The Lobby and the Patriot’s Predicament

America’s Defense Line:
The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israeli Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government

by Grant F. Smith
(Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Washington, D.C., 2008)
Hardcover ISBN: 0-9764437-2-4
Paperback ISBN: 0-9764437-5-9 (only available from Middle East Books)

Grant Smith’s latest book, America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government, combines probing investigative journalism with newly released documents to produce a searing expose of the Israel lobby’s1 invasive osmosis into the seams of the US government. Readers of Smith’s previous book Foreign Agents (see review) will find it segues smoothly with his new work.

Smith filed Freedom of Information Act requests with numerous government agencies and was rewarded with over 1000 pages of formerly classified documents. He has used these to produce a well referenced book and incorporated many previously unpublished documents in its rich appendix.

While Smith focuses on the genesis and development of the Lobby in the US, his account also encompasses the rise of Zionism under Theodor Herzl and its entrenchment in historical Palestine under Chaim Weizmann, David Ben Gurion and other prominent leaders. Nonetheless, Smith only skims the surface definition of what Zionism actually is, preferring to instead reveal how it created “facts on the ground” in the Middle East and the United States. This is accomplished by relating the story of Isaiah L. “Si” Kenen, the father of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This approach allows readers to glean deeper insights into the roots of Zionism in America and what propels the Lobby today.

It is the book’s foreword by journalist Philip Weiss that drives home what Zionism entails from a human rights perspective: “[I]t is undeniable that AIPAC has played a calamitous part in American politics by guaranteeing official indifference to Palestininan suffering and by underwriting the occupation and disastrous role in fostering the occupation and colonization of the West Bank…” Insouciance toward injustice meted out to fellow human beings may not stir some consciences, but the machinations of the Lobby extend beyond inflicting suffering on Palestinians. As Smith warns, US interests are imperiled at home in many areas: democracy, commerce, rule of law, security, addressing terrorism at root causes in addition to questions of international reputation.

Smith’s history avoids stereotypes or broad brush statements about “world Jewry.” He provides references throughout America’s Defense Line that, contrary to the core proposition of the Lobby, Jews are not a monolith and questions the ongoing myth of a “Jewish vote.” The book also highlights an all but forgotten battle pitting Zionist Jews against eloquent anti-Zionist Rabbis and business leaders. One was the chairman of Sears, Roebuck and company and benefactor of the National Gallery of Art. Smith’s quotation of the American Council for Judaism ‘s Lessing J. Rosenwald is telling: “We seek one thing only for Jews: a status of equality of rights and obligations throughout the world.” Nonetheless, despite ongoing productive dissension, Zionists carved out the more powerful and vocal niche of influence in US politics. The enabler was the takeover of American Jewish relief fundraising in the United States explicitly directed by David Ben-Gurion in a key meeting.

Smith delineates how campaign contributions secured an early hold on American presidential politics with the Lobby’s quiet financial backing of Harry Truman. In the 1948 presidential election, Truman was trailing the favored Republican challenger Thomas Dewey. With the backing of New York magnate Abraham Feinberg, an early “contributions bundler” who tapped into Zionist dollars, Truman became president. It was with Truman that quiet influence buying at the executive level for critical political appointees and policy formulation was firmly established in Washington. It continued into the administrations of John F Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson to steer administration policy away from questions over Israeli nuclear weapons development and peace initiatives involving compensation and repatriation of expulsed Palestinians. It remains ensconced as Democratic and Republican presidential aspirants genuflect before AIPAC conventions and vetting councils.

Cash flow has never been a purely unidirectional motivation—Feinberg personally benefited both financially and in terms of political power for his services to Israel as Smith quotes him, “My path to power was cooperation in terms of what they needed–campaign money.” Analysis of the Truman administration’s internal correspondence reveals intense Zionist lobbying and how Truman personally acceded to demands for recognition of the Jewish state in historical Palestine, despite strong opposition from relevant US government agencies.

Along with lobbying, terrorism and arms smuggling have long been major, hidden and effective tactics of Zionist operatives. Much of it is carried by US based entities claiming to be charities. Smith points to their involvement in post WWII surplus arms theft and smuggling by operatives—some posing as US military personnel in Europe—first among the many false flag operations by Israel. The use of nonprofit charitable corporations to smuggle arms and launder money continues to this day—White House lobbyist Jack Abramoff channeled sniper equipment through the tax exempt “Capitol Athletic Foundation” to West Bank “settlers” before he was convicted. Smith adds to an irrefutable and growing body of research showing how such money laundering for colonization and arms smuggling generates terrorism and blowback against the United States.

The facilitating strategy for financing and supporting Israel in the United States was and continues to be media manipulation and denying relevant venues to dissenters. Recognizing the influence of the corporate media, the Lobby executed a comprehensive public relations campaign in the 1960s funded by Israeli money involving “cultivation of editors” and public relations professionals, funding elite university professors, book publishing and grassroots local media pressure groups spread across the United States. This short but amazing 1962-1963 public relations document is reprinted in the appendix. Its many vestiges are still clearly visible in US mainstream media today.

The 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) theoretically should have brought Israel’s foreign agents and their propagandizing under the purview of domestic scrutiny and regulation. But the Lobby largely dodged and eluded in-depth examination of its records and activities. Isaiah L. Kenen, formerly in the employ of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, told the Justice Department he severed ties and stopped receiving Israeli government funding when he terminated his FARA registration in 1951. In the same year Kenen formed the nucleus of AIPAC; yet, Smith reveals, he continued to receive both funding and guidance from the Israeli government.

A large number of the declassified documents Smith references deal with the DOJ demand that AIPAC’s precursor register under FARA in 1962. Yet the lobby avoided accountability and disclosure through stalling, regime change in Washington after Kennedy’s assasination, and interminable corporate shell games and reorganizations. The lobby did finally disclose the names of a few individuals and institutions receiving Israeli money to lobby in 1965 but insisted the DOJ not make it available to the public. Smith describes one strategy document as seeming “purpose-built to violate every line of FARA disclosure laws.” The DOJ acquiesced, and the file remained classified until June of 2008.

This secrecy was a coup for Kenen and the Lobby which went on to secure and entrench massive quantities of taxpayer funded US “aid” for Israel. The irony is that Israel used the money contrary to stated US policy, such as nuclear nonproliferation and Middle East peace by not only funding “settlements” in occupied territory but also an arsenal of atomic weapons. In fact, the US taxpayer has, in essence, been paying Israel to lobby the Congress, as Israel laundered tax exempt global donations and commingled Israeli government funds back into Capitol Hill.

The lobby’s attempts to influence US electoral campaigns was not entirely invisible to politicians and has always had the potential to generate resentment. An irate John F. Kennedy is paraphrased as essentially being told by one Zionist funder: “We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us control your Middle East policy.” Obviously Israeli policy would then become US policy.

There is a reason for the existence of all lobbies; simply put, lobbying works. Lobbying and propaganda of the stealth variety is particularly potent, and America’s Defense Line provides plenty of detailed supporting evidence. FARA’s core purpose was to provide domestic oversight of the activities of foreign agents active in the US, and was highly effective until its final showdown with Israel. How did the Lobby evade such oversight? While Smith writes of periods of “FARA malaise” and selective prosecution euphemized within the DOJ as “prosecutorial discretion,” it is the Lobby’s persistent influence over the executive branch that allows AIPAC to elude constitutional mandates that the laws of the land be faithfully executed.

Now AIPAC’s mantra pronounces itself free of FARA and able interface with the Israeli government and the Congress as it sees fit — it engages in precisely the types of activity the law was meant to regulate. As Smith puts it, there is a great deal of confidence “that if an assertion is repeated often and broadly enough, history will be ignored.”

Smith’s solution to severely corrupted FARA oversight is simply to enforce the handful other laws already on the books — the Logan Act, the 1917 Espionage Act, and federal election laws — that tend to improve policy formulation and governance. For people requiring deeper incentives, Smith argues that this is also in Americans’ economic self-interest. Smith cites convincing research that links a decline in governance and rule of law with a commensurate decline in the wealth of the populace. Yet generating warranted law enforcement remains the challenge.

Washington has become ever more resistant to rule of law when applied to entrenched political elites. America’s Defense Line details how certain campaign financing and off the books incentives, much of it now legal, has been used to ensnare politicians willing to sell out their independence and sometimes their political beliefs to foreign interests. This lies behind the recent spate of “executive privilege” and “State secrets” claims being used to extricate criminal wrongdoers from the purview of US courts. This is a topic largely beyond the focus of Smith’s book, but what Smith has pointed out is that stealth foreign lobbies unduly influence the system of politics in the US to the detriment of average Americans. An obvious conclusion would be that lobbying must be regulated through transparency, which is precisely what FARA was originally legislated to do in the US.

But consider the current predicament of the hypothetical politician who aspires to elected office and openly proclaims an even-handed approach to Middle East policy. A lobby essentially financed and created for the benefit of a foreign government will crush them long before election day. From a purely patriotic viewpoint, the renewed regulation of campaign financing and application of law could protect the constitution and average US citizens from this harmful influence. Yet the silence of law enforcement is deafening. This will change. For observant Americans armed with knowledge from this book, any politician’s loud unquestioning support for Israel provides irrefutable evidence of the Lobby making unwitting traitors out of would-be American patriots.

  1. I submit that the designation Israel lobby is misleading, and therefore, I avoid it. To call it an Israel lobby masks that this lobby does not represent the Palestinians in Israel who constitute about 20% of the population. []

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: kimohp@gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. Read other articles by Kim.

19 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Deadbeat said on October 1st, 2008 at 10:21am #

    I guess all this information must have skipped over Chomsky and his followers.

  2. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 1st, 2008 at 10:38am #

    good point ab “israeli lobby”. it’s not israeli lobby but a better term wld be, in my opinion, amero-zionist or ashkenazic-american lobby.
    as far as i know, ab 50mn amers r as strongly zionistic as dayan, gurion, peres, et al.
    i may be wrong in guessing that mizrahic, ethiopean, black jews have no say in what goes on. this is an underclass. some of these people along ashkenazim r not even semitic at all or only partially.
    in add’n, probably 200mn amers support all or most crimes perped by zionists.
    from this, one educes that ashkenazim r not that influential as the article suggest.
    perhaps, politicos merely play dumb and take the money while US policy for expansion via use of some nations and own warfare stays as it has for the last 200yrs.
    if 170 wars waged by US doesn’t prove that US wants to expand by any means, then what will convince us that it’s otherwise; ie, US merely defends its ‘interests’ (whatever that means , no one knows), builds democracy; defends human rights, etc.
    slaughter of civs of horornaga proves what the uncle won’t do to expand.
    and ashkenazim were at that time merely sneaking/migrating into palestine.
    and the only reason they were able to enter and stay in plstn was because of racism by UK and its military protection of the ilegal migrants. thnx

  3. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 1st, 2008 at 12:07pm #

    I didn’t quite catch that.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GNZlkqn6Kg

    Oh kay.

  4. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 1st, 2008 at 12:31pm #

    How much easier would it be to end the embargo of Cuba than to end America’s involvement in the Arab world?

    I apoligise for the first several minutes of the above U-Tube. I watched it for the first time very early this morning and thought that even those several minutes were wonderful.

    It would be nice to read comments on the video by not only Kim Petersen, and Deadbeat and BB, but by the readers of Dissident Voice generally who view the tragedy in the Middle East a greater crime against humanity than the Embargo of Cuba.

  5. Lloyd Rowsey said on October 1st, 2008 at 2:28pm #

    That is to say, the first several seconds. Fidel’s monologue is unforgettable. Thereafter, it could fast-forward to the British narrator. But then, I don’t make movies.

  6. JN said on October 1st, 2008 at 5:42pm #

    Deadbeat, Chomsky has been 1 of the most prominent & effective western critics of Israeli violence for decades.

    Bozhidar, please stop torturing the English language. Your refusal to use basic punctuation & your habit of abbreviating every 2nd word make your rants even less comprehensible. For example, “slaughter of civs of horornaga proves what the uncle won’t do to expand.” What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is it a reference to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (a war crime comparable to any committed by the armies of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany)? If so, why not clearly say that? If not, then what was your meaning?

    Also, you’re exactly correct when you say that Jewish migration to Palestine after WW2 was partly a result of British racism: the UK government didn’t want Jewish refugees from central & eastern Europe settling in Britain. So they sent 100,000 of them to Palestine.

    The state of Israel itself doesn’t represent the Palestinians who live there. It is explicitly racist, defining itself as the “state of the Jews.” Why then is the term “Israel lobby” misleading because it doesn’t represent the Palestinians in Israel? The lobby represents the percieved interests of the Israeli elite, rather than the whole Israeli people (let alone the Palestinians). It could be considered misleading in that sense, just as the interest of the US state/corporate elite is misleadingly called “the national interest.”

    The symbiosis between the US & Israeli elites is harmful to the people of both countries, & catastrophic for the Palestinians & Lebanese. However, it is just part of the global problem of capitalism & imperialism.

    ORGANISE! ACT! ESCALATE!
    END THE WARS! END THE SYSTEM THAT PRODUCES THEM!

  7. Deadbeat said on October 1st, 2008 at 7:41pm #

    Deadbeat, Chomsky has been 1 of the most prominent & effective western critics of Israeli violence for decades.

    My critique of Chomsky is not his critique of Israeli violence. In fact his critique is part of his desire to end Israeli violence to maintain the so-called “facts on the ground” so that Israel concedes nothing.

    My critique is based on Chomsky’s denial that Zionism is a problem within the United States and his outright Zionism plays NO role in affecting U.S. policy. I’d like to direct you to many of the article here on DV that are critical of Noam Chomsky role in obfuscation of AIPAC’s and Zionism’s influence upon U.S. political economy.

    His denials are held up by many supporters such as yourself that lead to a terrible riff on the Left that has retarded coalition building — the very thing you advocate. Chomsky dishonesty creates the level of distrust and misleads activists — especially white activists. This is a primary reason why the Left can be easily disrupted.

  8. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 2nd, 2008 at 3:13am #

    jn,
    english language is not the best for internat’l use. its spelling is burdensome; proper pronounciation impossible for most of us.
    seems to me, that most people get the meaning i transfer in spite of the fact that i use abreviations and english not being my first language.
    “horornaga”, “house of horrors” r just words. there is no reason to be upset over them.
    i can see ur upset; just stop reading my posts.
    let me rephrase the statement ab slaughter of civs. it refers to bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki; the Abombs killing some 200td civilians.
    it proves that US will stop at nothing in order to expand.
    people use abreviations and shortened words: nite, repubs, dems, nat’l, eats, subs, etcetc.
    it seems to me u’r just angry. and if u continue such behavior, well, u know the rest. thnx

  9. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 2nd, 2008 at 3:23am #

    jn,
    about UK being racist. i meant UK was racist against much of the world including pals.
    no, UK had not been racist against ashkenazim; an euro-asian volk w. judaic faith.
    in fact, churchill spoke glowingly ab judaism and its influence on civilization.
    he had said to chaim weizmann. it wld be ok if u can take all of the plstn but if u do not, partition will have to do.
    also, many ashkenazim wanted to go only to plstn after ww2.

  10. Arman said on October 2nd, 2008 at 7:09am #

    Mehrangiz Kar, an ‘activist for democracy in Iran’ received her award
    from Laura Bush who supports a war criminal against women, children in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places in name of George Bush. The following picture shows Mrs. Kar who has said nothing on rapes and killings of Iraqi and Afghani people standing next to Laura Bush while holding her award.
    http://www.ned.org/publications/newsletters/summer02.html

  11. JN said on October 2nd, 2008 at 1:37pm #

    Deadbeat, I don’t deny that the Israel lobby are part of the problem with US politics. What I disagree with is the habit of many on this site to exagerate the role of Zionism to the exclusion of all else.

    As for your accusations against Chomsky, what basis do they have? Consistently critiscising Israeli brutality seems a strange way of promoting the Israeli occupation.

    Bozhidar, I am not upset. You obviously are reasonably fluent in English. I’m sure you understand the use of capital letters, for example. Typing “international” would take more effort than typing “internat’l?” Seriously? This from a man who insists on substituting “ashkenazim” for “Jew” every single time? “Horornaga” is not a word. It has no meaning. But hey, if you want to write in code, go right ahead! Whatever makes you happy…

    About the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, I agree with you. They were acts of blatant terrorism & mass murder.

    Of course the UK government, & unfortunately many of its people, have been racist. Racism provided a convenient ideological justification for slavery & empire. Today, it provides a justification for supporting US imperialism & provides a scapegoat on whom to blame the country’s problems.

    However, the UK is not a monolith. Yes, there has been support for Zionism amongst the British ruling class (including Balfour & Churchill). Jews have also been subjected to racism, both specifically anti-Jewish & more general anti-immigrant. You think racism doesn’t affect white Europeans? Tell that to the Irish.

    Most of the European Jews who migrated to Palestine immediately after WW2 went there because the US & UK refused to take them.

  12. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 2nd, 2008 at 2:20pm #

    jn,
    it is u and many more- because of not knowing better- who substitute the word “Jew” for the label “ashkenazim”.
    ashkenazim, who latched onto zionism, for obvious reasons, r not semitic.
    take a look at an average ashkenazic person; u’l find that some of them look more german or polish than many germans or poles.
    the only true jews may be mizrahim; they r semitic for sure, i believe.
    to call finkelstein, newman, king, or chomsky a jew is deceiving. they r not semitic.
    the last thing they want too be is to be jewish. now italians r catholic.
    does anyone call them catholici? should one call iranians solely “muslims”?
    to be a jew one must also be semitic.

    it has been reported that many lands had restricted immigration of DPs into their lands.
    however, it is equally true that zionists were asking or demanding people of judaic faith in europe be gathered in their new homeland.
    remember the cry in 60s, Let my people go.
    however, not all ashkenazic people wanted to settle in expalestine.

    it it is not true that europeans were racist towards ‘jews’; it was perhaps the other way around.
    remember, torah teaches/commands these people to be the light onto the world, to be lenders and not borrowers, to have servants and not to serve goyim; that they have god of their own who chose them.
    nat, no european nation accepted such an uebermensclich (mis)teachings.
    i do not. never will be secondclass earthling to no one. thanx

  13. Brian Koontz said on October 2nd, 2008 at 2:33pm #

    In reply to Deadbeat:

    “My critique of Chomsky is not his critique of Israeli violence. In fact his critique is part of his desire to end Israeli violence to maintain the so-called “facts on the ground” so that Israel concedes nothing.”

    What basis do you have for making this accusation?

    “My critique is based on Chomsky’s denial that Zionism is a problem within the United States and his outright Zionism plays NO role in affecting U.S. policy. I’d like to direct you to many of the article here on DV that are critical of Noam Chomsky role in obfuscation of AIPAC’s and Zionism’s influence upon U.S. political economy.”

    Chomsky does not believe that the Israeli state plays a meaningful role in directing U.S. foreign policy, and there has been no proof given that he is incorrect. It’s illogical to believe the Israeli state plays a meaningful role in Washington based on the theory that capitalists “get what they pay for” – Zionism is a minor player in financing Washington politicians (multinational capitalists being the major player), and hence the only logical expectation is that they will receive minor results.

    “His denials are held up by many supporters such as yourself that lead to a terrible riff on the Left that has retarded coalition building — the very thing you advocate. Chomsky dishonesty creates the level of distrust and misleads activists — especially white activists. This is a primary reason why the Left can be easily disrupted.”

    The primary reason the Left can be easily disrupted is that the Left is complicit in Imperialism and hence doesn’t really want to stop the things they claim they want to stop, since virtually every issue of the Left is fundamentally related to Imperialism and Western Civilization.

  14. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 3rd, 2008 at 6:00am #

    chomsky had revealed some israeli crimes that even some of the peace activists like me didn’t know.
    eg, kidnapping civ’ns, shooting dwn passenger planes, torture of captives, etc.
    however, he may be what i call a ” minizionist” .
    i also detect that feels ‘jews’ r being used. thnx

  15. JN said on October 3rd, 2008 at 3:48pm #

    Bozhidar,
    Ashkenazim are European Jews. A Jew is not necessarily a Semite; a Semite is not necessarily a Jew.

    “It is not true that Europeans were racist towards Jews”
    Really? Presumably you’ve never heard of the Nazi Party, or the Black Hundreds, or the British Union of Fascists, or more recently the various National Fronts? I know from personal experience that anti-Semitism is alive & well in Britain TODAY though it is nowhere near as big a problem as anti-Muslim & anti-immigrant racism. It is not considered politically ‘respectable’ by the major parties or corporate media (unlike racism against Muslims & immigrants) but it still exists.

    The Torah says a lot of things. How many Catholics do you know who actually believe in Papal infallibility?

    If Chomsky is a Zionist, presumably so is Edward Said?
    Perhaps Hizballah are also Zionists? Maybe Hamas is a colonist welcoming committee?

  16. JN said on October 3rd, 2008 at 4:09pm #

    Brian Koontz,

    You are confusing the pseudo-left (people who continue to support war mongering imperialist parties like the ‘Democrats’ in the US or ‘New Labour’ in the UK) with the real left.

    We are all complicit in so far as we do not do ENOUGH. We need to build radical & committed mass movements capable of exerting pressure, not just making gestures. To do that we need popular support.

    ORGANISE! ACT! ESCALATE!

  17. cg said on October 3rd, 2008 at 7:29pm #

    “How many Catholics do you know who actually believe in Papal infallibility?”

    How many Jews DON’T believe in Kol Nidre?
    That “holiest” of “prayers.”

  18. Brian Koontz said on October 4th, 2008 at 2:23am #

    In reply to JN:

    “Brian Koontz,

    You are confusing the pseudo-left (people who continue to support war mongering imperialist parties like the ‘Democrats’ in the US or ‘New Labour’ in the UK) with the real left.

    We are all complicit in so far as we do not do ENOUGH. We need to build radical & committed mass movements capable of exerting pressure, not just making gestures. To do that we need popular support.

    ORGANISE! ACT! ESCALATE!”

    The reason the left does not do “enough” is that the left has an educated form of ignorance, intentionally. So they are “against war” while not understanding war, they are “against imperialism” while not understanding imperialism, and so on. The left refuses to do two things:

    1) Gain a true understanding of what they claim to be opposing

    2) Do what it takes to destroy what they are opposing

    The Hippie culture emerged out of this denial of doing what it takes to create effective change, a kind of naive “love thy enemy” ideology which continues to haunt and distract the left today.

    Take a look at the linguistics of the situation, with a calm brain. Every popular mass movement in history has not claimed “We need to do enough!” or “We haven’t yet done enough”. This claim itself is reflective of a kind of pent-up frustration caused not by either the strength of the opponent of the weakness of allies, but by the complicity of the left in the system of power that the ruling class has created, summed up in the term “imperial benefits”. Serious mass movements know they are doing everything they can.

    Take a close look at the left. They wear clothing manufactured by Asian slave labor, bought at “low low prices”. They consume luxury items they do not need, but that the ruling class has convinced them they need. They are weekend warriors, activists on their “off time” and corporate middle-managers or laborers the rest of their time.

    Now of course there’s a more serious left out there, the radical left and the anarchist left. But in imperial countries this contingent is very small and will remain very small until the imperial benefits are eroded sufficiently. And even that left is complicit, just to a lesser extent.

    Until the left is able to renounce all imperial benefits, they will remain complicit in imperialism and be unable to effect the destruction they repeatedly claim they want.

    The primary motive for the left to repeatedly claim they want the things they don’t really want is moral conceit, an attempt at self-therapy as well as grouping together in order to pat each other on the backs that they are “doing something to make the world better”. When they inevitably fail they just say “Well, we didn’t do enough. Let’s do enough next time, ok guys?”

    For further instruction on this topic, examine the emerging imperial societies in China, India, and South Korea. Each has a “left”, and they serve the same role as the left does in the older imperial societies – to diffuse and nullify anti-ruling class energy.

    The only serious mass movements so far in human history have been poor people’s movements – not “imperial poor” getting blood money welfare checks but the truly poor – the poor of what we call the “third world”.

    So there are only two ways for an imperial society to gain a serious mass movement:

    Become a third-world society such that a sufficient number of truly impoverished people emerge.

    Or, engage in a widespread moral revolution such that imperial benefits are renounced.

    I’m a believer in learning from history rather than hoping for something that’s never happened before in history, so option 1 seems the only likely way for a serious mass movement to occur in any current imperial society.

  19. bozhidar bob balkas said on October 4th, 2008 at 7:49am #

    jn,
    my statement that euros were not racist towards ‘jews’ needs more elaboration.
    it’s egg and chicken event: which came first, the egg or chicken or something else happened in betwn.
    england, spain, and portugal accepted (how,why,when?) ‘jews’.
    later these kingdoms expelled them (why, how?)
    how did animosity start and by whom?
    u’r correct, my staetment is quite muddy/incorrect.

    the word “racist” also need elucidation. gen’lly speaking, rich nations, ethnics look dwn on poorer ethnics, nations.
    blacks/hispanics/indigenes r still considered less intelligent than other ethnics.
    we can call this “racism” or anything else we want as long as we alight from time to time to descriptive level.
    one is, gen’lly speaking, not racist against one’s ‘betters’; just envious, angry, hateful, etcetc.
    nazis were angry against and envious of ‘jews’. i leave out for now why, since that is well known.
    nazis have looked dwn on some slavs and angry against them because of border disputes.
    anent gypsies, just ab everybody looked dwn on them.
    from this we can see how obnubilating the word “racits” is. i don’t know why i use it; probable because of laziness or hate for the keyboard.
    i’m onefinger user w. dozens of typos.

    how can a non-semitic person be a jew? how can a pole be irish?

    ab chomsky being a minizionist to me. he is for a twostate sol’n. i am for onestate sol’n. i don’t know if edward said was for one- or twostate sol’n.
    twostate sol’n amounts to rewarding war criminals as well as approbation of the destruction of plstn by the judeo-christian alliance.
    i’m certain i’l not accept that.
    also, the second state is no longer available; just parts, shreds, parcels, fences, walls, disecting roads, gullies, checkpoints, eterne hatred/discord/skirmishes, etc.

    just one more observation. it is not polite to put words in my mouth or impute that i either explicitly or tacitly posited that all christians, muslims, judaic voelken believe in all that these religions teach or misteach.
    i’v read torah, bible, and quran. at least two of these compare in many aspects w. mein kampf. i haven’t read it, tho. i do not need to read it.
    hope this throws more light on the topics we’r discussing. thnx