The
New Complaint of Portnoy
March 19, 2001
The Viennese Jewish shrinks
decided to disinvite
the American Palestinian Professor Edward Said,
who had been called to
lecture them in memory of Sigmund Freud. The
Professor had been
seen throwing a stone towards an Israeli border.
The psychiatrists said it speaks a lot about his
subconscious. They would never throw a rock, as
the wild Arab from Columbia University; they
prefer Sharon’s missiles.
I think it is a right
approach, and it should be applied not only to
professor Said. In the far-away 1969, Phillip
Roth decided to probe the subconscious of his
contemporary American Jew. In the novel,
Portnoy’s Complaint, Roth’s hero, Alexander
Portnoy, lies on the psychiatrist’s couch
and tells of his inner
feelings, domineering mother and adolescent sex.
What would a modern Portnoy blubber on the
newest reclining couch model 2001?
We can find this
out by turning towards the press. Philip Weis [i]
in the New York Observer noted that the Jews are
to politics and media what the blacks are to
basketball. The leading media powerhouses like
the New York Times Corporation and the
Washington Post are fully kosher, owned by Jews
and a substantial majority of the editorials and
the op-eds are written by Jews. They are
representative of the Jewish American opinion.
With a very few exceptions,
they are supportive of Israel, its policies
towards the Palestinians and its brave ruler,
general Sharon.
The situation in our land is
well known. The Jews rule supreme. The local
non-Jewish inhabitants have few rights. The
majority of them is disenfranchised. Their
property is seized at will and their sources of
independent livelihood are destroyed. Their
cities are besieged, activists assassinated,
women and children starved. They have no access
to public media, to welfare; they are not
allowed to even go to the beach. None of this is
secret. It is freely discussed in the Israeli
media.
It would be a gross
exaggeration to say that the Jews of Israel hate
goys and wish them all gone. To borrow the
expression of Conrad Black, the owner of British
and Canadian newspapers, it would be ‘a lie
worthy of Goebbels’. Israel imports hundreds of
thousands of goys and shiksas: Chinese, Thai,
Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians and Africans. In
just the last few months, the Israeli Ministry
of Labour issued thousands of new permits for
guest workers. The Jews of Israel welcome goys,
as long as they have no rights, make no demands
and agree to work for minimal wage. At the first
objection, they are taken by force to the first
plane back home.
That is the country adored by
William Safire, Tom Friedman and other Jews in
the mainstream media. ‘Tell me what you like,
and I’ll tell you what you are’, goes the Latin
adage. The pro-Israel position of the American
Jews in the media is a good indication of their
subconscious feelings towards the world at
large.
Their favourite neo-liberal
globalist trend is but a tendency to turn the
whole world, including the United States, into a
Palestine with a small ruling class, big
security machine and voiceless impoverished
natives. But let us give their due to the
gentlemen of the press. They could be worse. The
more vocal part of American Jewry considers them
rather soft. The US correspondent of Haaretz in
Washington, Nitzan Horovitz, writes in today’s
edition (March 16, 2001), “The Israeli lobby in
the US (AIPAC) is more intransigent[1][1][ii]
than any government of Israel, including that of
Sharon.” It is a Jewish supremacist
organisation, according to Yossi Beilin, an
Israeli ex-minister who is not much of a liberal
himself.
What do they hate in
Palestinians? The Palestinians have roots, they
are living in harmony with their environment,
they love their villages, they stick to their
land, they can live without Jewish guidance. The
Jewish supremacists wish to destroy their
society, to confiscate their land and turn them
into slaves sweating in the Jewish factories. If
that is what Portnoy-2001 feels about
Palestinians, why would he feel any different
about other goys? A good Viennese shrink would
pronounce him sick and possibly dangerous to his
neighbours. He is as sick as any bigot of Ku
Klux Klan, but much more influential due to his
control over the media.
What is the source of
Portnoy’s influence? Why did he change so much
since 1969? Phillip Weiss explains it by the
success of the Jews to break through the
barriers, to enrich themselves and to occupy the
commanding positions in the establishment. He
writes, “I don’t claim to know how Jewish the
membership of the establishment is. Twenty
percent, 50 percent? I’m guessing 30”. Even 30%
would be sufficient to promote any idea, if the
other 70% have no interest in the subject. In
many financial companies, a 10% controlling
share is as good as total ownership, as the rest
is divided among small shareholders.
In the absence of solid
statistics for the US, it is instructive to
consider the economy of Apartheid-era South
Africa. The Economist, hardly a ‘hate
publication’, estimated that the Jews who
constituted 0.03% of the population owned sixty
percent of that rich country’s market
capitalization. All other players, Anglos,
Boers, Indians and native Africans competed for
the remaining 40%.
The power of money is
translated into the rule over the minds by the
feudal structure of the media. At the peak,
there are media lords, the proprietors. They
delegate authority to their faithful retainers,
the chief editors, who in turn, choose loyal
soldiers. The structure does not stand alone,
but links to the
financial and trading structures, the main
ad-suppliers. The ad-suppliers are more
important than the readers. In England, the
Daily Herald, a newspaper targeted at a working
class constituency, went bankrupt. Although it
had five times as many readers as The Times, it
only attracted half the advertising revenues.
Advertisements account for approximately 75% of
the revenue of an average newspaper. In the case
of Radio and TV broadcasters, that figure leaps
to almost 100%. It is no wonder that the media
is accountable to its ‘paying’ patrons, the
privileged few who are members of an elite club.
Contrary to the conventional
wisdom, the media is not the message. The media
is not a line of business, either. Lev Chernoi,
a Russian-Israeli billionaire who sold his vast
media empire to another Jewish tycoon, Mr.
Berezovsky, put it concisely in a recent
interview: “Media is politics”. The media is a
means of shaping public consensus; of swaying
the consciousness of a nation. Once, the
readership provided a feedback, not anymore.
Ordinary people still own most of the body parts
of America and they are the muscle, but the
nerve system and the brain have been taken over
by the club of media lords and the managers of
finance and trade, a new dominant power in the
world. They decide what Americans think.
Americans enforce their decision how we should
manage our planet, from the rain forests of the
Amazon to the last besieged Palestinian village.
The Club disposed with the
pretence of the pluralism in press. Russian
politicians and journalists visiting the US
often express amazement at how in this huge and
heterogeneous country the scope of expressed
opinions is so narrow. “You succeeded where the
communists failed”, is a frequent refrain.
Indeed, the differences between American
newspaper coverage and TV News have all but
disappeared.
Noam Chomsky recently wrote,
“the editors of the NY Times, and their
brethren, have refused - not "missed," but
refused to publish a single word about the
sending of unprecedented numbers of military
helicopters to Israel. Last week, the latest $.5
billion deal was struck between the Pentagon and
the IDF for more advanced Apaches. They
recognize how the (US) population is likely to
react. To date, the total coverage of this
massive transfer of public funds has been one
opinion piece in a newspaper in Raleigh, North
Carolina. I've actually attempted to personally
contact editors I've known for years. No use.
The discipline, and uniformity, are really
impressive. People who thought that Stalin had
reached the limits of totalitarianism are quite
wrong”.
Well, Joseph Stalin had no
such compliant media machine or the modern
technology at his disposal. Its potential is not
fully realized yet, as the three major networks
plan to launch one united and unified news
programme every night, to spread its message to
every house in America. A painter Diane Harvey
wrote in despair: “its main technique is through
feeding the public an entire world-view made out
of toxic substitutes for information and truth.
The 360-degree, surround-sound World Lie most
people believe
is built and sustained by the non-stop flow of
highly purposeful, integrated and carefully
directed fabrications. The spirit of truth has
departed, an upgraded version of global
totalitarianism has been coalescing into a new
death-grip on human freedom” [1][1][iii].
Paradoxically, this machine
is vulnerable as it is too formidable.
Subjugation and destruction of Palestine is but
one of its applications. Do not ask for whom the
bell tolls, it tolls for you, as no man is an
island, said the Elizabethan poet, John Donne,
proclaiming the common humanity of Man. These
words sent Ernest Hemingway to fight for freedom
in Spain in 1936, as freedom is indivisible. We
repeated these words in 1968, we should repeat
it now. The struggle for freedom in the US and
the battle for Palestine are but one war.
Whenever the Almighty sends a
malaise, says a Jewish wisdom, He sends the cure
for it. The cure lies in democracy. The media
should be returned to people, taken out of the
rich men’s hands. Israel/Palestine should be
democratised, equal rights provided to Jew and
Gentile alike. It would cure the New Complaint
of Portnoy.
Notes:
[i] New
York Observer, 22.01.01
[ii] In
Israeli parlance, the Jewish supremacists
are called ‘right-wing’, while national
moderates are called ‘left-wing’, though
this division has no connection to their
social positions.
[iii] http://www.rense.com/general8/harv.htm