It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:04 am


The Incestuous Relationship between Jew Media and the SPLC

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

L.G. Morgan

  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 1:40 am

The Incestuous Relationship between Jew Media and the SPLC

PostSat Jan 03, 2015 4:35 am

Hyping ‘Hate’ - Understanding the Incestuous Relationship between the Mass Media and the SPLC

By Kevin Lamb

Most consumers of “managed news,”—pre-packaged articles and televised newscasts—remain largely unaware of the filtering process that occurs in the mass media. News accounts (published articles in daily newspapers, weekly news magazines, wire services, web-based postings, or televised broadcasts on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC, CBS, or NBC) do not simply fall out of the sky. Journalists and editors carefully craft each article, whether choosing the right words to more accurately convey the essence of a given story or selecting sources (authorities or experts) that fit the narrative thread of the article. Several factors, including the standard elements of who, what, when, where, and how, shape modern news accounts.

Conservatives routinely criticize journalists for liberal bias in their coverage of the “news,” but such critiques either overly simplify or frequently miss the underlying source of much of the media bias in news reports. Journalists in turn bristle at the notion that their work is biased. Nonetheless, the mass media serve as gatekeepers of information and are the sole arbiters of what constitutes “news”—establishing standards, deciding the proper tone, determining the right approach when shaping content.
One indicator of subjective bias seeping into news coverage is to consider individuals who are frequently cited by the Fourth Estate as “experts” or “authorities” on issues journalists consider important. To peel back the curtain and get a better view of this process, consider as a case study the close association between the SPLC and mass media.

Villains and Heroes
In any given narrative, journalists favor the good-versus-evil angle and regularly draw attention to “good” and “bad” characters—villains and heroes that serve some useful purpose. The late Aaron Wildavsky (1930-1993), founding dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, identified a common attribute among the media elite. It explains the type of bias that categorizes some as villains and others as heroes:
    I shall argue that the national media has a characteristic bias that could be called American egalitarianism. This bias is not recognized by those who hold it, partly because it seems natural to them (as our biases appear natural to us) and partly because it does not fit neatly into the liberal-conservative or Democratic-Republican dichotomies to which all of us are accustomed. The fact that members of the national media are criticized across the usual political spectrum solidifies their view that they are distributing their blows impartially. Because scholars have not tested for American egalitarianism, they do not find it. A well-known research phenomenon—you only find what you are looking for—may explain why some of us find biases while many studies deny it.1
One landmark survey, The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, contrasted the positions of experts with beliefs of journalists on issues involving IQ testing.2 Snyderman and Rothman tracked news accounts and examined thirteen aspects of IQ research and found that the nature of news coverage differed considerably from the views of experts in the field of psychological testing. They showed how this coverage of IQ testing reflected the biases and misconceptions of journalists rather than the truth about IQ studies. Snyderman and Rothman’s findings reinforce Wildavsky’s theory about the egalitarian nature of media bias.

In conclusion, the authors note:
    Our work demonstrates that, by any reasonable standard, media coverage of the IQ controversy has been inaccurate. Journalists have emphasized controversy; they have reported scientific discussions of technical issues erroneously and they have misreported the views of the relevant scientific community as to the interaction between genetic and environmental factors in explaining differences in IQ among individuals and between groups.3
The publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve, in the fall of 1994, triggered a wave of negative publicity. The nature of this coverage underscores an egalitarian bias among journalists. News organizations struggled to report the book’s findings in fair and impartial coverage and in many instances mischaracterized the authors’ thesis or spread innuendo and rumor in order to undermine the book’s findings and authors’ credibility.
(A search of the Nexis database turns up 481 hits, articles that contain mention of Herrnstein, Murray, and The Bell Curve in either the headline or lead paragraph in the four years after the book’s publication, 1994-1998. The amount of coverage over an 845-page analysis of IQ research reveals the hostility that greeted the book in journalistic circles.4)

The same egalitarian bias is easily noticed in news accounts of cultural and ethnic issues relating to immigration, multiculturalism, national sovereignty, border security, domestic terrorism, and the politics of diversity. Journalists seek out authorities and experts that validate their own perspectives on these issues.
Whenever it fits the narrative, journalists interview or quote SPLC officials Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich as “experts” on “far right” extremists and “hate groups” as if Potok and Beirich were objective, credible observers without ideological bias. Potok makes regular appearances on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown,” Anderson Cooper’s “AC360,” “the Rachel Maddow Show,” the “O’Reilly Factor,” and NPR programs.

The coverage of antigovernment sentiment at the grassroots level on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing offers a case in point. In “Hate: Antigovernment Extremists Are on the Rise—and on the March,” Newsweek presented an unflattering portrait of “Oath Keepers” founder Stewart Rhodes.5 The second paragraph featured a quote from Potok as saying Oath Keepers are “a particularly worrisome example of the ‘patriot’ revival.” In the course of 1,971 words, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas and Eve Conant mention the Conservative Political Action Conference, Timothy McVeigh, Rhodes, “lone wolves,” Waco, Texas, an anonymous “tea-party activist,” militia groups, “extremist outfits …preening and prancing about in Nazi garb or white robes,” the Second Amendment March on Washington, death threats to members of Congress, the Ku Klux Klan, Father Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, Hutaree militia members, Louis Farrakhan, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. And this supposedly passes for “unbiased” news! The commonality that unites these individuals, right out of central casting, is what Newsweek (and Potok) consider “a sign of disturbing times.” (The arrest of nine Hutaree militia members featured prominently in Newsweek’s article. Since then the case seems to be unraveling as a local judge has released some of the detained militia members to home detention awaiting trial.)

This type of reporting, known as “advocacy” journalism, spins the “news” to fit a pre-packaged narrative. Some news accounts thread a narrative around “experts” to give a feel of legitimacy.
Newsweek, a Washington Post Co. subsidiary (and my former employer for more than a decade), has gradually incorporated the “advocacy” style of journalism into its news coverage. It has become the magazine, indirectly so to speak, that Charlie Peters created. Peters, a fixture of the Washington, D.C. journalism scene and founder of The Washington Monthly, has cultivated a cadre of “left-of-center” journalists over the years, including: Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Michael Kinsley, Nicholas Lemann, Mickey Kaus, Gregg Easterbrook, Jonathan Alter, Timothy Noah, Jason DeParle, Katherine Boo, and Newsweek’s editor Jon Meacham. Noah and Easterbrook are former Newsweek staffers; Alter is a senior editor and columnist; and Meacham, currently editor, served as managing editor. All are Washington Monthly alumni.

Hot Air Versus Fact
The role of editors and reporters in shaping the news has moved beyond the Sergeant Friday (just the facts) style to what William McGowan refers to as “coloring the news.”6 News accounts reflect the outlook of journalists, and this view of the world reflects a politically correct prism of egalitarian diversity. Beirich and Potok, as “experts” on “hate groups,” “white nationalists,” and assorted “far-right extremists,” provide journalists with ready-made commentary that bolsters their preconceived spin on pre-packaged news stories: anniversary events (Waco, Oklahoma City bombing, immigration restriction, “social justice” and “civil rights” issues, “far right” domestic terrorism, etc.).

The fact that so few journalists or news anchors critically question Potok or Beirich on the details of their “information” reveals an incestuous relationship between the SPLC and news media. It also shows the vulnerability of news organizations to diminished skepticism about individuals who are regularly cited as reputable authority figures. Consider the fact that Potok and Beirich continue to claim a rise in the number of “patriot” and militias groups. Beirich is quoted in Time (April 12, 2010) as saying, “The number of patriot and militia groups has increased 244 percent, to 512, in the past year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group.”7 In July 2009, Potok claimed that “we’ve seen a remarkable level of domestic terrorism … almost all of it has been associated with the election of Barack Obama.”8 In February 2009, the SPLC claimed “hate groups” had risen 54 percent since 2000, and noted, “scores of racially-charged incidents—beatings, effigy burnings, racist graffiti, threats and intimidation—were reported across the country after the election.”9

However, in November 2009, the Christian Science Monitor reported a 2 percent decrease in hate crimes since 2007. According to the Monitor,
    “People are unhappy; it’s the downfall of civilization. I get it,” says Valerie Jenness, a criminologist at the University of California at Irvine and author of Hate Crimes: New Social Movements and the Politics of Violence. “But I don’t think there’s a lot of empirical evidence that we have a massive insurgence [of violence] going on. The level of discourse, after all, is different than the level of mobilizing and actual behavior.”10
Journalists accept at face value Potok and Beirich’s off-the-cuff commentary as if these statements were empirically unquestionable. Few if any journalists or news anchors point out the inconsistencies in their assessments of “hate group” activism or have questioned their assessments of the so-called groups SPLC identifies as increasing versus actual membership figures of such groups.

Unasked Questions
No one seems to ask: How do you arrive at your information? What sources are used to determine the rise in “hate groups?” What standards are used to identify “hate groups?” Out of a nation of 300 million people, what is the percentage of far-right fringe group membership compared to the nation’s population base? What is the basis of the claim that there is “growing evidence that racial extremists” are infiltrating the ranks of the U.S. military? Just how many veterans are considered to be potential “domestic terrorists?” What standards are used to classify an individual as a “white nationalist” and what distinguishes a “white nationalist” from a “white supremacist” or “white separatist?” When Potok claims that in the months following the election of Barack Obama as president, how many incidents constitute “a remarkable level of domestic terrorism…almost all of it associated with the election of Barack Obama?” Is the “Tea Party” movement a “hate group?”

The fact that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had to apologize to veterans’ groups over a DHS report that warned of veterans returning from service abroad as potential, future domestic terrorists should raise serious questions from media organizations about the extent to which SPLC influenced the DHS report and the reliability of SPLC’s information.11

News organizations accept at face value Potok or Beirich’s observations on whatever fits the prevailing narrative of a “news” cycle primarily because journalists share the same outlook and phobias of “disturbing trends” at the grassroots level of the political right. Consequently law-abiding citizens, including veterans, are being smeared with the broad brush of “extremism” for doing their civic duties as citizen activists—from the Tea Party movement to Second Amendment “Oath Keepers” to immigration reform—simply because it’s all the news that fits the incestuous narrative of the SPLC and mass media.

Endnotes
1. Aaron Wildavsky, The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism, Washington, D.C.: The American University Press, 1991: 116.
2. Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988.
3. Ibid.: 255.
4. Nexis search conducted on May 23, 2010.
5. http://www.newsweek.com/id/236202
6. William McGowan, Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2001.
7. Time, April 12, 2010, p. 18.
8. Mike Leonard and Marcela Creps, “Hate on the rise: Experts say current economic, political climate spawning hate crimes,” Herald-Times(Bloomington, IN), July 3, 2009.
9. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/n ... numbers-up
10.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... -ussc.html
11. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/n ... extremism; http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/ ... ndex.html;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman ... lamb.shtml
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: The Incestuous Relationship between Jew Media and the SP

PostFri Jan 16, 2015 12:35 pm

The SPLC, with its quarter billion-dollar endowment to fight hate with [read: destroy any Eurocentric group organized for exclusive interests of the White American majority (and Canadian: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r/end-game ), not only has its openly incestuous relationship with the Jew-controlled MSM, but also with the courts and with law enforcement. They brag openly about how they are all in bed together.
---

Fighting Hate in Court
In the early 1980s, SPLC co-founder and chief trial counsel Morris Dees pioneered the strategy of using the courts to battle organized, violent hate groups. Since then, we have won numerous large damage awards on behalf of victims of hate group violence. These cases are funded entirely by our supporters; we accept no legal fees from the clients we represent.

Among the groups shut down by crushing jury verdicts in SPLC cases are the White Aryan Resistance, the United Klans of America, the White Patriot Party militia and the Aryan Nations.

These cases have made the SPLC and Dees reviled enemies of the extremist movement. Our headquarters in Montgomery has been the target of numerous plots by extremist groups, including a firebombing that destroyed our offices in 1983. Several dozen people have been sent to prison for plotting against Dees or the SPLC. :shock:

Training Law Enforcement
SPLC representatives communicate regularly with law enforcement agencies about extremist activity and conduct in-person training for officers at the local, state and federal level. Thousands of officers have received training that helps them recognize and deal with hate crimes as well as threats posed by extremists. This training is available free to law enforcement agencies. http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism
Offline

David York

  • Posts: 461
  • Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:19 pm

Re: The Incestuous Relationship between Jew Media and the SP

PostFri Jan 16, 2015 11:06 pm

Will Williams wrote:The SPLC, with its quarter billion-dollar endowment to fight hate with [read: destroy any Eurocentric group organized for exclusive interests of the White American majority (and Canadian: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r/end-game ), not only has its openly incestuous relationship with the Jew-controlled MSM, but also with the courts and with law enforcement. They brag openly about how they are all in bed together.
---

Fighting Hate in Court
In the early 1980s, SPLC co-founder and chief trial counsel Morris Dees pioneered the strategy of using the courts to battle organized, violent hate groups. Since then, we have won numerous large damage awards on behalf of victims of hate group violence. These cases are funded entirely by our supporters; we accept no legal fees from the clients we represent.

Among the groups shut down by crushing jury verdicts in SPLC cases are the White Aryan Resistance, the United Klans of America, the White Patriot Party militia and the Aryan Nations.

These cases have made the SPLC and Dees reviled enemies of the extremist movement. Our headquarters in Montgomery has been the target of numerous plots by extremist groups, including a firebombing that destroyed our offices in 1983. Several dozen people have been sent to prison for plotting against Dees or the SPLC. :shock:

Training Law Enforcement
SPLC representatives communicate regularly with law enforcement agencies about extremist activity and conduct in-person training for officers at the local, state and federal level. Thousands of officers have received training that helps them recognize and deal with hate crimes as well as threats posed by extremists. This training is available free to law enforcement agencies. http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism



You can see how prejudiced the SPLC is against whites, just look at their news headlines, they are only concerned with crimes committed by white people against non-whites. How come they don't care about crimes committed by non-whites against whites? They are an organization that is solely concerned with black people's rights and they don't give a damn about white people. They are the complete antithesis to sites like ours who are concerned with white people's rights. They don't even care about the foreign invasion that is destroying America, they prefer to fight for the legal rights of illegal aliens. Thy are completely unpatriotic and hypocritical.
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 1529
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Exposing Jewish Power in America has consequences

PostFri Oct 06, 2017 9:33 am

To: Council for the National Interest Foundation <contact@councilforthenationalinterest.org>

​CNI Hits the Israel Lobby!

I am attaching my article on the Israel Lobby that appeared yesterday on unz.com. The previous article that it refers to made national news two weeks ago and also was read more than 130,000 times. We urge our supporters to read this new piece as it demonstrates how CNI is fighting hard against a new war in the Middle East!

As always, please remember that the Council for the National interest depends solely on you for its survival. We take no money from any government or from big, agenda driven foundations.

We are a major advocate for a peaceful foreign policy based on real American values. We don't want to miss out on a golden opportunity to reach the silent majority of decent people out there who need to hear our message.

Please consider a generous, tax-deductible contribution to CNI!

Phil Giraldi
Executive Director

Image

How I Got Fired

Exposing Jewish Power in America has consequences

Two weeks ago, I wrote for Unz.com an article entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars.” It sought to make several points concerning the consequences of Jewish political power vis-à-vis some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. It noted that some individual American Jews and organizations with close ties to Israel, whom I named and identified, are greatly disproportionately represented in the government, media, foundations, think tanks and lobbying that is part and parcel of the deliberations that lead to formulation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Inevitably, those policies are skewed to represent Israeli interests and do serious damage to genuine American equities in the region. This tilt should not necessarily surprise anyone who has been paying attention and was noted by Norman Glazer, among others, as long ago as 1976.

The end result of Israel centric policymaking in Washington is to produce negotiators like Dennis Ross, who consistently supported Israeli positions in peace talks, so much so that he was referred to as “Israel’s lawyer.” It also can result in wars, which is of particular concern given the current level of hostility being generated by these same individuals and organizations relating to Iran. This group of Israel advocates is as responsible as any other body in the United States for the deaths of thousands of Americans and literally millions of mostly Muslim foreigners in unnecessary wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. It has also turned the U.S. into an active accomplice in the brutal suppression of the Palestinians. That they have never expressed any remorse or regret and the fact that the deaths and suffering don’t seem to matter to them are clear indictments of the sheer inhumanity of the positions they embrace.

The claims that America’s Middle Eastern wars have been fought for Israel are not an anti-Semitic delusion. Some observers, including former high government official Philip Zelikow, believe that Iraq was attacked by the U.S. in 2003 to protect Israel. On April 3rd, just as the war was starting, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz headlined “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.” It then went on to describe how “In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in [Washington]: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another.”

And the deference to a Jewish proprietary interest in Middle Eastern policy produces U.S. Ambassadors to Israel who are more comfortable explaining Israeli positions than in supporting American interests. David Friedman, the current Ambassador, spoke last week defending illegal Israeli settlements, which are contrary to official U.S. policy, arguing that they represented only 2% of the West Bank. He did not mention that the land controlled by Israel, to include a security zone, actually represents 60% of the total area.

My suggestion for countering the overrepresentation of a special interest in policy formulation was to avoid putting Jewish government officials in that position by, insofar as possible, not giving them assignments relating to policy in the Middle East. As I noted in my article, that was, in fact, the norm regarding Ambassadors and senior foreign service assignments to Israel prior to 1995, when Bill Clinton broke precedent by appointing Australian citizen Martin Indyk to the position. I think, on balance, it is eminently sensible to avoid putting people in jobs where they will likely have conflicts of interest.

Another solution that I suggested for American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and find themselves in a position that considers policy for that country and its neighbors would be to recuse themselves from the deliberations, just as a judge who finds himself personally involved in a judicial proceeding might withdraw. It would seem to me that, depending on the official’s actual relationship with Israel, it would be a clear conflict of interest to do otherwise.

The argument that such an individual could protect American interests while also having a high level of concern for a foreign nation with contrary interests is at best questionable. As George Washington observed in his farewell address,

“…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification...”

My article proved to be quite popular, particularly after former CIA officer Valerie Plame tweeted her approval of it and was viciously and repeatedly attacked, resulting in a string of abject apologies on her part. As a reasonably well-known public figure, Plame attracted a torrent of negative press, in which I, as the author of the piece being tweeted, was also identified and excoriated. In every corner of the mainstream media I was called “a well-known anti-Semite,” “a long time anti-Israel fanatic,” and, ironically, “a somewhat obscure character.”

The widespread criticism actually proved to be excellent in terms of generating real interest in my article. Many people apparently wanted to read it even though some of the attacks against me and Plame deliberately did not provide a link to it to discourage such activity. As of this writing, it has been opened and viewed 130,000 times and commented on 1,250 times. Most of the comments were favorable. Some of my older pieces, including The Dancing Israelis and Why I Still Dislike Israel have also found a new and significant readership as a result of the furor.

One of the implications of my original article was that Jewish advocacy groups in the United States are disproportionately powerful, capable of using easy access to the media and to compliant politicians to shape policies that are driven by tribal considerations and not necessarily by the interests of most of the American people. Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, in their groundbreaking book "The Israel Lobby", observed how the billions of dollars given to Israel annually “cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds… {and] is due largely to the activities of the Israel lobby—a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who openly work to push U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.”

Those same powerful interests are systematically protected from criticism or reprisal by constantly renewed claims of historic and seemingly perpetual victimhood. But within the Jewish community and media, that same Jewish power is frequently exalted. It manifests itself in boasting about the many Jews who have obtained high office or who have achieved notoriety in the professions and in business. In a recent speech, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz put it this way, “People say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, we’ve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Don’t do that! We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country.” He has also discussed punishing critics of Israel, “Anyone that does [that] has to be treated with economic consequences. We have to hit them in the pocketbook. Don’t ever, ever be embarrassed about using Jewish power. Jewish power, whether it be intellectual, academic, economic, political– in the interest of justice is the right thing to do.”

My article, in fact, began with an explanation of that one aspect of Jewish power, its ability to promote Israeli interests freely and even openly while simultaneously silencing critics. I described how any individual or “any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.”

With that in mind, I should have expected that there would be a move made to “silence” me. It came three days after my article appeared. The Editor of The American Conservative (TAC) magazine and website, where I have been a regular and highly rated contributor for nearly 15 years, called me and abruptly announced that even though my article had appeared on another site, it had been deemed unacceptable and TAC would have to sever its relationship with me. I called him a coward and he replied that he was not.

I do not know exactly who on the TAC board decided to go after me. Several board members who are good friends apparently were not even informed about what was going on when firing me was under consideration. I do not know whether someone coming from outside the board applied pressure in any way, but there is certainly a long history of friends of Israel being able to remove individuals who have offended against the established narrative, recently exemplified by the hounding of now-ex-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who had the temerity to state that “the Jewish lobby intimidates lots of people” in Washington. As Gilad Atzmon has observed one of the most notable features of Jewish power is the ability to stifle any discussion of Jewish power by gentiles.

But the defenestration by TAC, which I will survive, also contains a certain irony. The magazine was co-founded in 2002 by Pat Buchanan and the article by him that effectively launched the publication in the following year was something called "Whose War?" Buchanan’s initial paragraphs tell the tale:

“The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: ‘Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?’ Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these ‘Buchananites toss around neoconservative—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’ Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a ‘key tenet of neoconservatism.’ He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush ‘sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.’ (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)”

Pat is right on the money. He was pretty much describing the same group that I have written about and raising the same concern, i.e. that the process had led to an unnecessary war and will lead to more unless it is stopped by exposing and marginalizing those behind it. Pat was, like me, called an anti-Semite and even worse for his candor. And guess what? The group that started the war that has since been deemed the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history is still around and they are singing the same old song.

And TAC has not always been so sensitive to certain apparently unacceptable viewpoints, even in my case. I write frequently about Israel because I believe it and its supporters to be a malign influence on the United States and a threat to national security. In June 2008, I wrote a piece called "The Spy Who Loves Us" about Israeli espionage against the U.S. It was featured on the cover of the magazine and it included a comment about the tribal instincts of some American Jews: “In 1996, ten years after the agreement that concluded the [Jonathan] Pollard [Israeli spying] affair, the Pentagon’s Defense Investigative Service warned defense contractors that Israel had ‘espionage intentions and capabilities’ here and was aggressively trying to steal military and intelligence secrets. It also cited a security threat posed by individuals who have ‘strong ethnic ties’ to Israel, stating that ‘Placing Israeli nationals in key industries is a technique utilized with great success.’”

Three days later, another shoe dropped. I was supposed to speak at a panel discussion critical of Saudi Arabia on October 2nd. The organizer, the Frontiers of Freedom foundation, emailed me to say my services would no longer be required because “the conference will not be a success if we get sidetracked into debating, discussing, or defending the substance of your writings on Israel.”

Last Saturday morning, Facebook blocked access to my article for a time because it “contained a banned word.” I can safely assume that such blockages will continue and that invitations to speak at anti-war or foreign policy events will be in short supply from now on as fearful organizers avoid any possible confrontation with Israel’s many friends.

Would I do something different if I were to write my article again today? Yes. I would have made clearer that I was not writing about all or most American Jews, many of whom are active in the peace movement and, like my good friend Jeff Blankfort, even figure among the leading critics of Israel. My target was the individuals and Jewish “establishment” groups I specifically named, that I consider to be the activists for war. And I refer to them as “Jews” rather than neoconservatives or Zionists as some of them don’t identify by those political labels while to blame developments on Zios or neocons is a bit of an evasion in any event. Writing “neoconservatives” suggests some kind of fringe or marginal group, but we are actually talking about nearly all major Jewish organizations and many community leaders.

Many, possibly even most, Jewish organizations in the United States openly state that they represent the interests of the state of Israel. The crowd stoking fears of Iran is largely Jewish and is, without exception, responsive to the frequently expressed desires of the self-defined Jewish state to have the United States initiate hostilities. This often means supporting the false claim that Tehran poses a serious threat against the U.S. as a pretext for armed conflict. Shouldn’t that “Jewish” reality be on the table for consideration when one is discussing the issue of war versus peace in America?

When all is said and done the punishment that has been meted out to me and Valerie Plame proves my point. The friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation and through fear. If we suffer through a catastrophic war with Iran fought to placate Benjamin Netanyahu many people might begin to ask “Why?” But identifying the real cause would involve criticism of what some American Jews have been doing, which is not only fraught with consequences, but is something that also will possibly become illegal thanks to Congressional attempts to criminalize such activity. We Americans will stand by mutely as we begin to wonder what has happened to our country. And some who are more perceptive will even begin to ask why a tiny client state has been allowed to manipulate and bring ruin on the world’s only super power. Unfortunately, at that point, it will be too late to do anything about it.
---

Return to "Hate" Watchdogs & Pressure Groups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest