Liberals, the Jews, and Israel
by Dr. William L. Pierce
THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.
The Palestine crisis has caused a major falling out among the architects of American decline and degeneration. We are presented with the interesting spectacle of such neo-liberal stalwarts as Reverend Daniel Berrigan, Senator J.W. Fulbright, and syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, among others, turning against both their fellow liberals and their Jewish patrons in the news media and siding with the Palestinians in the Jew-Arab conflict in the Middle East.
One of the many ironies of this is that the very liberals who are now in such a state of ideological disarray and moral torment over the issue of Jewish imperialism and aggression in the Middle East laid the groundwork themselves for that imperialism and aggression more than a quarter-century ago by supporting the initial Zionist seizures of Arab territory.
At that time — in the years immediately following World War II — Jews could do no wrong in liberal eyes. They were then, even more successfully than now, exploiting their role as “victims” of National Socialist persecution. They parlayed pitiful tales of gas chambers and soap factories into a carte blanche for their postwar political designs, relying heavily on support from beguiled liberal Gentiles.
It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.
Butchers in U.S. Uniforms
Furthermore, the same liberals who so passionately commiserated with the Jews after the war were startlingly oblivious to atrocities committed against peoples far less blameworthy than the Jews in Germany: the postwar massacre of the Cossacks by the Soviet secret police, for example, or the slaughter of half a million anticommunist Croats by Tito’s communist guerrillas in 1945. Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.
One cannot blame this historic inability of liberals to recognize persecution, except when a Jew happens to be the persecutee, on the liberal bias toward left-wing causes and governments with which Jews have traditionally been associated. The Soviet government, for example, was immune from criticism so long as it occupied itself with the butchering of Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Poles, etc. But when the Kremlin decided the time had come to put a foot down on Zionist agitators on its own doorstep, liberal publicists suddenly turned against the Soviet Union with a vengeance.
No, there is a very special relationship between Gentile liberals and Jews, and it began long before World War II.
Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”
Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.
But there is more to it — much more. From the time when the Jews were emancipated from their European ghettos and began infiltrating the institutions and the cultural and political life of the Western peoples among whom they lived, there developed a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Gentile liberals.
Jews are, in a sense, the carriers of the neo-liberal virus — that is, of the disease in its modern form, which differs substantially from what was called ”’liberalism” prior to the 19th century.
Having lived throughout 4,000 years of recorded history as an alien minority among other peoples, Jews have developed a unique modus vivendi which depends critically upon preventing their hosts from forming a united front against them and restricting their activities. They must, much in the way certain bloodsucking insects inject a venom into their host in order to break down its body tissues and permit the easier withdrawal of nourishment, break down all barriers of race and culture which protect a host people from them.
Otherwise the natural protective reactions to their presence in the body of the host will result in their being either expelled or encysted, as has happened repeatedly throughout history.
Neo-liberalism is the most potent tissue-dissolving venom which the Jews have developed for breaking down the institutions and the internal structure of the Western nations. Gentiles infected by the disease have opened the door of one Western institution after another to the Jews during the past 200 years and have then provided “cover” for their activities.
The Jews are an extraordinarily clever, ambitious, and aggressive people, and they have used their cleverness to evoke an almost worshipful attitude toward them on the part of Gentile liberals, who have been hypnotized by the Jews’ apparent “brilliance,” “creativity,” and “sensitivity.” In this hyper-receptive state, the liberals have been automatic suckers for every new fad the Jews have trotted out, from the most perverse and destructive trends in modern painting and sculpture to the pornographic “literary” blather of Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.
From the Jews they have learned to venerate the ugly, the weak, the deformed, the impure, the unnatural, the chaotic. The Jews have inverted their sense of values and taught them to coddle and promote Blacks, mongrels, criminals, moral cripples and perverts of every sort, and, above all, those rejected and “persecuted” by society.
None have ever more successfully used the gimmick of portraying themselves as a persecuted minority, the unfortunate and blameless victims of religious and racial discrimination, than the Jews.
This was easy for them at a time when, as pushcart peddlers and pawnbrokers, they could speak only broken English and were ostracized from polite society. But only the special relationship which has grown up between liberals and Jews can account for their being able to maintain this pretense after they had gotten rid of their Yiddish accents (Henry Kissinger excepted) and were rolling in ill-gotten lucre from Hollywood to Broadway.
Liberals still thought of them as downtrodden people, especially deserving of sympathy and protection, after they had monopolized half the schools of law, medicine, and journalism in America, had elbowed the last of their Gentile competitors out of the clothing industry and a dozen other major industries, and had established themselves as the single most powerful bloc on Wall Street, with Jewish financial houses (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Goldman, Sachs; J.W Seligman & Co.; Lehman Bros.; Dillon, Read; Speyer & Co.; Ladenburg-Thalman; Salomon Bros.) overshadowing the older Gentile firms.
In recent years, lest all this opulence and power confuse their liberal admirers, the Jews have used their control of the mass media to crank out a steady stream of motion pictures, books, and Sunday-supplement articles rehashing over and over again their mistreatment at the hands of the Germans a generation ago, thus maintaining their status as a persecuted minority.
But, irony of ironies, it was this very bias in favor of the underdog which finally caused the liberals to miss an ideological turn the Jews had mapped out for them and to go off on the “wrong” road in the Middle East.
After all, here were a bunch of arrogant, militaristic, racist, imperialistic Jews on one side (the Israelis), rolling in billions of dollars of “reparations” extorted from Germany and grants from the United States, and armed to the teeth with an enormous arsenal of fancy, new, technological weapons, waging aggressive war against huddled, penniless, tattered Arab refugees living in tents and armed only with rifles and hand grenades (the Palestinians). It was pretty obvious which side a person conditioned always to favor the underdog should choose.
The situation is reminiscent of that accompanying the Italian invasion of Ethiopia nearly 40 years ago, when the liberal sympathy for the Ethiopians, brown and backward, was Pavlovian. Since then they have been conditioned repeatedly by the news media, most notably in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, to side with the guerrillas, the irregulars, the “freedom fighters,” against the establishment troops. In the Middle East all this conditioning has backfired on the Jews.
They have tried to use their control over the mass media to paint a propaganda picture of Israel as an underdog nation and to identify the wretched, dispossessed Palestinians with their oil-rich Arab neighbors. But this portrayal has been too grotesque for credibility. The Israeli concentration camps, the racism practiced against the Arab minority in the Jewish-occupied areas, the Israeli policies of imprisonment without trial, of collective reprisals against Arab civilians, of arrogantly trampling on the sovereignty of Lebanon, of torture of prisoners — all these have triggered conditioned reflexes in American liberals.
And the result is, wonder of wonders, that the liberals—or, at least, a significant fraction of them—are accidentally ending up on the right side of an issue for once. They are, in growing numbers, taking the side of Arafat and his Palestinian freedom fighters instead of the side of their Jewish oppressors.
The pro-Palestinian position is by no means unanimous among liberals, of course. It is taken only by the honest ones, by the ideologically consistent ones.
The Jews still have a plentiful stable of obedient liberal hacks on their payroll — 95 per cent of the Congress, for example, and thousands of newspaper prostitutes, pulpit prostitutes, academic prostitutes, and showbiz prostitutes — all dancing to the Zionist tune in order to earn their supper. For every Senator Fulbright there are half-a-dozen Hubert Humphreys and “Scoop” Jacksons, and for every Evans and Novak there are three or four Joseph Alsops.
Furthermore, it would be a severe miscalculation to plan on any sort of coalition or collaboration between honest liberals and patriots in order to break the Jewish stranglehold on America.
Liberals — with a very few individual exceptions — have had no real change of heart. They are quite insistent that their anti-Zionist position in no way implies any basic change in their attitude toward Jews. They simply regard Zionists as Jews who have gone bad and Zionism as a racist aberration, rather than as the essence of Jewishness itself.
Senator Fulbright and the Reverend Berrigan are still on the wrong side of every issue except Palestine, and they are on the right side of that issue for the wrong reasons.
In other words, liberals — including the consistent ones — are just as sick as ever and just as dangerous to the future of America as ever. The only way the great majority of them will get their thinking straight, eventually, is with a sturdy, oak table leg applied smartly and repeatedly alongside the head.
Nevertheless, the present dissension in liberal ranks is of inestimable value. It is the most fervent and influential of the liberals who are now taking an anti-Zionist position, and their numbers and influence are growing daily.
Palestinian Victory Inevitable
The Palestinian people, through their perseverance, their sacrifices, their reckless courage, and their determination to use any and all means to keep the world from forgetting about them, have finally succeeded in obtaining, in the United Nations, a forum for presenting their case to the world. More and more liberals will be forced to listen to them, and more and more liberals cannot help but agree with them.
And Israel’s intransigence and arrogance, exacerbated by recent Palestinian propaganda successes, will become more painfully obvious to her former admirers. Who could have failed to be repelled by that shrieking, cursing mob of swarthy, wiry-haired Israelites outside the United Nations building in New York in November, spitting and screaming for Yasser Arafat’s blood as he eloquently pleaded his case for justice for his people inside?
Cracks Will Widen
All this can only lead to a widening of the cracks which have already appeared in the System: the liberal-Jewish power structure which rules America. These cracks offer patriots an opportunity they have not had in the last 35 years to build opposition to the System and to win support for an alternative.
The Jews, of course, are fully aware of this. They can feel the tide of liberal opinion finally turning against them or, at least, against their territorial ambitions in the Middle East — and they are far-sighted enough to see the long-range dangers this tide can bring them.
“The New Anti-Semitism“
They have frantically tried to head it off by denouncing as “anti-Semitism” every manifestation of anti-Zionism. Their principal “enforcement” agency in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, has sponsored the publication of a widely touted book, The New Anti-Semitism, which singles out by name many prominent liberals who have taken a public stand even slightly critical of Israel and attempts to stigmatize them with an “anti-Semitic” label.
In days past, the threat of being called an anti-Semite was enough to send the bravest liberal scurrying for cover, but this tactic isn’t working any more. In fact, it’s backfiring on the Jews.
Nature of the Beast
The Palestine issue is too clear-cut, and the liberals who have finally made a moral decision on this issue are standing their ground. Being called “anti-Semites,” instead of frightening them, is calling to their attention, for the first time, the true nature of the beast with which they are dealing. It is merely hardening their position, burning the bridges between them and their former unquestioning philo-Semitism, and — in a very few cases — causing them to re-examine the whole basis of their ideology.
These developments are causing a rising feeling of panic in the Jewish community. Always ready to cry before they are hurt, some Jews have even claimed, with a tinge of hysteria, “It’s happening again!” (a reference to their growing unpopularity in Germany in the 1930s).
More than anything else, the changing tide of liberal opinion may cause the Jews to overreach themselves by attempting a “final solution” of their Arab problem in the Middle East before they lose too much more ground in America.
If that happens, America will undoubtedly become involved in another war and will probably suffer grievous consequences. But, as General Brown suggested, it also might be exactly what is needed to change the present liberal ground swell against Zionism to a popular tidal wave against all Jewish influences in America.
* * *
From Attack! No. 32, 1975
transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom