the field; and that they hate Jews and must be hated in return. Jews are taught that the Christian religion is a religion fit only for animals, and that its founder, Jesus, was the son of a prostitute and is presently immersed in a pit of boiling excrement in hell.

Among the Hassidim (Hebrew for "pious ones") all of these teachings are kept current. Shahak points out that a central thesis of the Hassidic doctrine is that only Jews are human beings, and that the universe was created for them alone. Non-Jews were created only to be used by Jews. Although this teaching about the subhumanity of Gentiles is most open and explicit among the bearded, sidelocked, black-hatted Orthodox Jews that one sees in Jewish strongholds such as New York City, it comes from the core of Jewish tradition and is accepted to a greater or lesser degree by all pious Jews. It is, for example, a specific tenet of the Jewish Defense League and is cited in the membership handbook for that group.

Especially frustrating to Professor Shahak is the clever deception which his fellow Jews use to conceal the true nature of Judaism from their Gentile neighbors. Regarding the veil of false piety which conceals from Gentile eyes the malevolent doctrine of the Hassidim, he writes: "A chief deceiver in this case, and a good example of the power of deception, was Martin Buber. His numerous works eulogizing the whole Hassidic movement (including Habbad) never so much as hint at the real doctrines of Hassidism concerning non-Jews." Buber (1878-1965) promoted Hassidism in Germany during the rise of the National Socialists -- in fact, until 1938, when he left for Palestine -- and Shahak considers Buber's efforts, despite their deceptiveness, at least partly responsible for the National Socialist reaction to the Jews.

Another example of Jewish deception given by Professor Shahak concerns the etymology of the Yiddish word for a Gentile girl, shiksa. He cites the popular English-language book "The Joys of Yiddish" (New York, 1968), by Leo Rosten, which tells its readers that shiksa comes from the Hebrew word sheqetz, meaning "blemish". Writes Shahak, "This is a barefaced lie, as every speaker of Hebrew knows. The Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, correctly defines sheqetz as follows: 'unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination...' "

Professor Shahak writes with passion. He evidently feels that liberating Jews everywhere from the shackles of their misanthropic superstitions and freeing Israeli state policy in particular from the stifling influence of Judaism is a matter of some urgency. He focuses our attention especially on the inherent hatefulness of Judaism with citations from a number of Jewish religious writings.

In a chapter titled "The Laws against Non-Jews," he writes:

"...[T]he Halakhah, that is the legal system of classical Judaism -- as practiced by practically all Jews from the 9th century to the end of the 18th and as maintained to this very day in the form of Orthodox Judaism -- is based primarily on the Babylonian Talmud. However, because of the unwieldy complexity of the legal disputations recorded in the Talmud, more manageable codifications of talmudic law became necessary ... The most authoritative code, widely used to date as a handbook, is the Shulhan 'Arukh..."

He then cites the teaching of this code regarding homicide:

"According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew ... When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.

"Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan 'Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, "one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice ... there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly." ...

"A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished."

Then Shahak gives us a rabbi's answer to an Israeli soldier who has asked whether or not it is proper to kill Arab women and children. In his answer the rabbi quotes from the Talmud: "The best of the Gentiles -- kill him; the best of snakes -- dash out its brains."

Perhaps even more offensive are the Jewish beliefs on sexual matters. Shahak writes:

"Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses" is applied to them... Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality...

"According to the Talmudic Encyclopedia: "He who has carnal knowledge of the wife of a Gentile is not liable to the death penalty, for it is written: 'thy fellow's wife' rather than the alien's wife ... and although a married Gentile woman is forbidden to the Gentiles, in any case a Jew is exempted."

"This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted -- quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: "If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day -- because he had willful coitus with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble.""

The Talmud's overriding concern with matters of money and property mirror that of the Jews, and Professor Shahak offers a number of hair-splitting examples of Jewish beliefs on the subject and the way in which distinctions are made between the property of Jews and Gentiles, and between Jewish dealings with another Jew and with a Gentile. Two of these examples will suffice here:

"If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it...

"It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, "Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: 'Do not defraud each man his brother'...""

Shahak points out that "the Halakhah interprets all such idioms [as 'each man his brother' or 'neighbor'] as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew."

How have the Jews managed to keep teachings of this sort concealed from the Gentiles among whom they live? The truth of the matter is that they have not always been able to do so. Luther was not the only Christian scholar who learned Hebrew, peered into the Talmud, and was horrified by what he saw. Sometimes the Jews were able to bribe the Christian authorities to overlook such things, but throughout the later Middle Ages there were prohibitions and burnings of talmudic literature by outraged popes and bishops. The Jews developed a clever system of double bookkeeping to circumvent such "persecution". They modified or deleted the offending passages from new editions of the Talmud, and they made up a separate compendium -- Talmudic Omissions, or in Hebrew Hesronot Shas -- which circulated surreptitiously among the rabbis. In Israel today, feeling cocky enough to dispense with most such deceptions, the Jews are putting the passages which formerly had been omitted or modified back into the latest editions of the Talmud or the Shulhan 'Arukh in their original form. They are still careful with translations into Gentile tongues, however. Professor Shahak gives an example:

"In 1962 a part of the Maimonidean Code ... the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: "It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands." In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: "It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them." But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of "infidels"who must be exterminated: "Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoqand Baitos [the founders of the Sadducean sect] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot." Not one word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And, even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has, as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception."

Israel Shahak is a rare Jew indeed, and his book is essential reading for anyone interested in the problem of the Jews.



To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310176)10/21/2002 8:01:55 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Canadians suffer from a lack of national identity. Ask a Canadian what it means to be Canadian and he will tell you that hockey got invented here (they probably don't even know that basketball was invested here too) and that we produce maple syrup. There is no such thing as the Canadian identity. If you could articulate it, it would be anything but what the Americans stand for. It is sickening.

Just read this morning's editorial from one of our (only) two national papers. Then, next time you hear that "Canada" is your friend burst out laughing. We are free loaders. Period. Sorry.

Message 18140123



To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310176)10/26/2002 3:28:32 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Any comments?

<<U.S. bashing no longer a game
by Robert Fulford
(The National Post, September 14, 2001)
Anti-Americanism, a staple of cultural and political life in Canada for longer than anyone can remember, has begun to feel different since the first pictures of the World Trade Center towers appeared on our TV screens Tuesday morning. We can't hope that anti-Americanism as a habit of thought was buried beneath the rubble of those falling buildings, but there's no doubt that events are forcing us to reconsider this persistent strain in our national psyche.

The process of coming to terms with September 11 will include rethinking, in ways that may involve pain and embarrassment, Canadian attitudes to America. In particular we will have to compare them with the attitudes of the Islamic extremists who motivate suicide bombers by calling the United States the Great Satan. Do our views, and those of the world's most dangerous fanatics, have anything in common?

We usually take this Canadian prejudice lightly, as a kind of foible, but we may have to begin seriously questioning it. Anti-Americanism is not the game that we have so often considered it. America is the most vital and progressive country in the world, the most significant source of democratic impulses, our best friend by far, and the place where much of our culture originates. If our intent is to be authentic and consistent, can we afford to share anything with those who base their politics on hating America?

Perhaps we should acknowledge that reflexive anti-Americanism (as opposed to honest disagreement with the United States) is a poison afflicting large parts of the world, a poison we should purge from our own system.

The late Frank Underhill, the University of Toronto historian who in 1933 wrote the founding document of Canadian democratic socialism, considered the everyday anti-Americanism of his fellow intellectuals laughable. He used to describe Canadians as the great pioneers of this sport; he suggested that foreign countries eager to work up public hatred of America should send delegations to Toronto to see it done by experts.

He of course knew that the founding of Canada was in part an act of anti-Americanism, a rejection of the new Republic by people who came north as United Empire Loyalists because they chose to remain subjects of the Crown. But by the 20th century this historical movement had evolved into a neurotic and unthinking resistance to American ideas and even a kind of snobbery, both unfounded and pathetic. Typically, anti-Americanism in Canada focuses on all that's tasteless or greedy in the United States and compares it with all that's most admirable in Canada. This is now the one form of prejudice that is accepted almost universally in Canada, tolerated in university classrooms and at dinner parties where racism and homophobia are considered shameful.

We rarely argue about this subject, and therefore rarely sort out our ideas. Our habit is to dismiss periodic outbreaks of anti-Americanism as minor incidents that we can quickly forget -- the way that the Liberal party, for instance, forgot 1988.

That was the year that the Conservatives destroyed Canada forever by signing a Free Trade Treaty that gave the Americans total power over every aspect of our life. Or so their opponents predicted.

The Liberal leader, John Turner, based his national election campaign on fear and hatred of the Americans -- and came fairly close to winning. But when the election was over and Brian Mulroney's Tories had signed the agreement, the Liberals began a long, furtive creep toward the Conservative position. By the time they were returned to power in 1993, with John Turner forgotten and Jean Chrétien the Prime Minister, the Liberals had adopted, without debate, the very policy they had denounced as treason. Having torn the country apart emotionally, turning husbands against wives and parents against children, they simply abandoned the subject. They probably think of it today as a minor incident, another political gimmick that didn't quite work, but surely it left a residue of anti-U.S. distrust.

In the arts we deal with this ingrained prejudice differently. If we disagree with anti-American artists and works of art, we simply ignore their content and talk about style, form and freedom of expression. So anti-Americanism, no matter how silly or inconsistent, flourishes unhindered. We see this perverse approach to American power and influence as simply another form of creative expression.

The late Greg Curnoe, whose art was given a major showing last winter at the Art Gallery of Ontario, made anti-Americanism more or less the centre of his intellectual life. As one of the stars of Canadian painting, he argued that a healthy Canadian culture required an intense anti-Americanism. Sometimes he realized that he sounded foolish, particularly when he acknowledged his love of American poets, comic books and jazz musicians. He even parodied himself by producing a manifesto demanding that American accents be banned. But there was no doubt that passionate feeling against the United States lay beneath much of his art. He came to prominence in the Vietnam period, when Canadians were particularly hostile to the United States, but his attitudes were also based (in my view) on envy and on the failure of Americans to appreciate him. "My work," he once remarked, "is about resisting as much as possible the tendency of American culture to overwhelm other cultures." He denied he was xenophobic: "I'm only xenophobic about one nation, and that's the United States."

The point is that no one argued against his ideas, or against the hundreds of other manifestations of anti-Americanism in culture. Those of us who (critically) loved America just saw anti-Americanism as one more distortion of the Canadian spirit, perhaps not a deeply important one. (I was one of many reviewers who admired Curnoe's art and took a genially indulgent view of his eccentric politics, on a sort of boys-will-be-boys basis.)

It is an eternal truth of politics that, no matter what position you take, you will discover that your side includes people you wish were on the other side. This is where all anti-Americans now find themselves. More than anything else, the crimes of September 11 were an extreme expression of loathing for the United States and its ideals.

Those who rule large populations through their version of religious doctrine and by killing their critics have excellent reasons for this loathing. America threatens every aspect of their existence, because America represents modernity in its most aggressive and developed form. America puts science above religion and puts free speech above both of them. Adapting democracy to culture, it organizes the mass media according to the tastes of the public -- a system that appals elites elsewhere in the world, particularly when the workers choose American rather than local culture. At the same time, America strives to live by pluralism, the conviction that people of different beliefs and races can live beside each other in peace, trade with each other, even learn from each other. In the effort to make this idea work Americans have often failed spectacularly, but they have persisted; and today their successes are vastly more important than their failures. That can only dismay those who believe in nations made up of populations that are ethnically and spiritually uniform.

The question of "influence" matters most. Even in countries normally allied with America, like France and Canada, American influence is viewed with suspicion, and barriers are erected against it. In Canada, typically, we judge many of our cultural institutions by how well they protect us against American influence. We most often defend public broadcasting, for instance, not because we love it but because, being non-American, it theoretically defends us against the cultural power of the United States.

We seem not to realize that, like all people at all times, we are inevitably influenced from somewhere. It seems nothing less than natural that the chief influence on most of the world, in our time, is the United States: the Americans, after all, deploy more talent and money than any other culture, so their way of life penetrates into more corners of the world, including places where it meets bitter resistance.

As alliances are formed and sides taken in the aftermath of September 11, much of the argument will come down to a relatively simple question: is U.S. influence, in sum, more harmful or more beneficial? It seems obvious to me that it is infinitely more beneficial. Accepting this reality means understanding the United States rather than reinforcing prejudices against it. That being so, the anti-Americanism that we have so casually practised for so long now begins to seem insincere and irrelevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read other articles about the world after September 11 by Robert Fulford.

Return to the List of Robert Fulford's Columns >>



To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310176)10/26/2002 3:29:45 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Respond to of 769670
 
If you enjoyed the previous one you may like that one too.

<<Anti-American cant a self-inflicted wound
by Robert Fulford
(The National Post, September 22, 2001)
Anti-Americanism in Canada wears a smiling face and considers itself both innocent and morally superior. But it has always seemed to me among the ugliest manifestations of the Canadian spirit, and a self-inflicted wound on our intellectual life. Last week, in the wake of the Sept. 11 atrocities, my readers offered new insights into it.

A piece I wrote for the National Post on Sept. 14, about Canadian anti-Americanism in the new context created by terrorism, attracted more e-mail than anything else I've written. Full of emotion, crammed with usually hidden resentments, these letters taught me several things about a subject I've studied for years.

First, I learned that many Canadians understand and dislike what one of them called "this most debilitating Canadian malaise" but have felt they either couldn't or shouldn't articulate their misgivings. A correspondent told me, "I have waited years to read something like this." I enjoyed the Montreal reader who called me a spoilsport because the heading on my piece said U.S.-bashing is no longer a game -- as he wrote, "What other game do Toronto intellectuals know?" Another reader said I was sure to be hated by the Toronto intelligentsia and a third said it was "very brave of you as a member of the arts community to take such stands." That's generous, but inaccurate. We have not yet reached the point where we ostracize each other for our views.

Many Canadians are deeply conflicted on the United States, and in my observation these conflicts lead to an uneasy and almost shameful sense of envy. My acquaintances include hard-hitting anti-American nationalists who preach a powerful keep-out-the-barbarians rhetoric on cultural policy but nevertheless follow with orgasmic fervour the Toronto Blue Jays of the American League. There are journalists who could never have formed their styles without studying American predecessors yet feel they can and should condescend to American culture. A British Columbia man, upset about the lumber dispute, wrote to me that he dislikes Americans because they change the rules when things don't go their way. On the other hand, he and his wife plan in future to spend six months a year in San Diego.

I heard from many Americans living in Canada who understand this subject better than I ever will. They resent reflexive anti-Americanism but believe they should not disclose their feelings, as if to do so would mark them as ungrateful immigrants. Sept. 11 seems to have changed some of them. One wrote: "I have lived, by choice, in Canada since 1993. Frequently, I have felt the need to apologize for being born and raised American. Never again." I've been astonished by the number of Americans who feel they are objects of contempt. In private life, this runs deeper than even I suspected.

An American graduate student in Western Canada wrote to tell me of years spent dealing with anti-American prejudice. Educated Canadians often frame their comments as jokes but make it clear they are not really joking. After Sept. 11, a student asked her: "Don't you really think the Americans had it coming to them?" If her skin were not white, she says, this hostility would be obviously racist. "This week has been a very lonely week for an American in this country." Still, she believes she's not allowed to complain. She didn't want her name or university published.

Those who have family links on both sides of the border find the situation especially embarrassing. One reader: "As a Canadian American living in Victoria for 17 years, I have been amazed at the prevalence of toxic, low-level anti-Americanism." Since he could easily pass for Canadian, he often overhears anti-American insults. When he discloses his background, "The usual response is that I don't seem like an American to them." (I've often heard that from Canadians speaking of Americans in the third person; they apparently don't know or care that this is precisely what anti-Semites say in the same circumstance.) Another Canadian American wrote from Burnaby to point out that the Canadians he knows, when not dismissing Americans as yahoos, spend their time watching American movies while dressed in American clothes.

The half-dozen readers who disagreed with me ranged from the thoughtful (as good friends of the Americans we should also be their friendly critics) to the paranoid. One conspiracy theorist said that the Sept. 11 events were organized by the Bush administration. Another, accusing me of McCarthyism, signed himself, "Yours in utter disgust." There was a reader who said U.S. propaganda has been so successful that many people don't notice when democracy is equated with capitalism. She apparently knows of a country which has democracy without economic freedom, a place of which I've never heard.

An Ontario man now at Harvard wrote to say (with some justice, I'm afraid) "It is in the Canadian arts community where this attitude is most carefully cultivated -- to most embarrassing effect. I'm often amazed that no one else seems to notice it, so deeply has it been woven into the fabric of our cultural institutions."

In recent decades, these distorted feelings about the United States have encouraged us to join their enemies in finding them intransigent or greedy. We have purposely not noticed how easygoing they have been on countless occasions. U.S. diplomats have shown prodigious tolerance for terrorists and have always been anxious to sit down and talk so that even the vilest killers can have one more chance to change into what international opinion calls "moderates." Last week, when Yasser Arafat, of all people, proclaimed himself the enemy of terrorism and gave blood to Americans for a photo opportunity, Americans were still so polite that (as far as I know) not one of them uttered a single bitter laugh in public.

But they are changing, under the influence of Sept. 11. They now find themselves called to a great and risky enterprise. As it happens, we Canadians share most of their values and much of their culture. For those reasons, and our proximity, we should be able to understand them better than anyone else and work with them to frustrate the nihilism being spread by a distorted form of Islam. Instead, we find ourselves limited in our response to the great world conflict of this era. We are at times nervous, cagey, scared, reluctant -- and all because of this gaping self-inflicted wound, our thoughtless but pervasive anti-Americanism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read other articles about the world after September 11 by Robert Fulford.

Return to the List of Robert Fulford's Columns >>