Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Israel Shamir: Dry Thy Tears

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Dry Thy Tears by Israel Shamir http://www.israelshamir.net The re-election of President Bush is a sad event; the failure of Kerry is not. Before the election,
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dry Thy Tears

      by Israel Shamir

      The re-election of President Bush is a sad event; the failure of
      Kerry is not. Before the election, we called upon our American
      readers to vote for a Third Candidate. Some readers agreed and
      voted - for Nader or Greens or whomever their consciences were happy
      with. Today they have nothing to regret. Others objected, often
      vehemently, and proclaimed the main advantage of Kerry, namely: he
      is not George W Bush. Now those of you who did so are upset, and
      along with you many Europeans; they still regret the defeat of John

      This is a good time to re-read The Pickwick Papers by Charles
      Dickens. In this hilarious novel, a rogue and gold-digger Jingle
      elopes with a spinster Aunt Rachael; her relations, led by Mr
      Pickwick, apprehend the couple of their way to Gretna Green and pay
      off the rogue. The spinster was greatly saddened, but she was saved
      from a worse, lasting and painful disappointment.

      Be comforted: the red-state voters played a Pickwick on you and
      saved you from a big disillusionment. Kerry and Bush were in full
      agreement regarding the war in the Middle East, from Palestine to
      Afghanistan, including Iraq and Iran. They were in full agreement on
      any point that really matters for the great majority of voters.
      Americans were allowed to choose who will bomb Iran and support
      Israel, privatise water and electricity, ruin families, promote
      alienation and profane the world – such policies were never in
      dispute. Kerry supported Bush by voting to authorize the war in
      Iraq, for an increase in the Pentagon budget, for the Patriot Act,
      for the "right" to pre-emptive war. Kerry was politically situated
      between Joseph Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein. Kerry was supported
      by our adversaries: the New York Times, George Soros, and organised
      Jewry who gave him 80% of their vote. The only points Kerry differed
      on were those we objected to: gun control and other liberal-
      totalitarian shibboleths.

      If John Kerry had won, our situation would be worse: he would have
      continued the policies of Bush and put a claim on much of the
      world's good will. His victory would have allowed the US to broaden
      their Coalition of the Willing; anti-war voices in Britain and
      elsewhere in Europe would die out; the main newspapers would call
      upon Europe to support this brand new American leader. The liberal
      opposition to the war represented by the Nation would lose its
      voice. The rift between the US and the rest of the world would
      shrink and heal while the US would continue to perpetuate the same
      policies that caused the rift in the first place. In short, victory
      of John Kerry would be a godsend for the Corporate US. Mercifully,
      this outcome was avoided.

      The US of the second Bush's second presidency is now more isolated
      than ever. Many European leaders had expressed their hope that Bush
      would be removed; now they will have difficulty coming back under
      the US aegis. The anti-war campaign will be able to continue
      unabated. We shall have the liberals as our allies: provided they
      agree to the proposition of Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch: "Set
      aside your quaint obsession with abortion and the rights of gays to
      marry each other. All in under the big tent. One party under

      This view is consistently upheld by this list. John Spritzler of
      http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/ wrote: "If we drive people away
      from the anti-war movement because they don't have the "correct"
      views on issues like same-sex marriage or gun control or abortion or
      affirmative action or immigration, then we're only shooting
      ourselves in the foot". Indeed, it is the time to bring forth a
      Popular Anti-war Front of all forces, whether 'progressive'
      or 'conservative', against the War Party.

      Our chances improved in these elections as the pro-Judaic forces
      took a beating: our friend Cynthia McKinney once defeated by the
      Lobby[2], came back victorious. The great Zionist Tom Daschle was
      booted out by people of South Dakota. Jim Moran who was demonised
      for his statement that the "strong support" of the Jewish community
      was driving the push toward a war with Iraq, won the election. Tom
      Coburn, who objected to TV screening of the Schindler List, also
      survived unscathed.

      Our adversaries' strongest asset, their dominant position in the
      mainstream media, lost its magic touch. Has Hollywood become a
      liability for the Democrats? – asks Reuters[3], while Noonan in the
      Wall Street Journal[4] pontificated: "Who was the biggest loser of
      the 2004 election? The mainstream media. … Every time the big
      networks and big national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of
      mischief - the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the
      Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development
      in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the
      yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new
      technology and rough guts."

      Judging by these results, the Judaic hold on American discourse is
      slipping. But we won't repeat the error of Justin Raimondo of
      Antiwar.com who was gleefully pleased with what appeared as a Jewish
      setback after the first Bush victory four years ago - a few months
      later, we learned of the Neo-Cons.

      "'The Congress remains very strongly pro-Israel. It's always a
      question, are you going to get 80 or 83 on a pro-Israel initiative
      in the Senate. That's terrific,' said one Jewish fund-raiser who
      distributes money to pro-Israel candidates in both parties." –
      reported the Jerusalem Post[5]. The Lobby is still extremely strong,
      but now we know: there are many, many Americans, who would like to
      take it down a rung or two.

      Our list is pointing out to the winning strategy: the union of
      traditional isolationist conservatives and left radicals against the
      US interventions overseas, or in spiritual terms for Christ and
      against the double paradigm of Mammon and Zionism. The losing
      strategy was offered by some anti-Christian Kerryites who posted a
      map of post-election America: the Red states were marked "Jesus-
      land", the Blue – "The US of Canada". The religious affiliation of
      the posters is too obvious to ponder. They want to turn their
      electoral defeat into an ideological victory of their anti-Christian
      policies. For us this dichotomy is unacceptable: a Red state, South
      Dakota, kicked out Daschle the Zionist, a Blue state, California,
      gave victory to an equally nasty Tom Lantos. This is the only
      criterion we are ready to apply.

      Suggested reading: on the left, Alexander Cockburn on

      On the right, Justin Raimondo on www.antiwar.com


      [1] www.counterpunch.com

      [2] http://www.rense.com/general27/ode.htm


      [4] http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

      [5] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.