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 Kerry.
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 God!”[1]
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 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
www.counterpunch.com
On the right, Justin Raimondo on
www.antiwar.com