Anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment activists have put such a stigma on both firearms ownership and their use in the private sector that an “only-for-police-and-military” attitude prevails. Yet this police state mentality fails to send the appropriate signals to an unsuspecting public, which is of course exacerbated by the many notable Jews in government, law, and Jewish civic societies that support the very gun control that mass murdering police states such as Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia and Soviet Union depended so heavily upon. The history of Nazi gun control confirms that its initial and primary focus was against the Jews.

If Jews are seen as promoting gun control, it intensifies the mind-numbing propaganda continuously and unceasingly pumped out by the mainstream establishment news and entertainment media. Regrettably, even a cursory examination will show that Jews control both the news and entertainment media. The New York Times, the latter proven to be the content controller for the American “news” media, is owned and operated by the Jewish Sulzberger family. And yet the Sulzberger-controlled New York Times prides itself on its receipt of the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for the cover-up of the murder of 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin and his Communists.

Addressing the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, it has been established that virtually all of the perpetrators were Saudis and therefore Arabs. It is wrong to condemn all Arabs for the acts of these few, just as it is wrong to accuse all Germans for the atrocities of Hitler, or all Russians for the mass murders attributable to Stalin. Stalin is still ranked as having mass murdered more people than any other dictator, and communism has been established as that form of centralized socialism that’s been the most deadly of all socialist philosophies.

Considering that Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party constituted a secular regime, and also a socialist one that was not a monument to Islam, no case has ever been made that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or that he had the means to readily deploy them, or that he had nuclear weaponry, or the facilities to make and deliver them, or that he had anything at all to do with 9-11. Yet President Bush convinced Congress and the American people to just take his word and gave him the carte blanche war-making powers he requested to protect US from terrorism. Another result was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s USA Patriot Act.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz publicized the pro-Israeli considerations planned by the neoconservative globalization movement largely comprised of members of the Bush administration, and identified as the Project for the New American Century or PNAC. Still maintained on the Information Clearing House’s website is the post from writer William Rivers Pitt. It is worth reiterating here the key points elaborated upon by Pitt regarding PNAC.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the homeland. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

PNAC is not an imaginary cabal conjured up by conspiracy theorists. And as the Israeli Haaretz itself has indicated, the pro-Israeli stance was presented to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, offering that it would benefit Israel to the possible detriment of America by the very Americans who created it. This all happened long before 9-11.

Jews supporting Israeli military supremacy as well as the Jewish state of Israel are designated as “Zionists,” a denigrating term. It is accusatory in that it advocates that Jews are more loyal to the state of Israel than they are to their own country. This of course, is the same kind of nonsensical generalization that would equate all Germans to Hitler or all Russians to Stalin.

Clearly, there are three kinds of Jews: those that support Israel above all else, including their present country; those that support Israel, but not over and above their present country; and then there are those who either disagree with the United States’ support of Israel or who just don’t agree with the concept of Israel. Jews that have voiced disagreement with American policy towards Israel have actually been attacked, and perhaps not directly as anti-Semites, but at least depicted by other Jews and Zionists in that light.

The foregoing discussion sets the stage for the consideration of barbs being launched back and forth regarding worldwide “anti-Semitism” and America’s war on terror. Make no mistake: this is becoming a major issue and could evolve into something very ugly. Setting the tone for the debate, we begin by quoting Joe Farah’s call for alarm regarding the worldwide spread of anti-Semitism. There isn’t the slightest doubt that the Arab world, as well as the rest of the international community, is aware of the PNAC machinations between the United States and Israel. And the Muslim world has made it clear that the strikes of 9-11 were in retaliation for this alliance.

But consider Mr. Farah’s point of reference in an article intended to promote the sale of his organization’s Whistleblower Magazine, posted on the WorldNetDaily.com website October 14th entitled, “The New Anti-Semitism.” “Indeed, ever since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks – blamed by many in the Arab world on Jews, even though all 19 hijackers were Arab Muslims – a virulent strain of anti-Semitism has been spreading wildly, not only throughout the Muslim-Arab Mideast, but in Europe and even in America.” Farah offers that since the hijackers were all Arabs and not Jews, the argument that Arabs are retaliating against the United States because of our support of Israel is non sequitur.

Yet the Israeli newspaper Haaretz confirms PNAC and the Arab world is aware of this. And Saddam didn’t want to sign on with Bechtel and Halliburton for a mutually profitable pipeline deal between Iraq and the US immediately prior to the first Gulf War because Saddam feared an attack on such a pipeline from Israel, similar to the one on their nuclear power plant in 1981. Saddam realized that Israel pinpointed the reactor via Israeli access to US intelligence files.

Even an indirect assessment of neoconservatism, the new camouflaged liberalism so characteristic of the Bush administration’s “new” Republican philosophy, has been marked with barbs going to and fro involving charges of anti-Semitism. The so-called “godfather” of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol, wrote an article entitled “The Neoconservative Persuasion.” Professor Kevin MacDonald, in an article entitled “Thinking About Neoconservatism,” posted on September 18, 2003 on VDare.com, challenges and contrasts some of the points made by Kristol.

MacDonald queries: “Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it anti-Semitic to say so?” MacDonald goes on, isolating specifically some comments made by Kristol:

The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry.

The cavalier dismissal by Kristol of the need for America to assess its own interests separate from those of Israel does exactly the same injustice to the people of the rest of the world as it does the US, perhaps some of whom are now exhibiting this global outbreak of “anti-Semitism.” And there is also no question as to what has always constituted the most deadly political philosophy the world has known.

Attacked as being anti-Semitic by a Jewish writer that offered, “Jews are hopelessly liberal,” and who then pointed out that not all those in PNAC are Jewish, MacDonald originally offered: “But in fact, the ability to recruit prominent non-Jews, while nevertheless maintaining a Jewish core and a commitment to Jewish interests, has been a hallmark – perhaps the key hallmark – of influential Jewish intellectual and political movements throughout the 20th century. Freud commented famously on the need for the non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis, a role played by Ernest Jones and C.G. Jung. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were the public face of Boasian anthropology. And, although Jews represented over half the membership of both the Socialist Party and the Communist Party USA at various times, neither party ever had Jews as presidential candidates and no Jew held the top position in the Communist Party USA after 1929.”

These observations by Professor MacDonald were once again brought to the fore by the recent remarks of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, who offered, “ ‘The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them,’ Mahathir said, adding, ‘1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews.’” The forgoing quote was cited from an article in Australia’s news.com.au entitled “Jews rule the world: Mahathir,” posted October 16, 2003.

If the world is being viewed as anti-Semitic, and the Muslim world population of 1.3 billion does indeed feel the way Mahathir views the Jews, shouldn’t we, the nation that is doing the lead blocking and heavy lifting for Israel pay some heed? Does it make sense to write off the anger towards the Jews that is felt by one fifth of the world’s population toward Israel and dismiss it as just mere “anti-Semitism?” And what is it really; does President George Bush’s explanation that the terrorist acts were based only upon jealousies founded upon our economic wealth and political freedoms seem logical? That’s sheer nonsense!

The worst conflict in the history of Mankind started out precisely the same way – a madman accused the Jews of wrongdoing, and then aligned Jews with international communism controlled by Moscow. Hitler hated both Jews and communism. And wasn’t it the purpose of both Nazism and communism to dominate the entire planet? The only real difference between these two forms of socialism was the location of the capital cities of these intended, unified world orders: one offered Berlin, and the other offered Moscow. Isn’t that similar to the PNAC concept of neoconservative Republicans and the United Nations concept of the Democrats’ new world order? One would be controlled by the UN in New York City, and the other by PNAC from Washington, DC. Yet both are domiciled in the USA! Is PNAC really serving America, or Israel? Is anyone in Washington prepared to address these points? Should we continue to ignore one fifth of the world’s population?

<Theodore E. Lang>

© 2003 THEODORE E. LANG All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.

Archives

Easy Pickin’s -- For The Political Class

Strike Four! Republicans Need More Swings!

Destroying the Enemy -- Media Expedia

The Paper Vise -- Crushing The First And Second

Bad News Bears - Back Door Gun Control

Money to Burn - Procurement Pyromania

Visit Etherzone for other articles by Ted Lang