Thursday, December 14, 2006

The Protocols of Zion Protocol

I've just about had it with the Protocols of Zion. To be more specific, I've had it with ADL spooks and useful idiots propagandizing said document for the purpose of character assassination, guilt by association, and the general spreading of moralistic claptrap. When a document is used by clownish racists (both Jew and Gentile) to incite both 'anti-Semitism' and 'philo-Isrealism' (and its accompanying 'anti-Arabism'), without any interest in facts or reality, something is up. What other document has served so well as propaganda for both sides of an ideological conflict?

It's easy to see how the Protocols have inspired anti-semitism. They are a set of protocols diabolical enough to whet the appetite of any aspiring megalomaniac. Regardless of their authorship (they are widely regarded as a 'fraud' or 'hoax'), they show a remarkable knowledge of human weaknesses and methods for exploiting these vulnerabilities. In short, they demonstrate an obviously psychopathic worldview. They could have been written by Soviets, Jews, Nazis, Christians, or any combination of a much more comprehensive list. By assigning these Machiavellian machinations to Jews, unthinking people are easily duped. They say, "Well, it's obvious that what is said in the Protocols is actually coming true (e.g. control of the press, the rise of the ubiquitous presidential 'advisor', and so on), so it must be the Jews!"

So, already we know a couple facts: the Protocols describe a conspiracy, one that undoubtedly exists wherever a group of power-hungry men decide to put one over their bleeding-heart brothers and sisters. Also, we know that many an anti-Semite fervently backs this document as proof that Jews, collectively, are evil. But let's add another fact to this mix: the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state. Israel (and its supporters), since before its 'creation' in 1948, has had a history of terror: massacring entire villages, destroying homes, ethnic cleansing, assassination, psychological warfare, false-flag terror, daily humiliation, targeting civilians, stealing land. No serious academic denies these facts.

Recently, Jimmy Carter broke the politician's 'code of silence', and spoken the unspeakable. He spoke the truth. He said what the whole world knows but is afraid to say. But here we come to the crux of the matter, and the subject of this article. Why are they so afraid to say it? For an answer, Jimmy Carter is a perfect case study, and I thank him for offering himself up for public character assassination and demonisation to demonstrate this oddity of what passes for political discourse on all subjects Israeli.

It is here, at this critical juncture, that the opposing camp dons their mask of feigned contempt and waxes histrionic: "How dare he! Like the pharaoh before him, Carter is stirring the multitude against Jews!" Novelist Jack Engelhard even went so far as to compare Carter's book to Mein Kampf. Listening to Abe Foxman speak to Marc Levin in the latter's documentary The Protocols of Zion, one would think that any criticism of Jews "goes right back to the Protocols", thus discrediting the criticism. You see, in the twisted minds of these defamers of character, any criticism of Jews or Israeli policies is "anti-semitic" and hearkens back to the infamous "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." I guess you could call it 'innocence by association with previous but unrelated absence of guilt'.

Can you imagine the fun George Bush could be having if he had his very own Protocols ascribed to his ancestors? With the Protocols under his belt, Bush too could stroll up to some stranger's house, blow a hole in its wall and tell its inhabitants they have 15 minutes to leave before their home is destroyed; he can saunter up to young child he does not like and shoot her in the head repeatedly for looking like a terrorist; he can set up an Apartheid state and a pro-Bush lobby that bribes and threatens foreign politicians not to speak out against his crimes, 'or else.' And then, when the criticism inevitably comes that "Bush has an overwhelming amount of power for just a single man", or that "Bush has created an Apartheid state", or that "Bush kills innocent civilians as a form of collective punishment", he can rest easy and give thanks for the well-worn copy of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Bush. He can put on a face of shocked disbelief and say, "I cannot believe you could say that? What you are saying hearkens right back to the Protocols! I mean, they're a proven hoax, and they're just downright ridiculous. When the Protocols - saying that the Bushes rule the world - were proven a hoax, it really meant that any indication that I, personally, was committing similar crimes is a blatant lie! Don't you see? It's impossible that I'm a criminal, because the book saying I'm a criminal was discredited long ago! Isn't it obvious?!"

Well, by the looks of some of the recent attacks on Jimmy Carter for his recent book, it would appear that yes, to some, it is obvious. Unfortunately, these people have no sense of 'facts' or 'reality'. To them, these are malleable and relativistic concepts. "When a fact suits an agenda, use it; when it doesn't, don't." These people get a rise out of using a kernel of truth (i.e. that the Protocols weren't necessarily written by Jews) to cover up a whole field of lies (i.e. that Israel is a racist monster of a state, hiding behind a fa├žade of weakness, vulnerability and Democracy). Thank God there are some Jimmy Carters out there who, when confronted with a blatant lie, give it what it asks for: the truth.