doremus
observes
Doremus Jessup, editor of the Fort
Beulah The Daily Informer, in Sinclair Lewis'
famous book "It Can't Happen Here", at its
conclusion, "drove out saluted by the meadow larks,
and onward all day, to a hidden cabin in the Northern
Woods where quiet men awaited news of freedom.....still
Doremus goes on, into the sunrise, for a Doremus Jessup
can never die......
*******************************This Ain't Fifth-Century Athens
Curmudgeonly Reflections On
Democracy by Fred on Everything
http://www.fredoneverything.net
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Autumn looms and presidential elections will soon roll
around, like droppings pushed by dung beetles. We will be
exhorted to vote. Better advice would be not to vote. The
proper response toward what we occasionally imagine to be
democracy, methinks, is to retain ones self-respect
by not participating in it.
Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a
public display of weak character and low intelligence.
Let us face the truth: Democracy, like spitting in public
or the Roman games, is the proper activity of the lower
intellectual and moral classes. It amounts to collusion
in one's own suckering.
The United States of course is not a democracy but a
wonderfully crafted pretense. We have separated the
results of elections from the formulation of policy. It
is a neat trick: Voting distracts the rabble without
disturbing the government. You cannot possiblycan
you?believe that your vote will change anything of
importance? That it will end the flood of semi-literate
Mexican proletarians who join our own? Divert the schools
from their ghettoish apotheosis of the mentally lame and
halt? Cause governmental behavior to rely on merit
instead of race, creed, color, sex, and national origin?
No. These things are determined remotely by lobbies,
by criminals, and by forces that have no name. If you are
lucky, you may be able to change parking regulations.
Given that democracy is pointless, and participation
in it a sign of a weak mind, what is the wisest attitude
toward the government?
That of a tick toward a cow. Nothing else makes sense.
The central question of American government is not what
mountebank shall be president or what eructations of
mendacity he may devise. The question, almost the only
question, is whether the government can get more from you
than you can get from it. One picks pockets, or
ones pockets are picked.
The clever or well representedthe racial
lobbies, defense industry, teachers unions, feminists,
AIPAC, big pharma, oil, corporationssuck money from
the government. In turn the government gnaws like a
hagfish at the entrails of middle-class people moldering
in cubicles. These spend their lives in jobs they hate to
buy things they dont want, such as
half-million-dollar houses in the suburbs, so as to pay
taxes. Elections give them a sense of having a stake in
their flensing: The government is their hagfish.
Clearly taking part in this is unwise. What then do
you do?
First, and most important, stop regarding yourself as
part of government. Government doesnt concern
itself with you; why should you concern yourself with it?
The change of attitude provides both relaxation and
perspective.
Next, avoid governmental impositions. There are many.
Military service is the worst of them. Dont go. A
little man in Washington, whom you have never met and
wouldnt talk to over a back fence, tells you to
kill people who have done nothing to you in a foreign
country you may never have heard of. Does this seem
reasonable?
Finally, cultivate apathy, which is cheaper than
Prozac and works better. You do not worry about what you
do not care about. I do not propose a depressed scowl at
life, but merely a wholesome indifference toward those
forces malign and otherwise over which you can have no
influence.
Better yet, enjoy the onrushing atrophy. Is the United
States going to hell, western civilization being
subverted, knaves scuttling like fetid crabs through the
corridors of power and nitwits ravaging the schools in
the manner of monkeys in a fruit store? (Yes, actually.)
Relish it for the splendid historical theater that it is.
A better spectacle there cannot be.
I say this seriously. If you regard yourself as
audience rather than participant, the accelerating
collapse becomes entertainment. You read each
mornings headlines with zest to see what new and
preposterous clownishness erupts from Washington. It is
high comedy. Just now Mr. Bush wants to tighten the
embargo on Cuba because of its violations of human
rights; meanwhile Mr. Bush is running a torture camp at
Guantanamo. We have a war on poverty that perpetuates
poverty, a war on drugs that guarantees availability by
keeping prices up.
I doubt that Mark Twain could make such things up.
A huge gap separates those who, on the one hand, eat
their souls up over things they cant change, and
those who, on the other, focus on their friends, family,
children. You probably have a sense of what is right,
wrong, moral, decent, and just. To these, I say, you owe
allegiance. To nothing else.
A wholesome apathy does not mean giving up a love of
music or travel or dogs or books or contemplation of
starry skies should the pollution clear momentarily. Nor
does it mean lack of concern for those around you. It
does mean, or more correctly require, moral
self-determination insofar as it is possible.
The wise recognize that they are insignificant atoms
and set their course accordingly. Yes, in a small town
enjoying sovereignty over its institutions, participation
might make sense. You might expect to have an influence
over matters material to you. If you wanted the high
school to offer advanced classes in mathematics for your
advanced child, you would stand a reasonable chance of
persuading the school board, and finding a volunteer
teacher if need be.
But today you are merely a minor source of taxes. It
is reasonable therefore to regard governments not as
enemiesthey are larger than you are and will
usually winbut as intricate puzzles. If the
government wont school your children, do you
home-school? Move to France? Can you qualify for some
form of welfare and have the government support you
instead of you, it? Are laws more to your liking in
Thailand?
To what, then, you might ask, does one owe allegiance?
A better question might be: Why should one owe allegiance
to any distant group beyond ones influence? Yes, I
know: The dog-pack instinct dominates human behavior. It
is why we have wars and teen-age gangs and attach
ourselves furiously to football teams. Patriotism,
meaning an irrational attachment to whatever country we
were born in, comes naturally. But does it come
reasonably? To use the tired but effective example,
should you be loyal to your countrys government if
it begins operating torture camps in, say, Bergen-Belsen
or Treblinka or, once more, Guantanamo?
Or should you do what you believe to be right, decline
to be herded like cattle, and live decently in the
interstices of things? These at least are choices not as
humiliating as voting. Those who wash regularly should
not stoop to democracy.
The Israeli Lobby is
America's third party
By Ahmed Amr.
Editor
In 1956, as Eisenhower was campaigning for his second
term in the White House, his Secretary of State appeared
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss
the Arab/Israeli conflict. Kieth Kyle, the author of
'Suez', records that John Foster Dulles was 'given a
sharp reminder of the domestic political dimensions of
his problem' and was 'subjected to several hours of
questioning. Much of it, from such pro-Zionist Democrats
as Wayne Morse of Oregon and Hubert Humphery of
Minnesota, was of a hostile and sardonic nature.'
Dulles responded to the Senators with a remark that still
rings true today. "Our difficulty derives very
largely from the fact that the Arabs believe that the
United States, when it confronts problems which relate to
Israel, is in the last analysis dominated by domestic
political considerations". According to Kyle's well
documented narrative, Dulles expressed the hope that 'in
the pending political campaign the discussion will be on
such a level as to dissipate the idea'.
These Senate hearings took place on February 24, 1956.
Dulles was so irritated with the Zionist lobby that a few
days later, on March 2, he took the extraordinary step of
taking up the issue with Abba Eban, the Israeli
Ambassador to the United States. Kyle narrates that in a
'bitter dressing down' of the Ambassador, the Secretary
of State complained of 'the political campaign being
waged by the Israelis against the administration, the
paid advertisements, the mass meetings, the resolutions,
the demands of Zionist organizations, the veiled threats
of domestic political reprisals'. Back in 1956, an
American President could actually confront the Israeli
Lobby and still win a second term in office. Today, the
new political math in Washington allows Netenyahu, an
Ex-Prime Minister of Israel, to publicly instruct Bush on
how to properly apply the 'Bush doctrine'. And just to
make sure the President learns his lessons well,
Netenyahu can round up 98 Senators
to his 'Amen corner'.
Over the course of the last five decades, the Israeli
Lobby has grown in power to the extent that it now
amounts to a third major party with a political program
that rivals the agendas of both the Republicans and the
Democrats. Like the other two contenders for political
power, the party of the Israel Firsters has enhanced its
stature by shifting alliances and wooing new
constituents.
AIPAC, the umbrella group of 'official' pro-Israeli
pressure groups, is but a small component of this major
third force in the American political process. What the
Israel Firsters lack in terms of an actual demographic
voting constituency, they make up for by having a major
stake in influential media monopolies.
>Let us begin with the obvious links between the mass
media titans and what is essentially an ethnic lobby.
Mortimier Zuckerman, the President of Major American
Jewish Organizations, publishes US World and News Report.
William Safire of the New York Times publicly
acknowledges doing public relations work for Ariel
Sharon. Thomas Friedman has spent two decades sanitizing
the criminal war record of both Begin and Sharon. Ted
Koppel boasts of his personal friendship with Netenyahu.
At CNN, Walter Isaccson appears to be coordinating
coverage with the IDF. Charles Krauthammer of the
Washington Post likes to pose to the right of Netenyahu.
Conrad Black, the Canadian media tycoon, publishes the
Jerusalem Post, which reads like a semi-official
publication of the IDF.
During the Clinton years, the keys at the State
Department were handed over to operatives straight from
the Israeli Lobby. Martin Indyk, former head of AIPAC was
made ambassador to Israel. Dennis Ross, the 'mediator',
also had ideological roots in the lobby. Eagleburger,
Holbrooke and Albright are all dedicated Israel Firsters.
With the change in administration, a new batch of
pro-Israeli activists moved into key positions.
Ideologically, they pose as 'neo-conservatives'; a
movement that even the New York Times reports is mostly
Jewish. In fact, the proper definition of
neo-conservative is an Israel Firster who wanted to be
politically viable after the Reagan 'revolution'. To a
large extent, the difference between 'neo' and the 'oldo'
conservatives is the country they aspire to serve. The
'oldos' are America Fisters, while the 'neos' worship the
'old country', a mystical Yiddish supremacist apartheid
state built on the ruins of Palestine on the shores of
the Eastern Mediterranean.
In the last two decades, the Israeli Lobby has expanded
its constituency to include a major new base among right
wing Evangelicals who believe that Israel is always
right. According to this very new and very American
branch of Protestant Christianity, the bible says Israeli
goons can kill and maim Palestinians, steal their land
and place them under a constant stage of siege. Among the
followers of this 'new religion' is one Richard Armey,
the House Majority Leader, who has publicly advocated the
ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. This
new 'constituency for repression' believes that Israel
has biblical sanction to administer collective punishment
and torture, destroy personal and public property and
generally make life miserable for the native people of
the Holy Land.
It makes little difference to these 'Zionist Christians'
that the community they seek to 'cleanse' includes the
oldest Christian community in the world. And it matters
even less to the Israel Firsters that their doctrines
also predict the mass conversion of Jews and the end of
times. Today, between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean, ten million people are locked in a bitter
struggle over land and destiny. Nearly half of the
population between the river and the sea are native
Palestinians. Their desperate cry for liberty is not only
ignored by America, but tens of billions in United States
tax revenues are spent to assist their tormentors. We
have an American policy in the Middle East that serves
the constituency of a third party that no American has
ever voted for. It is an ethnic constituency that
includes lunatic elements with visions of an apocalyptic
end to our one common planet.
In the aftermath of the criminal assaults on America, we
are long due for an investigation of the real cause of
all our troubles with radicalized elements in the Middle
East. Why is our Congress investigating the CIA, the FBI
and the INS, when the real focus should be on the State
Department and a catastrophic foreign policy that
amounted to the appeasement of a belligerent foreign
state run by war criminals? Why do we have an Israeli
Lobby so powerful that it acts like a major political
party and constantly tampers with our foreign policy to
align it with the dictates of the Likudniks in Tel Aviv?
What vital American national interest is served by the
continued repression of the Palestinian people?
The deadly assaults against our shores on 911 could
certainly have been avoided. But the notion that any
American government would have sanctioned such an assault
or been lax in attempting to stop it is a bit off the
wall. Yet, the fact remains that both the Clinton and
Bush administrations were
> arrogant enough to take foreign policy risks to
appease the constituency of the Israeli Lobby, the
phantom third party that has come to dominate public
discourse on foreign policy. It was common knowledge that
there would be a price to pay for the Gulf War, the Saudi
military bases, the murderous economic blockade of Iraq
and the humiliating occupation of the West Bank, Gaza,
East Jerusalem and the Golan. If there was an
intelligence failure, it was a failure to properly assess
the potential cost of our errant foreign policies.
Congress is now interrogating the intelligence community.
I would rather that the intelligence community started
interrogating Congress. Perhaps the INS should be called
upon to sort out our governors and find out which ones
deserve ID cards to properly identify them as members of
the third party. But since Congress is the designated
investigator, perhaps they should call for the State
department to come clean with the American people. How
did so many members of the Israeli Lobby end up in such
prominent positions at Foggy Bottom during the Clinton
years? How many have found new homes in the Bush
administration? Did they serve American interests or
align themselves with Sharon's agenda? What measures can
be taken to protect the State Department from the
fundamentalist theology of the third party? Do certain
ethnic publishers have an inordinate say in tailoring our
policies in the Middle East and beyond? If Safire works
for Sharon, should he still get a fair hearing with Colin
Powell?
I am certain that John Foster Dulles would have given a
very candid response to all questions regarding the third
party.
We are at a critical point in the history of the Republic
and the world. It is essential that men of honor insist
that proper scrutiny be paid to the third party. No
rational discourse of the 911 disaster is possible
without taking account of the ruthless nature of the
operatives of the Israeli Lobby. Do not expect the New
York Times, CNN or the Washington Post to instigate such
a probe. They are very much part of the problem. It will
be left to the brave voices of the alternative press to
lead the charge and uncover some very basic truths about
911. The good news is that none of this is rocket science
and the public record will eventually be set straight.
Congress can investigate now or
be investigated later.
http://www.nilemedia.com/Columnists/Ahmed/2003/3rdparty/3rdparty.html
|